Government expects £277m from vetting scheme The Home Office has disclosed the amount it expects to raise from applications to the Vetting and Barring Scheme. Home Office minister Meg Hillier said that the £277m of revenue expected in the scheme's first three years is intended to cover the estimated costs of both the Vetting and Barring Scheme and the Criminal Records …
It's a certificate to say they haven't found any 'evidence' yet to suggest that you might be a paedophile. For specific values of 'evidence' where 'evidence' is a member of the set ['hearsay', 'rumour', 'unfounded allegations', 'prosecutions where you were found to be not guilty', etc.]
How sad to see the Scheme still justifying its existence in national papers using the Soham case. The two girls wouldn't be dead if we'd been around is what they almost boast. Of course, this forgets it wouldn't: the girls went to see Huntley's partner who would have been checked. He wasn't and still wouldn't even under this huge over-reaction of a scheme.
The point of VBS is to provides a single, one time clearance for people who wish to work with Children and vulnerable adults to replace the current CRB checks that must be done regularly and for each job you do. So a teacher who coaches Sunday league, runs a youth club and volunteers for help the aged must have a clearance for each under the current system. VBS means you have one, and your registration then covers all of the above.
Not only that the individual does not always pay, some bodies get it for free, or pay a reduced rate, I can't remember which.
So actually what you get is a registration that says that there is no known reason you can't work with vulnerable people, and that yes you aren't a peado, or a fraudster, or a violent criminal and a whole load of other things that bar you from working with these groups.
Pullman's just using an emotive term to highlight some of the stupidities of the way in which the legislation has been interpreted in certain quarters, I some how doubt he's worried at pay £64 to register.
BTW - Seems to have taken the Broken's a long time to ask this question considering when it was actually legislated. It's always been the case that for some applicants a charge would be made, and that the scheme would be self financing. You only have to dig a little.
..one hang giveth, the other taketh away.
If it's like the current CRB's then the likes of teachers, social workers, urses, etc have to pay for this.
Most then claim it back of their employer, most public sector
Now lets see, where would this money, designed to safeguard children, be best spent.
Another several thousand social workers, teachers, nurses etc..
or <insert computer comps name> shareholders pockets?
I don't think anyone would mind it replacing the CRB, it's the extensions to the system people object to.
The point of VBS is to provides a single, one time clearance for people who wish to work with Children and vulnerable adults to replace the current CRB checks that must be done regularly and for each job you do. So a teacher who coaches Sunday league, runs a youth club and volunteers for help the aged must have a clearance for each under the current system. VBS means you have one, and your registration then covers all of the above.
But its NOT, unless its changed in the last few months.
Those of us who require ECRB checks are still going to require regular ECRB checks ON TOP of this ridiculousness. (I believe because the Enhanced ones go into much more detail than this rubbish)
You know the government does like its databases. I would have substantially less of an issue with them in general if they didnt have a habit of leaving them on an unencrypted laptop/usb stick at the cafe/train/station.
So, all our new security and vetting procedures are purely for the gubbermint to increase revenue and reduce the deficit?
If the tories are the party for businesses then nulaybore must be the party for dodgy business.
Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all harshly with a splintery broom handle.
So, because I help out at the local football club so the kids can play soccer, I'm going to be asked to fork out £64 on top of a whole load of my time.
I need about 4 of the parents to be "checked too" anyone who goes within 2M of the touch line in theory should be checked. So for a 7 aside kids team the government want £256.
Now, I live in what many might conciser an affluent area, this demand for money is going to piss people off, but probably not stop the kids getting their football.
How's this going to work in a deprived inner city area?
You work at a school for 11-16s and get this new bit of paper.
Does it then let you get in the showers with your under 11s football team?
Paedophile isn't some all encompassing buzzword and there shouldn't be one all encompassing scheme that replaces the need for seperate CRB checks.
"The point of VBS is to provides a single, one time clearance for people who wish to work with Children and vulnerable adults to replace the current CRB checks that must be done regularly and for each job you do. "
Except that the VBS check does not cover quite the same ground as the enhanced CRB check, so most people will end up having to get both.
A friend of mine is currently waiting to start work with mentally challenged adults. I say currently waiting because he cannot start until he has his CRB check done - something that was requested half way through November and is still not complete. Meanwhile, he is unable to earn any money in the job he has already got because he cannot work. Just to help financial matters he his girlfriend is pregnant and is due in a matter of weeks. Well done, government.
Except that volunteers do not have to pay for clearance....
So, onto the way it is done.....
