CODE is no longer useful

Inland paddling
ali
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:42 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by ali » Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:57 am

BaldockBabe wrote:But if coaches don't coach kids why to they have to have a CRB? Or I have missed something?
That question was asked at a coaching update course last month. The answer that was given was basically that coaches are coaches. There is no restriction of who you coach and you have been trained to teach everybody therefore you need to have the CRB check as whilst you might not coach juniors now there is nothing to stop you in the future.

Just be aware if you've been CRB checked elsewhere you still need a CRB check from the BCU as they are none transferable (not the BCUs fault). It doesn't cost anything to you, you just need to get the BCU to send you a form and then you're club welfare officer should be able to confirm you're who you are so you don't have to send all your id off in the post. If you're not in a club a club welfare officer of a local club can still help.

BaldockBabe
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:55 am
Location: Hertfordshire
Contact:

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by BaldockBabe » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:14 am

But it should be up to the club or person employing the coach to ensure that they are CRB checked. Why should our club insist that our coaches are CRB check to satisfy some jobsworth at the BCU when we are an adults only club?

Are the BCU saying that anyone that may have an allegation/ conviction against them that shows up on a CRB check shouldn't be able to coach? Should a guy (for example) out there who unknowingly slept with a 15 year old girl when he was 16, has a black mark against his CRB check, be prevented from coaching in an adults only environment?

How long before the BCU insists on every adult at every competition being made to have a CRB check?

User avatar
shanclan
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: Monmouth
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by shanclan » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:17 am

Well done the BCU for responding to ridiculous overkill legislation by taking it one step further.

Jay Oram
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:03 am
Location: South east London/South Wales Hay-on-Wye
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Jay Oram » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:00 pm

As far as I know, if your CRB does come back with any records then it is still up to whoever you work for or the managing organisation as to whether you can still coach.

Therefore even if you were a mass murderer, the CRB will say that, but if you're welfare officer doesn't mind and neither do the other members then it makes no difference.

It's free, only one other sheet of paper to fill in and if it puts children in a safer position then I can't argue with that reasoning.

Jay

User avatar
Benny_boy
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:24 am
Location: Bristol

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Benny_boy » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:25 pm

I personally think CRB checks are somewhat useless. I appreciate why they exist, but they only work if a no-do-gooder has been caught. There seems to be a concept that a CRB check means an individual is ok (and there is absolute shock if a CRBed person is hauled up on some charge). They're a useless (and costly) bit of paper that with zero transferability, very short legs and that generates a false sense of security.
The world is unfair, but as long as it's unfair in my favour I don't mind.

User avatar
Randy Fandango
Posts: 3387
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 5:10 pm
Location: London/Kent/Somewhere flat and dry

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Randy Fandango » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:38 pm

Flo wrote:Did anyone else noticed the request for a CRB with the BCU tucked into the oddly folded last page?
I'm the Head of Centre of a BCU approved centre, am a relatively highly qualified BCU coach, a member of a club and an active paddler.
Reading this was the first time I'd seen that the BCU wants to CRB me (on top of my very recent work one).
Hats off to the BCU for another wonderful bit of communication!
Giles

User avatar
shanclan
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: Monmouth
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by shanclan » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:42 pm

Jay Oram wrote:.....and if it puts children in a safer position then I can't argue with that reasoning.

Jay
I can argue with the reasoning that it puts children in a safer position. The CRB process puts children in more danger by very publicly destroying the relationship between adults and children:

- all regular contact between children and non-family members becomes mediated by the state. This denies children the spectrum of contact they need to develop their own sense of how to relate to adults and how to keep themselves safe.
- a large number of adults are being put off by the process and are withdrawing from any child related activities. A lot of valuable experience and mentoring is being lost.
- those who do continue to coach are becoming paranoid about any physical or emotional contact with their students. A coach might once have been a confidante outside the family, this is now very rarely the case. Most child abuse happens in the family, escape routes outside the family are being closed by this distancing.
- I think some adults are put off participating in the sport with their children by this culture. The CRB process creates an atmosphere of distrust of any adult who undertakes activities with children. An active adult member of a canoe club will be handling kids (rescues, helping with kit etc.), sharing cars etc. If the BCU is saying you have to have a CRB to coach children, then that logic could easily be extended to any adult club member.

