Not allowed on School Trip with Children due to having no CRB check

[f0rd]

This isn't the same.

In this case the school (and society) is assuming everyone is guilty of a serious crime unless they prove otherwise.[/Quote]

Don't talk such nonsense, they are not assuming everybody is guilty, it's just they have not been cleared to work with children.

 

Perhaps I could ask you to prove you won't be sexually exciting yourself over the kid's section of a catalogue this evening before I report you to the police as a nonce.

And this is what happens when people don't understand the nature of proof.

 

Offended? The OP should be. That's about the way the school is thinking with this.

Hardly.

[Cyclone]

Maybe the key thing here is that the OP isn't going to be 'working with' children and so there should be no requirement to be 'cleared' by the state.

You don't need to be 'cleared' to interact with children, although that was the way labour was heading with the evolution of the system.

 

6 months ago two PCSO's were reported to the Social Services for baby sitting for each other without having had their checks done. Just one more example of the state interfering in private arrangements.

[DaFoot]

Don't talk such nonsense, they are not assuming everybody is guilty, it's just they have not been cleared to work with children.

I think that is upinwath's point... the very fact that people have to be cleared before the school allows them to accompany children I see as society being suspicious of everyone in much the same way as upinwath reads it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had a dad of a child complain to me about taking photos (of my 6year old niece) because his child was nearby and asked me to stop. In effect (as I see it) he was saying to me that he doesn't trust me and is suspicious I may be doing something with those photos that could somehow endanger his child (he didn't pause to ask what I was taking photos of/if his child was in them/would I mind if he had a look).

 

While I understand a parent's need to keep their kids safe, I would imagine that statistically I am a greater risk to my niece I was with than to his child.

 

If someone walks up to you (anyone, not directed at person I quoted) and calls you a paedophile, how would you react?

 

Yes, of course we need to protect children from people that may do them harm. I'm just not convinced CRB checks do that. What is the alternative? I don't know. There is a new system coming I believe but will that be any better? Who knows.

 

I guess something is better than nothing but it does seem to breed a society of suspicion IMO.

[max]

Maybe the key thing here is that the OP isn't going to be 'working with' children and so there should be no requirement to be 'cleared' by the state.

You don't need to be 'cleared' to interact with children, although that was the way labour was heading with the evolution of the system.

 

6 months ago two PCSO's were reported to the Social Services for baby sitting for each other without having had their checks done. Just one more example of the state interfering in private arrangements.

 

That wasn't the story. They were serving police officers who were taking it in turns to babysit each other's children. The regulations they broke related to being not registered as child minders as they were doing it for more than 2 hours at a time for more than 14 days a year.

 

Whatever, it was a stupid rule for this particular situation but nothing to do with the OP.

[Cyclone]

Police officers, okay, not PCSO. They were taking it in turns to baby sit for each other, because they were friends and for no reward.

This is relevant because it demonstrates the intent and desire of the state (at least under labour) to interfere in personal arrangements about looking after children made with friends.

 

It turned out that no regulations were broken, except in the minds of a few "think of the children" professionally paranoid civil servants though. Just like no regulations would be broken by a parent accompanying a school trip without having a CRB check.

[LibertyBell]

Being a convicted paedophile, school trips are one the few places I can get access to children without the busy bodies interfering. So I agree it is ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I'm not really)

[f0rd]

Yes, you can't work with children until you prove that you are not a criminal. Hence, the assumption is that you are a criminal.

 

No as the default position isn't you are a criminal, it's just you are not cleared to work with children.

[cgksheff]

I may be wrong but it looks as if Mik has been sent on a trip of his own?

[upinwath]

No as the default position isn't you are a criminal, it's just you are not cleared to work with children.

 

Wrong. The UK is going stupid with the idea that people are criminals because they are doing something slightly unusual. Or maybe not so unusual as almost everyone I know carries a camera in their phone.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15/tall_photographers/

http://www.patb-photography.co.uk/1249/london-streetphotographer-arrested-for-terrorism/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157617918495261/

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7351252.stm

 

By Tom Geoghegan

BBC News Magazine

 

Misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection are preventing amateur photographers from enjoying their hobby, say campaigners....

 

....Mr Smith was challenged by a police officer who asked if he had a licence for the camera......

 

... he was taken down a side-street for a formal "stop and search", then asked to delete the photos and ordered not take any more

 

I take hundreds of photos here of all sorts and have NEVER been asked to delete anything by anybody.

There is a serious problem in the UK with the police, jobsworth security guards and members of the public assuming that innocent people are up to no good.

That quote from the BBC describes an illegal act by the police concerned as there is no law stating you can't take photos in a public place and nothing saying the police can stop you or make you delete anything.

 

The assumption of guilt and misuse of powers is a danger in the UK and one that anyone with a camera or even a camera phone is potentially in danger of.

Next time you are taking a photo of your mate in the high street make sure there are no kids around or you may end up in handcuffs too.

[f0rd]

So why a crb? A crb is to check whether or not you have a criminal record.[/Quote]

Right.

 

If the default position was that you are not a criminal, then a crb check would not be compulsory.

Again the default position has nothing to do with criminality, just are you cleared to work with children.

 

It's there to identify those who would pose a danger, it's purpose isn't to identify those who are innocent.

 

The fact that you have to have a crb indicates that the default position is that you are a criminal unless you prove otherwise.

Nope, still just that you are not cleared to work with children.