MoD wants criminal checks on NCOs

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by hansvonhealing, Mar 30, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The Herald
    MoD wants criminal checks on NCOs
    IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent
    March 30 2007

    The Ministry of Defence is seeking an amendment to the law to allow it to carry out criminal record bureau checks on the NCOs sent to train vulnerable Army recruits.

    The move, a year after the Deepcut Review criticised aspects of the selection of training staff at depots, would allow the Army to bypass the Data Protection Act to vet the lance-corporals, corporals and sergeants who make up the majority of military instructors.

    Anyone with a hidden background of violent bahaviour would be barred from duty supervising the 13,000-15,000 recruits aged 18 or under who enlist each year.

    At the moment, employers can request checks on applicants hired to be responsible for under-age personnel, but not on employees already in full-time jobs. Most NCOs have between seven and 10 years' service at their ranks.

    The MoD is opening a staff leadership school at Pirbright, Surrey next week to "train the trainers" and ensure that every NCO posted to a depot has been fully briefed on recruits' rights and vulnerabilities.

    Part of the course deals with a ban on the informal physical punishments handed out in the past to recruits deemed not to be trying hard enough. Typically, these ranged from verbal abuse to exhausting extra drills, runs or push-ups.

    The MoD said yesterday: "The new policy defines what is legitimate to assist trainees to achieve required standards and to ensure that both instructors and trainees distinguish this from bullying or harassment.

    "That is always unacceptable. Punishment may only be awarded as a result of a formal disciplinary process."
  2. Bearing in mind some recruits are under 18, shouldn't there be a CRB at anyrate?
  3. Finally something I agree with
  4. Splendid idea.
  5. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    You would have thought so.
  6. Do they not do a criminal record check on you when you join up anyway?
  7. "For NCOs"

    Does this mean that the commissioned officers are already covered by this process? If not, why not and when will they be?
  8. Agreed. Can't help but raise a wry smile at the thought that "Anyone with a hidden background of violent behaviour would be barred".
    I know what they mean but it doesn't quite ring true in an organisation designed to inflict maximum violence on the enemy...
  9. Im not sure how it works, but doesnt the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 state something about not having to declare "spent" convictions?
  10. Personally all who work in a recruit/ training environment should have these checks completed, regardless of rank. I am sure that those on the mobile display teams and cadet training tams have them carried out as a matter of course, could be wrong though.
  11. Officers nor OR's have a CRB check as a matter of routine. Under SY vetting BC, SC and DV all have checks against various databases but this is not deemed a formal CRB.

    More interestingly since many instructors are dicked to go to depots, and CRB checks must be agreed to then what happens of the OR/Offr refuses to allow the check? I guess he/she avoids the posting.

    Smacks of silly headline grabbing without any idea of the subject on the part of the politician, but then i know thats a rarety in the good old UK.
  12. There is an exceptions order (1975) which allows for certain listed agencies, the Police for example, to enquire and have you declare any and ALL convictions, spent or otherwise. The current vetting forms require you to declare all convictions as well.
  13. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    I am in two minds over this; I am against bullying in any form.

    However it is a very fine line between bullying and hard training. Many threads have been posted on this site complaining about the attitude of recruits joining their first unit straight from training and not realising that they are there as soldiers and not just in a 9-5 office job.

    The quote from the MOD spokesman is fine, but:

  14. As a QARANC TA bod we've all had to be CRB (enhanced) checked for our Army roles. This is an addition to the CRB check requested by the NHS when we change jobs.

    I think that checking anyone who works with young recruits is a sensible move. Certainly if I refused a CRB check for MOD or NHS I'd be sacked/asked to resign commission. I can't see any reasons why someone with nothing to hide would refuse one.
  15. Anyone coming into contact with young recruits should be subjected toa check. It makes sense.

    I reckon that this is one of the better ideas the MoD have had of recent. They would need to be pretty discrete about it though and do checks before sending people to training centres. I'll put money on that they'll f*ck it up by sending someone in first before doing the checks and either, something will happen, or the individual will have to be swiftly removed and thereby embarrassed, which has the potential to lead to career fouling and social stigma.

    It's a really good dea, I just hope that the management understand it and that people don't try shortcutting it internally as has happened with other unrelated issues.