My experience and it is personal, was at every club we played at there were alway's some players whose family/parents NEVER came.
I was alway's keen to see my lad's play, and not just because I was managing it.
Totally agree about the checks for club's and officials, and perhaps club's will have to have nominated drivers, checked and approved. We alway's played at well run and organised club's, and took the time to check out facilities,/ charter etc. I am afraid other parent's do not. ' I did this last year for my grandson who was down here for a year, rang up the club managers and sec's. Settled for a lower league club where the people were less 'frantic' about winning, and the lads seemed to just 'enjoy playing football' and making mates. The parent's really make a good football club what it is, not just the 'mouthy, sideline experts.'...... yelling at there kids as if they were at Wembley.
Have to admit that I would not have been happy to let my Grandson travel with parent's I had not known, or had been vetted, but then I went to all his matches, when of course I was not still watching my lads play Sunday league in Charlton Park!.
How sad it is that these day's we have to constantly consider things like this when so many clubs and parent's do such an excellent job.
Complete load of bollox.Still i suppose it keeps somebody in a job and the government make a fair few quid at the same time.
How long will it be before a kid is found strangled in the back of a van and the bloke who did it had passed all the neccessary checks.Not long i'm guessing but as long as he paid his £65 the government won't give a flying F*** !
[cite]Posted By: carly burn[/cite]Complete load of bollox.Still i suppose it keeps somebody in a job and the government make a fair few quid at the same time.
How long will it be before a kid is found strangled in the back of a van and the bloke who did it had passed all the neccessary checks.Not long i'm guessing but as long as he paid his £65 the government won't give a flying F*** !
I don't agree. There is a huge element of cover your arse mentality involved I will grant you, but knowing these checks are done and that you cannot work with kids without them will deter those with previous from applying for these sort of roles.
On a pure cost per offender caught by these checks basis i am sure it is incredibly poor value (I am sure a freedom of information check might reveal this) but as others have said the government are in a no win situation with this stuff, especially when a lot of these new regulations were recommended by an inquiry into (I think) the events at soham. Besides when talking about child safety people will find it very difficult to put what amounts to a price limit above which it is not worth the expense.
[and vulnerable adults until the check has been completed so any 'paedo' shouldn't, theoretically, have any opportunity to commit any offence before starting work...
All the CRB does is alert potential employers of convictions from the past, it has no effect whatsoever on those clever enough to disguise their ill-doings....
The biggest joke is the amount of time it takes to retrieve and pass on the relevant information, it is all held on one central database and ought to take moments to check and cross reference and come up with a decision, the police can take the same information and use the same data and have the answers almoast immediately...[/quote]
But they can run Sports teams. . . .
hence become a coach fill out a CRB, muck about for 3 months, then offksi. . . .
The idea is good but in practice they are too slow and make them redundant.
See that Ed Balls has modified his opinion about this, instead of 11 million parents being caught up in this.... only 9 million are caught up.
Good intentions, from Mr Ed, which I am sure we all agree with, seem still to be caught up in the detail. He claims that, parents will not be caught up in this, I am still not convinced. Of course people who have regular, and one to one contact with kids need to be vetted, but driving in a convoy to an arranged convoy with all the other parents is overkill.
Running the team, being the secretary, and an 'official ' yes all for it. Helping put the nets up, and taking the subs no need, let the parents sort it!
I am glad that the goverment has t least had the courage to review there position, but it still a work in progress idea to me
I have a slightly different persopective on this. My son, who is a partcularly vulnerable child due to his background, has to go to and from school by taxi each day. The taxi firms are private but arranged by the local authority.
He has to have an adult escort due to his behavioural difficulties (usually the taxi drivers wife). The taxi picks up a number of children after him.
Recently County have changed his coming home arrangements on Tuesdays so he comes back in a taxi without other children. (The journey takes 45 mins). The first time a few weeks ago, he arrived home saying 'Dad it was great, I didn't have an escort and I sat in the front with the driver!'