"The information can take the form of convictions or cautions; competent body
findings; referrals from organisations, including employers; and other or further
information from any source, e.g. stories in the press (which could trigger the ISA
to request further information from a variety of sources)"
And to add complexity (where simplicity would have been refreshing):
"There may, however, be circumstances where an individual is convicted/cautioned for an
offence which is an ‘auto-bar’ in relation to the children’s list but is an ‘auto-bar with
representation’ in relation to the adults’ list"
Not guilty ?
"Referrals may be received relating to incidents that would have amounted to
‘auto-bar’ offences or ‘auto-bar with reps’ offences but, for whatever reason,
a conviction did not materialise. Here you must still fully examine the
evidence for yourself on the basis of the “balance of probabilities” despite the
lack of a criminal conviction"
Good reading....who drafted it ?
http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/pdf/GuidanceNotesforBarringDecisionMakingProcessweb.pdf
@ 'VBS is more than that'
In fact the VBS is a layer on top of the CRB system. Anyone applying for VBS registration will have their application run through the CRB system.
Unfortunately, the VBS has set out very woolly guidelines as to how it will make decisions. In principle applications will go through 'on the nod' unless there is any 'cause for concern' about an individual's behaviour.
That 'cause for concern' may include hearsay, formal complaints that have been dismissed by a professional body, informal complaints that have been dismissed, etc. In all cases the VB board are free to make their own decision based on their assessment of 'the balance of probabilities'(!).
It hopefully doesn't take too much imagination, or experience of bureaucratic processes, to see that the 'precautionary principle' is likely to make itself felt, i.e. 'Can we afford to take the risk of being wrong on this case?'.
Yes, people will be able to appeal a negative response, but in the meantime they will be hung out to dry and forbidden from taking up a new post, maybe suspended from their current job, and will somehow have to argue that 'on the balance of probabilities' they are in fact trustworthy and suitable for the job.
This outfit are going to have they say so over the careers and livelihood's of near on half the working population---the imperial possibilities are simply stupendous.
Meanwhile the vast majority of abuse of vulnerable people takes place not in the workplace but in the home, by family members and 'friends' of the person being abused.
I have a squeaky clean CRB and no concerns. Until recently I taught map reading, expedition training etc at air cadets.
Saw this legislation coming and quit because we were already struggling to find adult volunteers, CRB requirement reduced the supply and VBS will do more. We'd already lost 2 volunteers with no replacements and the result was an expectation that those remaining would do more.
VBS wasn't the only reason to quit, the Health and Safety garbage meant it was getting very difficult to do any "adventure" activities because it is in their nature that they involve a degree of risk taking. H&S wants to eliminate risk, the only guarantee of that is to stop any activity that includes an element of risk.
This governments policy of preventing adults from interacting with youngsters is a pretty obvious contributor to them "making their own entertainment" by torturing other kids within an inch of their lives to take a topical example. On the other hand I've seen how organisations like Scouts and Cadets really do get kids involved in challenge and adventure - and they love it.
The real question is whether the Tory government will do anything to improve the situation.
I was in the Air Cadets. I loved it. Shooting, Hiking, camping, flying - it was great. When I was there, I always thought that when I was able, I'd help other kids get the same from the organisation as I had. I gave up on that idea quite some time ago because I don't want my life ruining because some kiddiwink decides he/she doesn't like me.
When I was 20, I saw one of my old teachers suspended for allegedly "interfering" with a pupil, who was 10 at the time. The allegation was withdrawn within a couple of days (the child had been put into detention by the teacher, and it was a "revenge accusation"), but the suspension, and investigation, continued for over a year. The teacher in question never went back to teaching, even though he was eventually cleared of all wrongdoing. He was diagnosed with clinical depression, and was on anti-depressants until he died some years later. The kid hadn't intended for this to happen, and repeatedly went to the school authorities over it to repeat that he had made the whole thing up, and was ignored. He was absolutely gutted when the teacher died in such a state, and ended up on anti-depressants himself due to the guilt he felt over the entire thing. (note, none of this is "hearsay" or from the Daily Fail - I personally know the kid in question. He's turned out to be a pretty decent human being.).
This happened before rumour, hearsay, and withdrawn allegations were actually an official part of the pre-employment check.
As it happens, I have, in my chequered past, had a few court appearances, and a couple of convictions. Nothing of the nature that would make me a danger in this situation - we're talking a couple of nights out getting out of hand and one occasion where I caught a burglar in my home*, and all of these are over 10 years ago. Even so, I wouldn't fancy my chances, even were I so inclined these days, of getting a pass on one of these checks.
(*apparently if a burglar is armed with a knife and you kick them down the stairs, you're in the wrong. Go figure.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
