Checks on children's club drivers

[Simon Spivack]

[rant]

I think we are rapidly heading for state control at a level not seen since the days of the old Soviet block and East Germany.

You may want to read up about the Chinese renshi dangan (employee file). These files are still in use today.

I think we are all going to be on some sort of database, one could reasonably argue if one has nothing to hide then what is the problem.

An insecure database! Read about what happens when one's renshi dangan vanishes or the name is changed. Ask yourself why our dear ciphers in government wish to exempt their own offspring.

There are some people who want laws to reomve children from parents considered to be unsuitable before the child gets into trouble- again taking the argument one step further why not sterilise women considered to be unsuitable people ?

Why take it out on the children, who have done nothing wrong? Why not instead hang an innocent because he might commit a crime? Perhaps that's what they do on Planet Gordon Brown.

This government has wasted stupendous sums on security (sic) measures that make no-one safer. It is all about controlling hoi poloi. The state is far too powerful.

[/rant]

[Sean Hewitt]

As a football referee I have had to undergo a CRB check in preperation for this legislation even though I do not referee junior matches! When I queried the necessity I was told the reason was that "Players aged 16 or 17 can play in adult football (true) and are legally classed as juveniles (also true)." So I have minimal contact and certainly dont give them a lift anywhere!

The obvious follow-up question is what is the position if the football team does consist of a mixture of adults and juniors? The adult members of the team are coming into regular contact with the juniors. That suggests that all the adults need clearance. I don't see how you could reasonably argue that the referee is a greater threat to the juniors than their adult team-mates.

I agree totally Ian. I even made the point that a 17 year old will shower with his team mates after the game not with the referee! Yet they are not checked. It would be impractical they said!

I guess it's one of those things that seemed like a good idea in principle but which is totally self defeating in practice.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Out of interest ...

does anybody know if Brian Eley (to take a name not entirely at random) had convictions prior to the arrest which would have led to a trial had he not legged it beforehand?

In other words, would this suggestion have caught Mr. E in its net?

[Richard James]

If you object to the proposed new legislation you might consider signing this petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/vetting2/petition.html

[Kevin Thurlow]

Another way CRB checks and the like fail is that they only work for people who have been caught before. So it might have worked in the Soham case, but would not (I believe) have worked in the high-profile chess cases. Mind you, in one of those cases, lots of people seemed to know before the arrest, and one wonders why nothing was done.

[John Upham]

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8253789.stm

[Alex Holowczak]

If the NSPCC are against a policy that is supposed to protect children, you know it's a stupid idea.

[Richard James]

If the NSPCC are against a policy that is supposed to protect children, you know it's a stupid idea.

Indeed. And the NSPCC sometimes tend to promote policies which some might think over-protective towards children.

[Mick Norris]

I thought there were some positives in the article - it clearly is stupid for, say, Sean to obtain CRB clearance for football and then have to obtain clearance again for chess, so one central register would be good

Also, it defines how often the contact with children would need to be before clearance is required, although I am not sure exactly how this applies in a chess context

Fortunately, we have the ECF who I am sure we can rely on to issue comprehensive guidance that all chess clubs and counties can rely on

[John Philpott]

Mick Norris

Fortunately, we have the ECF who I am sure we can rely on to issue comprehensive guidance that all chess clubs and counties can rely on

As it happens I raised this issue with Chris Majer last Friday, and understand that CCPR is expected to provide advice on the subject which the ECF can disseminate. There is a CCPR item on the AGM agenda.

[Sean Hewitt]

I thought there were some positives in the article - it clearly is stupid for, say, Sean to obtain CRB clearance for football and then have to obtain clearance again for chess, so one central register would be good

Correct (in my case, I also have a 3rd check for work!).

One positive of the new scheme is that at the moment the CRB check is only really of any value on the day it is carried out. You could get a conviction the following day and no-one would know. The new system will (allegedly) inform parties that have checked the register for a particular person if they subsequently get a conviction.

[E Michael White]

Not replying to anyone in particular but most of the comments here seem to suggest that if a system is not 100% efficient it’s not worth having. Apply this logic to the rest of society's functional setup and there would be nothing there. It’s not a good idea to leave the front door open just because a burglar might climb in through a 3rd floor window at the rear of a property.

Take 100 potential applicants for roles of coach, arbiter or regular driver; if that results in only 60 fully cleared individuals then the system has improved the risk profile. Those that drop out through refusal to be CRB cleared are likely to have overinflated egos and self assigned status, to the point where they believe their specialised expertise entitles them to be trusted and be regarded as important. Individuals like that are not suitable role models for minors.

