The Sixty Four Quid Question

P

PrinceAlbert

Guest
#2
"In essence, I'm being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a paedophile"

Therefore I assume the individual has to pay for it themselves, and I therefore conclude that this is a bone thread.

Or did you mean "are any of you ACF peados paying for this?"
 
#3
PrinceAlbert said:
"In essence, I'm being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a paedophile"

Therefore I assume the individual has to pay for it themselves, and I therefore conclude that this is a bone thread.

Or did you mean "are any of you ACF peados paying for this?"
Assumption being the Mother of all Fack Ups..
 
P

PrinceAlbert

Guest
#4
spent_case said:
PrinceAlbert said:
"In essence, I'm being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a paedophile"

Therefore I assume the individual has to pay for it themselves, and I therefore conclude that this is a bone thread.

Or did you mean "are any of you ACF peados paying for this?"
Assumption being the Mother of all Fack Ups..
Granted, but if you actually read the article, or my quote from it, then you'd know that the individual has to pay for it.

Or are you still asking if ACF instructors have to pay for it?

Being unclear in what you are asking will lead to someone making an assumption, and therefore possibly end up with a "fark up"
 
#5
PrinceAlbert said:
spent_case said:
PrinceAlbert said:
"In essence, I'm being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a paedophile"

Therefore I assume the individual has to pay for it themselves, and I therefore conclude that this is a bone thread.

Or did you mean "are any of you ACF peados paying for this?"
Assumption being the Mother of all Fack Ups..
Granted, but if you actually read the article, or my quote from it, then you'd know that the individual has to pay for it.

Or are you still asking if ACF instructors have to pay for it?

Being unclear in what you are asking will lead to someone making an assumption, and therefore possibly end up with a "fark up"
Roger that. Was just wondering if ACF instructors will be asked to pay for this ole bollox. Or will MOD shell out.
 
#6
It's a heavy blow for any small groups that work with children, sports clubs and so on. The shooting club I'm in hasn't got a hope of being able to fund this so the result will be we just won't bring any youngsters into the sport. Same will happen with any number of other sports I'm sure.

We did just have a policy that under 16's had to be accompanied by a parent but that won't even be good enough from now on to my understanding.

School youth groups and ACF will presumably be funded centrally to cover it.
 
P

PrinceAlbert

Guest
#7
spent_case said:
PrinceAlbert said:
spent_case said:
PrinceAlbert said:
"In essence, I'm being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a paedophile"

Therefore I assume the individual has to pay for it themselves, and I therefore conclude that this is a bone thread.

Or did you mean "are any of you ACF peados paying for this?"
Assumption being the Mother of all Fack Ups..
Granted, but if you actually read the article, or my quote from it, then you'd know that the individual has to pay for it.

Or are you still asking if ACF instructors have to pay for it?

Being unclear in what you are asking will lead to someone making an assumption, and therefore possibly end up with a "fark up"
Roger that. Was just wondering if ACF instructors will be asked to pay for this ole bollox. Or will MOD shell out.
I wouldn't have thought so as the SC clearance gained in the Regs/TA/ACF will be a greater check than the BC one that they are paying £64 for. Therefore it's not required.
 
#8
The checks will be necessary for anyone who has "regular" (once a month) or intense (three times a month) contact with children or vulnerable adults

Intense 3 times a month, wtf, then what the hell do they categorizes a CFAV contact as then, on average 6-8 nights a Det is open per month !
 
#9
PrinceAlbert said:
spent_case said:
PrinceAlbert said:
spent_case said:
PrinceAlbert said:
"In essence, I'm being asked to pay £64 to prove that I am not a paedophile"

Therefore I assume the individual has to pay for it themselves, and I therefore conclude that this is a bone thread.

Or did you mean "are any of you ACF peados paying for this?"
Assumption being the Mother of all Fack Ups..
Granted, but if you actually read the article, or my quote from it, then you'd know that the individual has to pay for it.

Or are you still asking if ACF instructors have to pay for it?

Being unclear in what you are asking will lead to someone making an assumption, and therefore possibly end up with a "fark up"
Roger that. Was just wondering if ACF instructors will be asked to pay for this ole bollox. Or will MOD shell out.
I wouldn't have thought so as the SC clearance gained in the Regs/TA/ACF will be a greater check than the BC one that they are paying £64 for. Therefore it's not required.

