“Jay, Cheltenham
Because I'm worried that you see CRB's as a 'catch-all', but in reality, like a lot of other commenters on here, not just me(!). persistent and determined paedophiles will go to extraordinary lengths to buck the system. Also, a degree of common sense must prevail. Yes, I'm sure there are 80 year old women pervs, but as I say, society IS tarring all with the same brush, and saying that you cannot work with children (so you ARE guilty) unless you get CRB'D (proved innocent).
Like this nonsense about plumbers that may possibly work in schools! So let's think this through, a paedophile thinks, 'I know, I'll become a plumber, and I MIGHT get some work in schools......' I doubt it. They want instant gratification, not 'one day I might......'
This nanny state is gradually being dismantled by this brilliant Coalition, keep it up, I say.”

“Do 70yr old female paedophiles really exist? If so they'd probably find work in schools or youth centres, rather than arranging flowers in churches.

And why do they have to share toilets with choirboys? To keep the lads away from male paedos, presumably.”

“Blessed are the flower arrangers, for they shall inherit the earth!

Apart from all that, in case no one had noticed a CRB check means doodly squat, otherwise we would not be continuously hearing about paedophiles in our schools and nurseries!

Was the Pope checked before he was chosen as a candidate for his position? As someone else has already pointed out, what the heck went wrong with the clergy? There's many a shirt lifter lurking in that sector of society!

How ridiculous can society get?”

“So they now need crb checks because "they share toilets with the choirboys". On that logic, should we now require all people using public toilets be required to present a CRB form on entry, in case there is a child using it?

In fact, why not even go a step further and put people who have a history of child abuse and are still considered a threat in a special "house" where they kept locked away to protect the public. You could give that house a special name, say a "prison" for example and even put some people considered threats for other reasons, eg Murder, violent assault etc in with them. In fact, I quite like that idea!”

“Fear Fear Fear

frightened sheeple

Fear Fear Fear”

“@Pat Ranage - you wrote "Jay, do you kowtow to EVERYTHING that this pathetic nanny state tells you to do?" - how did you read that from what I wrote? I WILL comply with laws and requirements that are there to protect other people, especially vulnerable children - do you have a problem with that? Like I said - the CRB system isn't perfect, but it's what we have and it's there for a reason. Surely only people who've got something to hide would have a problem complying - it's not 'tarring everyone as guilty" - what a ridiculous comment. Why don't you read the more sensible comments on here, blame the right political party, and perhaps suggest something constructive instead of ranting at me. For the record, do you know what it's like to work in child protection and hear harrowing stories of what's gone on? I do.”

“According to some of the people on this message board having a CRB checks means you not a potential pedophile but not having ones means you could be.

I seem to remember Vanessa George of Little Teds Nursery having a CRB check.”

“"One reason the Cathedral gave for the checks was that the women shared a toilet with choirboys."

That sounds rather strange - what toilet do adult male cathedral staff use then? Or is it that the cathedral doesn't trust their men to use the same toilet as the boys?”

“*Also, this CRB thing. Why do you have to have different checks for different schools, hospitals, childrens groups etc? *

Actually, the labour Governmentwere implementing a 'single check' scheme. it was called Vetting and Barring - and the new Coalition government have decided to review it rather than implement it.

So if you wish to make a party political point, actually Labour was attempting to create a 'single portable CRB check' which was renewed at regular internals ... and the Coalition have stopped this from happening, leaving us with the multiple CRB system we have.

Of course, there is more to it than that - the vetting and Barring scheme ran into controversy simply because of resistance like that of the lady in the article to being vetted in the first place.

As someone who has had to be CRB checked multiple times (Beavers x 2, Pre-school committee chair x1, school volunteer x 1, student teacher x 1, employed teacher x 1) I would welcome a single system.

However, the argument is not about one system or the other, it's about getting the right balance between vetting as many people as possible who have the opportunity to harm children or vulnerable adults while not creating a system that is unduly onerous for those whose whose contact with children or vulnerable adults is minor and tangential and no greater than that of your average neighbour or person in the supermarket.

It's probably also worth saying that the vast majority of child abuse of all kinds occurs in the home and by people already known to the child - and no system of paper-based screening of those who have professional or volunteer contact with children will prevent that.”

“It is precisely the GOOD people who have to accept that they live in a world with BAD people.
It is the vulnerable, whether they be young or old that need at least an attempt made at protecting them.
I worked as a parent helper at my daughter's school and had to have a crb check. I too, am a lovely, lovely lady who would not hurt a fly, but how to prove it to mothers of children in my care. Best they can come up with at the moment is a crb and as I had nothing to hide, I did not complain.”