There is an argument for reducing the legal requirement for CRB checks. It seems to me that the CRB requirement is a political response, not based on logic. It's almost as if the only reason for carrying out a check (apart from staying within the law) is to fend off accusations of negligence when either someone discovers that a person in contact with children (or vulnerable adults) has had a conviction, or an abuse has occurred, and the conviction comes out in later investigation.
Both of these are irrelevant as far as child protection is concerned: the first is for the organisation's self protection, the second is too late. What is important is to make sure that wherever possible interactions with children take place in an environment where abuse is impossible or unlikely, and any incidents have some chance of being witnessed.
Both of these are irrelevant as far as child protection is concerned: the first is for the organisation's self protection, the second is too late. What is important is to make sure that wherever possible interactions with children take place in an environment where abuse is impossible or unlikely, and any incidents have some chance of being witnessed.