CRB has been running for a while now, yet there are no statistics to say it has had any impact on child safety at all. However, in the same period, I bet there has been a reduction in the numbers of people actively coaching all sports.

User avatar
davebrads
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2002 11:42 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by davebrads » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:46 pm

Jay Oram wrote:It's free, only one other sheet of paper to fill in and if it puts children in a safer position then I can't argue with that reasoning.
It's not free; there is a cost involved, the bill for which is being picked up by the taxpayer. It is arguable that it puts children in a safer position, and there is a detrimental side to the CRB check and much other legislation and codes of practice designed to protect children as discussed in previous posts on this subject. So, in my opinion, we are all paying for something that has an overall negative effect upon the wellbeing of our children.

ps. Shanclan made much the same point in greater detail.

twopigs
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:55 pm
Location: Stroud & Cheltenham
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by twopigs » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:53 pm

Jay Oram wrote:As far as I know, if your CRB does come back with any records then it is still up to whoever you work for or the managing organisation as to whether you can still coach.

Therefore even if you were a mass murderer, the CRB will say that, but if you're welfare officer doesn't mind and neither do the other members then it makes no difference.

It's free, only one other sheet of paper to fill in and if it puts children in a safer position then I can't argue with that reasoning.

Jay
The fault in this post is that the CRB with details goes (in our case) to the BCU. They then decide what to do - and although I've asked that hypothetical question I've never had an answer. Possibly the BCU are forbidden to tell anybody else - data protection and all that - so your club welfare officer probably won't know. I do hope the BCU are allowed to write to the club from which the request for a CRB originated to say - We can't tell you more but the CRB that came back is unsatisfactory and you can't let that person coach.
Canoeing - bigger boat, broken paddle, more skill!

User avatar
Benny_boy
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:24 am
Location: Bristol

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Benny_boy » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:56 pm

I used to be a fairly active coach and was so off my own back. I was rarely paid for my time. I no longer hold any qualifications and have given up my membership of the BCU as it all became too costly to maintain.
The world is unfair, but as long as it's unfair in my favour I don't mind.

User avatar
mitch
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Chester

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by mitch » Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:14 pm

ali wrote:
BaldockBabe wrote:But if coaches don't coach kids why to they have to have a CRB? Or I have missed something?
That question was asked at a coaching update course last month. The answer that was given was basically that coaches are coaches. There is no restriction of who you coach and you have been trained to teach everybody therefore you need to have the CRB check as whilst you might not coach juniors now there is nothing to stop you in the future.

Just be aware if you've been CRB checked elsewhere you still need a CRB check from the BCU as they are none transferable (not the BCUs fault). It doesn't cost anything to you, you just need to get the BCU to send you a form and then you're club welfare officer should be able to confirm you're who you are so you don't have to send all your id off in the post. If you're not in a club a club welfare officer of a local club can still help.
Thanks for this. It's answered some important questions. I'm fully in support the idea of CRBs (although do admit the system requires improvements), so long as the people requesting them are covering the costs.