Any system of risk reduction or insurance has a cost and inconvenience factor associated with it. If the chess environment is as squeaky clean as it can be parents are going to be more likely to allow their children to be involved in chess activities.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I'm on another forum that also has a discussion of this issue. Some interesting points being raised there.

[Mick Norris]

Mick Norris

Fortunately, we have the ECF who I am sure we can rely on to issue comprehensive guidance that all chess clubs and counties can rely on

As it happens I raised this issue with Chris Majer last Friday, and understand that CCPR is expected to provide advice on the subject which the ECF can disseminate. There is a CCPR item on the AGM agenda.

I brought up the issue of child protection, and the debates we had in the MCF about this, at the MCCU AGM on 28 June

Cyril Johnson promised to raise this with the ECF and get back to me

[Paul McKeown]

I got my CRB check done recently (to teach chess at a primary school) for the first time. The process was relatively painless, just scrabbling around for the various bits of paper needed, and answering a load of daft questions. Anyone who knows me will know that I resent pointless bureaucracy (my, that word is even hard to spell!), but to be fair, this wasn't so bad.

I would probably say otherwise, though, if I was teaching at a dozen different schools and had to fill in a dozen of these forms. So, in that aspect, this new law makes sense, as, if I have understood things correctly, one justs needs one annual check for all activities involving the vulnerable or young.

However, it does seem to be ridiculous if people driving kids to football matches risk £5,000 fines and a criminal record if they fail to be checked. Bus drivers with frequent contact with children, I can see the sense, but occasional volunteers: expensive madness.

Worse still, that "data protection issues" is taken to mean that records should not be kept between annual checks, is plain daft. Data protection laws were not intended to prevent the sensible working of the criminal justice system, nor the efficient provision of necessary social services. The cynic in me suggests that "data protection issues" is merely a cipher for other matters which either Whitehall or Westminster doesn't want to be open about. [Blame "data protection", "Europe" or "human rights" and no tabloid editor is going to look any further, his headline is already written.] Perhaps fear of some knock on effect for the lunatic drafting and application of "anti-terrorist" legislation? Okay, I'm just guessing there...

I'm afraid that I really don't subscribe to any of the current Redtop or Nu-Labour style moral panics, whether its "illegal" asylum seekers, paedos under the beds, or hysteria about Muslim terrorism. One should always ask what the agendum is: why is someone trying to get me to fear? There are always threats to society: but bad legislation only creates more problems at great financial cost.

I always thought that one aim of the criminal justice system, besides that of deterring crime by severely punishing those found guilty of it, was to try to reform caught criminals, to make them safe to release into society after a stretch inside and to give them the skills and the desire to contribute to society through paid and voluntary work. [I know, the truth is, of course, that the parole system is monstrously underfunded and there is no political will to correct this. It is always better to get in front of the camera having saved one child's life by dint of prodigious expenditure than helping former crooks to stay on the straight and narrow, no matter what the social imperatives.] Beyond that, I always thought that the best advice to young lads on the slippery slope would be received from "processed" and reformed old lags, or is that altogether too Dixon of Dock Green? I suspect, though, that this legislation will only make it less likely that former criminals will get employment, never mind work with children or vulnerable adults, no matter how qualified they are. How many people with criminal convictions are genuinely unfit due to their crimes to work with children? Petty fraudsters, shoplifters, tokers, hit and run drivers, former coal miners who pissed off Thatcher? Many of these will simply prefer to avoid volunteering, no matter how good they are at cricket, or rugby, or chess, and no matter how good they are with children. The embarrassment factor - or simply the fear of the system - will be sufficient to keep them away in droves.

Isn't this the truth, though? Most criminals are not guilty of anything at all which would make one suspect that they would harm children or the elderly. So, of course, require checks where sensible, but don't make an enormous bureaucracy out of it. And don't expect that it will prevent many children being abused, either, as children are generally abused in the home, by their parents.

Worse still, this new law, requires assessors to give weight to one's neighbour's spiteful gossip, in determining one's fitness to work with physically or mentally handicapped adults, or the elderly, or children. I am not convinced that poorly paid, unmotivated, clock-watching, surly, uncivil servants are the best judges to weigh up such gossip. We shall have to see.

It seems to me that childhood in this country is in danger of becoming antiseptic and cold; every child risks being turned into the "boy in the bubble", by a combination of media scaremongering, misplaced middle-class dogoodery, sheer incompetence of the state's departments and politicians overeager to be seen to be doing something, no matter how pointless.

If a child falls over, which stranger now rushes to pick him up and utter a consoling word?

Regards,
Paul McKeown