I have challenged County on this and I am told that everything is great because all the taxi drivers and escorts are CRB checked. Apparently they cannot/will not acknowledge the potential risks posed by vulnerable children alone in vehicles being allowed in the front! What worries me is that CRB checks are used as an excuse for proper risk management. My son lacks certain social skills and is particularly vulnerable yet they are prepared to send him half way across Norfolk on his own with rules that apparently allow drivers to encourage children to sit in the front, (and offer them sweeties during the journey)
As a parent I expect the Authorities, to whom my child is entrusted, to act 'in loco parentis'. Despite the Soham case and eveything else that goes on, they still have no basic commonsense risk management at the heart of their procedures! Its scary and they move 25,000 children around Norfolk every school day. I am acting with vigilence but I fear for other children whose parents maybe are unable to take the attack to the Authorities that I am doing.
I often go out into schools to give talks. I am taken into a hall/classroom/library. I stand in front ofthe kids and teachers and teachers' assistants, do my spiel. They leave, another lot come in. I do my spiel. They go. I am escorted to the exit, say goodbye. Get in my car and go home. For that I have to have a CRB regularly and sometimes a different CRB for different LEAs. I think it is nonsense. Just as I think all post-Dunblane stuff of the ring the bell, give name etc, electronic door opens and you finally get into a fortified school is nonsense. Any nutter with an axe or a gun is not going to bother with that - over the fence into the playground and mayhem. It is knee-jerk, better to be doing something even if it is meanlingless, over-reaction. I'm all in favour of protecting kids but not by pointless, over-the-top initiatives. I also worry about what effect it has on kids growing up in a society where they are encouraged to believe that every adult is a potential threat. I also wonder how it is that other countries manage to get by without all these restrictions and regulations and children seem to live happy, ordinary lives and schools are not like Fort Knox. I was recently in Italy and saw loads of kids playing out in the street wherever I went. I'd almost forgotten that life could be like that, and It felt like sanity. What is it about the UK that makes us so untrusting? Is it because we produce more paedophiles per capita than any other country? Or is it that our media are more committed to hysteria and promoting fear and mistrust of each other?
Yes Nadou, what you are claiming is that the child mollesters, and other such evil individuals will know there way around the system, and probably already be in the system. As I say as a former school governor and qualified football manager through the FA I encourage that people in charge of children should be vetted and there credentials properly evaluated. The issue is the casual 'helper', assistant, whatever. Schools probably have the resources to cary this out although my wife's school seems to struggle with this, and she works with secondary children in a large Bexley school, with learning difficulties with statemented children. people have mentioned Soham and before that Dunblane, I think you will find these individuals were 'involved' in the case with the school. I am not talking about the case of the nutter who decided one day to walk into a school and start attacking staff and children, I am talking about normal parents who without there help, school clubs would cease and as Nadou says 'believe that every adult is a potential threat'.
As I started this thread my concerns are particularly concerned with kids club football, because without the help of parents generally it would not happen and in the end the kids will suffer.
My concern is that this gives a false sense of security, and does not address the main issue of protecting children, our children.
Ken, I agree with your last sentence which echoes the point I have made and continue to make with my local authority. It seems to me that common sense has been abandonned to slavish devotion to form filling.
As someone who works in community arts and often working with young and/or disabled people the only actual case of sexual assualt i have had to deal with was down to a participants brother (and carer) volunteering to give lifts home, during which time he abused a vulnerable young girl, had the organisation had a proper child protection policy in place , asked for CRB checks at the time and did not allow one adult to be giving lifts this would of never of happened. It really is worth the effort of doing things properly both for the adults and childrens benefits.
Shrew, I agree with that. What worries me, going back to the issues I have with the Authorities and my sons taxi service is that CRB checks can be the be all and end all of risk management not just one area which can be looked at. People say things like "its OK because all our drivers have been CRB checked". We are substituting form filling for vigilence and red tape for effective risk assessment.
Comments
I was alway's keen to see my lad's play, and not just because I was managing it.
Totally agree about the checks for club's and officials, and perhaps club's will have to have nominated drivers, checked and approved.
We alway's played at well run and organised club's, and took the time to check out facilities,/ charter etc. I am afraid other parent's do not.