I am sure some one has the definative answer but I believe that SC clearence will not be enough. Currently to work with children you aslo have to have a CRB check. One could assume (with a nod to previous posts) then that come October you will need this new check. This will of course provide more revenue and keep some more civil servants in jobs!

Q.
 
#13
Quaker said:
PrinceAlbert said:
I wouldn't have thought so as the SC clearance gained in the Regs/TA/ACF will be a greater check than the BC one that they are paying £64 for. Therefore it's not required.

I am sure some one has the definative answer but I believe that SC clearence will not be enough. Currently to work with children you aslo have to have a CRB check. One could assume (with a nod to previous posts) then that come October you will need this new check. This will of course provide more revenue and keep some more civil servants in jobs!

Q.
None of the security checks are enough to cover the CRB checks.

I would assume that anyone who is currently CRB cleared will automatically be cleared for and placed on this new database...or am I just be naive in assuming this isn't partly a money making scheme?
 
#14
kes1 said:
Quaker said:
PrinceAlbert said:
I wouldn't have thought so as the SC clearance gained in the Regs/TA/ACF will be a greater check than the BC one that they are paying £64 for. Therefore it's not required.

I am sure some one has the definative answer but I believe that SC clearence will not be enough. Currently to work with children you aslo have to have a CRB check. One could assume (with a nod to previous posts) then that come October you will need this new check. This will of course provide more revenue and keep some more civil servants in jobs!

Q.
None of the security checks are enough to cover the CRB checks.

I would assume that anyone who is currently CRB cleared will automatically be cleared for and placed on this new database...or am I just be naive in assuming this isn't partly a money making scheme?
It's a New Labour thing. So it's all for the good of Mankind and in no way a hashed up bodge that'll create a tonne paperwork, protect fack all and get on everyones norks.
 
#16
bigbird67 said:
Have to say as mum to 2 cadets, the more checks the better :(
Seconded bigbird, the only thing I disagree with about this new scheme is the individuals footing the bill for the check. Cadet instructors and such like should be fine as the organisations will pay for the checks, it's people like the authors and illustrators, for example, that are being penalised by having to pay for it themselves, and ultimately the kids that lose out.
 
#17
while I agree with Kes and Bigbird, the only problem with this is as I see it, is that the Pendulum is swinging too far and faced with ever more layers of Bureaucracy is that it will put off potential Instructors, having a CRB clearance is no guarantee of future behavior and intentions, while well intentioned will have the opposite effect from that is intended.

Smaller Youth organisations, Church groups, scouts etc will find themselves burdened with extra cost and administration they can ill afford, some may well close down which means kids will lose out and you get complaints about Kids hanging round street corners, well there will be even more of them doing that, most abuse occurs in the Home and you don't need a CRB to be a parent or a relative.

The "Road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind
 
#18
semper said:
while I agree with Kes and Bigbird, the only problem with this is as I see it, is that the Pendulum is swinging too far and faced with ever more layers of Bureaucracy is that it will put off potential Instructors, having a CRB clearance is no guarantee of future behavior and intentions, while well intentioned will have the opposite effect from that is intended.

Smaller Youth organisations, Church groups, scouts etc will find themselves burdened with extra cost and administration they can ill afford, some may well close down which means kids will lose out and you get complaints about Kids hanging round street corners, well there will be even more of them doing that, most abuse occurs in the Home and you don't need a CRB to be a parent or a relative.

The "Road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind
Roger That...
 
#19
At sixty four quid it sounds more like another government funding scheme or job creation.

Our youth soccer group does about 400 volunteer criminal record checks a year. It costs about ten dollars a check. In the four years I have been running the group we have had three hits, two DUIs and one domestic violence.

The problem of course, is that a background check only works on someone who has a prior conviction. When cases come to light they have often been situations that have been going on for years, carried out by someone who has sailed through all the background stuff because they were never caught before.

Sixty four quid is ridiculous for what they are doing. Sounds good, makes them look like they are doing something, even makes them feel good and proactive but ultimately pretty useless.

So say me anyway.
 

Latest Threads