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

[Snook]

If the parents aren't there then the children can't be left alone, so there's clearly no requirement to leave them alone.

How would they manage if they didn't have any parents with them?

 

I don't understand either of your responses in reference to what I said. If you don't have adults who are CRB checked then the kids don't get to go on the trip and cannot be left alone. No school would risk that.

[DragonofAna]

I'd feel so much better sending a sex offender on a school day out saying "it's okay, he's good with his own child".

 

I'll repeat my question; why not just make it a million times easier to get a CRB check? Then everyone is happy. People get to go on school days out and the dangerous adults have to stay at home.

 

You are completely, and possibly purposely, missing all that has been posted by Cyclone. If the parent is a paedophile then the school will know about the child being at risk and the parent will not have access to the child (though cyclone said it much better than me).

 

You seem to have paedophilia on the brain. It must be really difficult for you going through life believing everyone is a paedophile.

 

The point is that a parent should be allowed to accompany their child on a school trip. There is the added bonus that if anything does go wrong then the parent is on hand to help resolve matters. There have been trips in the past that have gone drastically wrong due to inadequate supervision, and having parents present reduces this risk. Expecting them to get a check done every time they intend to accompany their own child is a bit silly.

[alchresearch]

The point is that a parent should be allowed to accompany their child on a school trip.

 

In your opinion.

 

In mine, nobody unqualified should be allowed on a school trip.

[manxbiker]

A CRB check will only show when someone has been caught before

By then its too late

[Cyclone]

I don't understand either of your responses in reference to what I said. If you don't have adults who are CRB checked then the kids don't get to go on the trip and cannot be left alone. No school would risk that.

You think that school trips can only be run with accompanying parents, not just with staff?

[alchresearch]

A CRB check will only show when someone has been caught before

By then its too late

 

Too late for the last crime they committed but at least it will prevent any more.

 

Did anyone Google the name I listed earlier?

[Cyclone]

I'd feel so much better sending a sex offender on a school day out saying "it's okay, he's good with his own child".

Maybe we all do live on different planets. The way I understand it, anyone convicted of an offence that makes them a danger to children will not have custody of their own children.

Hence anyone that has custody of a child, is by definition, in the eyes of the state, safe to be with children.

 

I'll repeat my question; why not just make it a million times easier to get a CRB check? Then everyone is happy. People get to go on school days out and the dangerous adults have to stay at home.

Why not just use common sense and realise that parents who have custody of their own child will pass a CRB check, and thus not bother with the check.

[Cyclone]

In your opinion.

 

In mine, nobody unqualified should be allowed on a school trip.

 

I'm not sure that there's much point without the children... Unless you want them to be 'qualified' by having the state tell you that they are safe to be around children of course.

[cosywolf]

Is it a CRB check, or is it a List 99 check? It seems unlikely it would be a full CRB for one trip, unless you've put yourself forward to help with things regularly? List 99s take less than a week to come back. Either way, is it worth getting yourself in such a tizz about? Is your child's welfare not worth a few minutes of your time?

 

Is checking List 99 or conviction records really such a terrible precaution to take? It might not be 100% effective, but it's a step towards promoting your child's safety.

 

They're hardly being intrusive, either. If you prefer not to be checked for some reason, don't go. Your child will be fine, possibly all the happier for being free to play with their friends without a parent hanging about being embarassing. If you're desperate to go on an outing with your child, but don't want the hassle of five minutes filling in a form, take them out of school time.

 

Personally, I'm happy that my school requires List 99 checks of parents who put themselves forward to help with the kids. It would be irresponsible, in my opinion, not to. I also hold an enhanced CRB, because I work with children on a voluntary basis, and I don't begrudge their parents that one extra bit of security at all. Why on earth should I?

[alchresearch]

Hence anyone that has custody of a child, is by definition, in the eyes of the state, safe to be with children.

 

So what about Richard Leese?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/14/manchester-richard-leese-cautioned

 

he lost his rag with his step daughter and she got a slap.

 

He still lives with said step daughter.

 

And although this was in the media for obvious reasons, how many don't make the papers?

 

I don't know the OP, or whether they've ever lost their temper and hit their child, but if I were the head I wouldn't take any chances. There are guidelines and policies for schools to follow - the CRB being one.