'
I did this last year for my grandson who was down here for a year, rang up the club managers and sec's. Settled for a lower league club where the people were less 'frantic' about winning, and the lads seemed to just 'enjoy playing football' and making mates. The parent's really make a good football club what it is, not just the 'mouthy, sideline experts.'...... yelling at there kids as if they were at Wembley.
Have to admit that I would not have been happy to let my Grandson travel with parent's I had not known, or had been vetted, but then I went to all his matches, when of course I was not still watching my lads play Sunday league in Charlton Park!.
How sad it is that these day's we have to constantly consider things like this when so many clubs and parent's do such an excellent job.
How long will it be before a kid is found strangled in the back of a van and the bloke who did it had passed all the neccessary checks.Not long i'm guessing but as long as he paid his £65 the government won't give a flying F*** !
I don't agree. There is a huge element of cover your arse mentality involved I will grant you, but knowing these checks are done and that you cannot work with kids without them will deter those with previous from applying for these sort of roles.
On a pure cost per offender caught by these checks basis i am sure it is incredibly poor value (I am sure a freedom of information check might reveal this) but as others have said the government are in a no win situation with this stuff, especially when a lot of these new regulations were recommended by an inquiry into (I think) the events at soham. Besides when talking about child safety people will find it very difficult to put what amounts to a price limit above which it is not worth the expense.
and they are a good thing if people dont want to do them then they dont need to do them and dont get involved with the kids footie
All the CRB does is alert potential employers of convictions from the past, it has no effect whatsoever on those clever enough to disguise their ill-doings....
The biggest joke is the amount of time it takes to retrieve and pass on the relevant information, it is all held on one central database and ought to take moments to check and cross reference and come up with a decision, the police can take the same information and use the same data and have the answers almoast immediately...[/quote]
But they can run Sports teams. . . .
hence become a coach fill out a CRB, muck about for 3 months, then offksi. . . .
The idea is good but in practice they are too slow and make them redundant.
Good intentions, from Mr Ed, which I am sure we all agree with, seem still to be caught up in the detail. He claims that, parents will not be caught up in this, I am still not convinced.
Of course people who have regular, and one to one contact with kids need to be vetted, but driving in a convoy to an arranged convoy with all the other parents is overkill.
Running the team, being the secretary, and an 'official ' yes all for it. Helping put the nets up, and taking the subs no need, let the parents sort it!
I am glad that the goverment has t least had the courage to review there position, but it still a work in progress idea to me
He has to have an adult escort due to his behavioural difficulties (usually the taxi drivers wife). The taxi picks up a number of children after him.
Recently County have changed his coming home arrangements on Tuesdays so he comes back in a taxi without other children. (The journey takes 45 mins). The first time a few weeks ago, he arrived home saying 'Dad it was great, I didn't have an escort and I sat in the front with the driver!'
I have challenged County on this and I am told that everything is great because all the taxi drivers and escorts are CRB checked. Apparently they cannot/will not acknowledge the potential risks posed by vulnerable children alone in vehicles being allowed in the front! What worries me is that CRB checks are used as an excuse for proper risk management. My son lacks certain social skills and is particularly vulnerable yet they are prepared to send him half way across Norfolk on his own with rules that apparently allow drivers to encourage children to sit in the front, (and offer them sweeties during the journey)
As a parent I expect the Authorities, to whom my child is entrusted, to act 'in loco parentis'. Despite the Soham case and eveything else that goes on, they still have no basic commonsense risk management at the heart of their procedures! Its scary and they move 25,000 children around Norfolk every school day. I am acting with vigilence but I fear for other children whose parents maybe are unable to take the attack to the Authorities that I am doing.
people have mentioned Soham and before that Dunblane, I think you will find these individuals were 'involved' in the case with the school. I am not talking about the case of the nutter who decided one day to walk into a school and start attacking staff and children, I am talking about normal parents who without there help, school clubs would cease and as Nadou says 'believe that every adult is a potential threat'.
As I started this thread my concerns are particularly concerned with kids club football, because without the help of parents generally it would not happen and in the end the kids will suffer.
My concern is that this gives a false sense of security, and does not address the main issue of protecting children, our children.