September 19th, 2009

We’re all reds under the bed

Posted in The Job - General by 200

Before I retired from the job, I had to apply to come back as a civvy. I say ‘apply’ I didn’t fill out any application forms, I just told the department head that I wanted to come back.

Before I could be offered a job I had to have security checks. Fair enough, obviously, being a police officer for 30 years without a single discipline record let alone any type of conviction or caution, was not enough. So I waited for the checks to come through. In the meantime I had to show proof of identity to the HR department.

I thought they were having a laugh, I mean, I had worked for them for 30 years, they paid my salary into the same bank account for the majority of those 30 years, they had sent staff round to my house on occasions over the years (injury on the job, etc), they had my photograph & fingerprints on record, but somehow seeing my marriage certificate, birth certificate, passport & a household bill were the missing ingredients to show them I had not been an imposter for 30 years.

So a news item this week should come as no surprise. Titled ‘Police face second vetting for database‘, it goes on to outline that tens of thousands of officers will be vetted for the anti-paedophile database despite already being cleared for their job. Officers ion close contact with children or vulnerable adults will have to be cleared by the Independent Safeguarding Authority even though they’ve had a full criminal record check. Forces will be expected to pay thr £64 registration fee for each officer.

This whole anti-paedophile is following on from the terrorism threat.  A squillionth of one percent of the population are terrorists but we are now led to believe they are everywhere, especially among photographers. A squillionth of one percent of the population are paedophiles but we are being dragged down the same route that every adult is a suspect & the only way to fight it is to check everyone.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0

14 comments

  1. the_leander says:

    And the worst bit is, the vast, vast majority of child abuse cases involve either an extended family member of friend of the family, so this vetting will do sweet fa.

    Except make the powers that be some major bank, of course.

    They’re determined to get their database on everyone, the terrorism card wasn’t playing out too well for them, so they bring back the spectre of the Paedo Finder General to force it through.

    Absolutely disgusting.

    September 20th, 2009 at 09:44

  2. Civ_In_The_City says:

    True enough. This ‘management by exception’ and needing to look like they are doing something is costing billions. Even if it doesn`t stop a single terrorist or paedophile the government can turn round and say at least they tried.

    But if you know your plan is way off base, and will cost billions for almost zero gain, then the ‘at least we tried’ argument doesn`t cover it.

    The real problem is thinking another database, another round of ‘vetting’ and some more targets will have any more impact than any of the other database/target driven schemes.

    When it`s precisely these databases and targets that are keeping people away from doing the job of protecting the population.

    September 20th, 2009 at 13:16

  3. Ian says:

    How many squillionth of the population want to be MPs, won’t they need to have background checks, before they get the job, (the sex offenders registrar)? Just to make sure they have not shagged each other, or flashed in public, paid a prostitute, or checks on there banking history. Before they are aloud to be involved with the publics money ect ect ect.

    It would be better for all in this country, if all proposed candidates, for MPs ect. Should be vet-ted first.
    And remember they pick up babes, and little kids when out touting for votes, so they should be cleared by the Indepenent Safeguarding Authority first as well

    September 20th, 2009 at 15:12

  4. Chris says:

    Cease your – obviously terroristic/noncetastic/BNP-supporting/illegal immigrantish (delete as appropriate for this week’s bogeyman) – complaining and pay up! Those 11.5 million lots of £64 won’t collect themselves Weeks.

    (£730M+ per annum for doing F’all of any use or consequence. Good money if you can get it)

    September 20th, 2009 at 15:13

  5. john says:

    Having worked in “public service” for decades I would have expected you to “get it”.
    Let me explain: Protecting children is the natural follow-on from “protecting from crime” and “protecting from terrorism”.
    In all three “protecting” scenarios you can substitute “protecting” by “loads more jobs”.
    The ISA is staffed by 200.
    Soon it will be 500.Then it will be 1000.
    Have a read:http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/pdf/GuidanceNotesforBarringDecisionMakingProcessweb.pdf

    When that document disappears (as it will, soon) I will stick it on a website.
    Please read it. You really need to.

    September 20th, 2009 at 15:41

  6. Tom Gane says:

    The government is clearly desperate to protect their ‘gold plated’ pensions, and have therefore devised this cunning plan to rip off about 12000,000 people of £64.00 a go.