User avatar
stuartsmith
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:24 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by stuartsmith » Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:36 pm

stuartsmith wrote: We have managed to get the balance of Canoe Focus copies sent Friday to the SCA office. We've got address labels prepared ready so hopefully the magazines will arrive with us tomorrow and we'll be sending the "missing" Focus copies out to those SCA members that haven't yet received theirs. Apologies for the delay. Stuart
Remaining Focus sent to SCA members today from SCA office. Regards, Stuart

Jay Oram
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:03 am
Location: South east London/South Wales Hay-on-Wye
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Jay Oram » Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:24 pm

I didn't realise anyone was against CRB's, something i've never come across. Having volunteered in scouting, as well as coaching and working as an instructor, mostly with children I have always had to have a CRB test (I'm only 21 so was always there)

I mean the CRB is of no extra cost to a coach, as coaches pay taxes too. I would argue that although stats don't show CRB checks helped stop abuse, they have probably prevented reoffenders abusing again. You could probably tally the drop in coaches in all sports to a number of things, such as "bigger tomatoes in the last five years and also less coaches." So that has no relevance.

Education on preventing abuse (BCU online child protection course, child protection courses) is the best way to helping, but CRB stops people who could put children at risk getting to close. I would say that all adults should have a CRB test if they are going to be helping around children, if theres nothing to worry about then what problem have people got with spending 10minutes filling out a form? If you only coach adults, you could still come in contact with their children and a CRB protects against vulnerable adults as well, therefore anyone in a position of trust should have a CRB.

Why would a CRB affect a relationship with a child, such as that of a coach, it just means that people are more aware, I can't see any proof in where I have worked that CRB's have affected this. The worry about paedophiles and abuse is not from CRB forms but from the media, as well as parents misguidance and eduaction.

Jay

User avatar
shanclan
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:57 pm
Location: Monmouth
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by shanclan » Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:45 pm

Jay Oram wrote: I would argue that although stats don't show CRB checks helped stop abuse, they have probably prevented reoffenders abusing again. You could probably tally the drop in coaches in all sports to a number of things, such as "bigger tomatoes in the last five years and also less coaches." So that has no relevance.
I know people who don't enter the coaching/volunteering route because of the paperwork (including CRB) and the whole hysteria about "child protection". I haven't met anyone who decided not to coach because tomatoes have got bigger. Anecdotal I know.

Stopping re-offenders is about monitoring those individuals, not about having a level playing field where everyone is treated as if they have the same intent as a potential re-offender.
Jay Oram wrote:Education on preventing abuse (BCU online child protection course, child protection courses) is the best way to helping, but CRB stops people who could put children at risk getting to close. I would say that all adults should have a CRB test if they are going to be helping around children, if theres nothing to worry about then what problem have people got with spending 10minutes filling out a form? If you only coach adults, you could still come in contact with their children and a CRB protects against vulnerable adults as well, therefore anyone in a position of trust should have a CRB.
Just because something is quick and easy to do doesn't make it right. Just because something appears to reduce a tiny risk does not mean you should do it.

User avatar
Benny_boy
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:24 am
Location: Bristol

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Benny_boy » Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:57 pm

Jay Oram wrote:I didn't realise anyone was against CRB's, something I've never come across.
My issue is the number of them that are required. If it was a case of just one that lasted 3 years, or even just a year, that wouldn't be so bad. However, at £30 a pop (or whatever it is now) mulitplied by 1 for scouts, 1 for DofE, one of each centre you might work for, 1 for each group of vulerable adults you might come into contact with, etc, etc. That £30 suddenly turns into the hundreds. Ahhhh, but the argument goes that since getting your most recent CRB you might have been a naughty boy. Fair enough. But that would mean, in my understanding, I'd need a CRB everytime I went out as a coach - even for the same organisation. Just to make sure I've not been a naughty boy since last week.
Jay Oram wrote: I mean the CRB is of no extra cost to a coach, as coaches pay taxes too. I would argue that although stats don't show CRB checks helped stop abuse, they have probably prevented reoffenders abusing again.
Exactly. They'll stop reoffenders abusing again. Now I'm not suggesting that everyone out there is evil and corrupt, but CRB ONLY works if the offender has been caught. I think too much weight is put on CRB being the end of it. People still need to use their own judgement, and still do I think.
The world is unfair, but as long as it's unfair in my favour I don't mind.