    We must be mad!

    September 20th, 2009 at 18:01

  7. Tony F says:

    Funnily, when I left the RAF to work in security in Civvy street..

    “We shall have to PV you” snigger…

    Ok

    “Oh, bugger, your clearance was higher than we can go, they wont tell us your dirty secrets……”

    Morale to story, I may have had a humongous security clearance…But….

    September 20th, 2009 at 21:02

  8. MarkUK says:

    I’ve commented on another blog about this subject as it makes me SOOOOO mad!

    Firstly, I doubt if the government will benefit from the £64 a time – it will be contracted out to a private company which will get all the big bucks and any dirty secrets available.

    Secondly, the new system is open to abuse as it will take into account “suspicion” – i.e. any bit of innuendo that happens to be doing the rounds about anyone. This may not harm some people, but for a teacher or similar it would be career-destroying.

    All it needs is one adolescent girl to have a fantasy about a teacher and it gets overheard when she talls her mate. An investigation is carried out (naturally enough) and the story is found to be completely baseless. However, that investigation will be recorded and the teacher will no longer have a job anywhere in his profession.

    A CRB check, for all its faults, is at least objective. Is anything KNOWN or not? This new system is subjective; it allows unwarranted suspicion to go on record.

    I work in three schools part time (as support staff, not as a teacher) and I do voluntary work that could bring me into contact with teenagers and vulnerable adults. I can see why I need to have a CRB check (though not why I need four of them!). However, I fail to see why some “soccer mom” who drives kids to a couple of matches per month would not only need a CRB check but this new, more intrusive, one.

    September 20th, 2009 at 21:22

  9. john says:

    CRB, objective ?
    An enhanced CRB check includes any innuendo that may have been dredged-up in the course of a life. Sent under confidentiality.

    September 20th, 2009 at 23:52

  10. Blueknight says:

    This sounds like a ‘get out’ for not introducing Megan’s Law’ over here.
    What ‘protection’ is there for some “soccer mom” who is barred from driving kids to a couple of matches per month, because of some unsubstatiated tittle tattle that could have come from a neighbour dispute or a ‘domestic’.
    has anyone thought that if the soccer mum is barred, sooner or later all the parents and probably half the estate will know.
    And they will think she is another Rose West

    September 21st, 2009 at 00:42

  11. David Bratzer says:

    Hmm, I’m not surprised your department went the extra mile with you. You are a pretty shady character, being a blogger and all.

    September 21st, 2009 at 08:17

  12. john says:

    Reading through the guidance for making decisions:

    Note 5.3.2
    “Under paragraph 19(5) Schedule 3 of the Act and paragraph 19(5) Schedule 1 of the Order there are circumstances when the police can say that information it is providing should not be passed to the person being
    considered for barring because this would not be in the interests of the prevention or detection of crime. In these instances the ISA legally cannot consider this information in the determination of whether an individual should be included in the children’s or adults’ lists”

    Then section 5.3.4.
    “Therefore, if there is an intention to rely on the information, it must be
    disclosed. Information sent in confidence cannot be accepted – and then
    relied upon as part of any decision without having given the person
    concerned an opportunity to make representations in relation to it”

    THEN….5.3.5
    “However, information only has to be disclosed to someone if it is used as a basis for the barring decision; simply receiving information does not trigger a
    requirement to disclose it and seek representations. There is scope,
    therefore, to consider and filter out evidence that is not relied on, for
    whatever reason, before disclosure and seeking representations”

    Yes. Clear as mud.

    September 21st, 2009 at 09:36

  13. Tony F says:

    Was that actually English?

    September 21st, 2009 at 19:19

  14. Jabadaw says:

    I’ve just returned from a holiday in Ireland and I’m pleased to report that this sort of hysteria hasn’t hit the population there. (At least not yet). Only yesterday morning I was browsing through a local paper and contained within were several pages of photographs of the young children who had just started school. (individual portraits) Can you imagine the outcry that would have accompanied such a publication here?

    Apparently this is very normal and the children and parents are delighted to see their picture in the paper.

    September 24th, 2009 at 10:48

Leave a comment