BaldockBabe
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:55 am
Location: Hertfordshire
Contact:

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by BaldockBabe » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:15 pm

If people think that CRB checks help stop child abuse why doesn't every parent, family members, plus their friend's get CRB checked? Reports show that most children that are abused are abused by their family or close family friends. To be honest I was shocked to see that 40% of sexually abused children were abuse by older/ larger children. None of these groups get checked...

A CRB check only shows that at a certain time you have not been caught. They are costly to administer (you may not be paying directly for them but your taxes and BCU membership are) and they are beurocratic. They may even make people more complacent, eg. Joe Bloggs has a CRB check, so he can't possibly be causing any harm. They make me feel as if I have to prove that they I am not guilty, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Hey, it looks like I would now have to prove that I am not guilty of a crime that bears no resemblence to the volunteer work that I am doing.

They were a knee-jerk, disproportionate response to a very small problem and it doesn't work.

User avatar
Adrian Cooper
Posts: 9711
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 2:26 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Adrian Cooper » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:25 pm

Hear, hear to the last three posts, I am absolutely against CRB checks and have been vocal on here in the past on the subject. They are an industry of irrelevance preventing nothing and costing industry and tax payers too much for any minute benefit they might yield. There must be a better way. I was really relieved when the government shelved the new ISA, thet was going to be a nightmare.

I refuse to have a CRB check. I am our club's welfare officer and anyone who suggests I may not be fit for the post could be open to a libel or slander action.

User avatar
Benny_boy
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:24 am
Location: Bristol

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Benny_boy » Mon Aug 16, 2010 3:39 pm

Even if you take the view that 'it doesn't cost me anything'. That same money could be used by centres and groups for something else. Another trip somewhere, equipment, an extra roast spud for everyone on the sunday roast. Who could say no to that!!!!!! (I'm sure some people will read that last bit somewhat incredulously - spitting blood about trading someones safety for an extra roastie. To them I say, please bear in mind the argments presented of previous posts.)
The world is unfair, but as long as it's unfair in my favour I don't mind.

Jay Oram
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:03 am
Location: South east London/South Wales Hay-on-Wye
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Jay Oram » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:39 pm

Would people rather there is nothing like a CRB check and then wait until someone offends?

To you, me and probably everyone on this forum it has no use, we all have done nothing, we never will, however if there isn't some sort of check then anyone who has offended would be free to do it again right?

I would love one check every couple of years with a reference number, that I could give to whoever wanted to employ me and then they could check on a database, that could be updated constantly if someone did offend, but as it isn't available I will just have to carry on doing CRB's, where I am about to work, at a Local Education Authority residential centre it is compulsory, I can't disagree with them on that and I don't want to. All the staff are checked, so are the parents who come to the centre to assisst with groups, no problems with kids still going though.
Hear, hear to the last three posts, I am absolutely against CRB checks and have been vocal on here in the past on the subject. They are an industry of irrelevance preventing nothing and costing industry and tax payers too much for any minute benefit they might yield. There must be a better way. I was really relieved when the government shelved the new ISA, thet was going to be a nightmare.

I refuse to have a CRB check. I am our club's welfare officer and anyone who suggests I may not be fit for the post could be open to a libel or slander action.
I just filled out a CRB form and the ISA stuff was on there, so I don't think it was scrapped Adrian, or it is optional I'm not sure. Why would the fact people would ask about a CRB cause you to straight away think of libel or slander, it's the same as do you have a driving licence or coaching qualification surely? I'm not saying you are unfit for the post, just asking why it would offend?
I think too much weight is put on CRB being the end of it. People still need to use their own judgement, and still do I think.
I also never said a CRB should be the only thing used to defend against abuse, I mentioned the child protection courses and education of others. I think employers are very vigilant and so are other adults.
Just because something is quick and easy to do doesn't make it right. Just because something appears to reduce a tiny risk does not mean you should do it.
If you could prevent a 'tiny risk' while on the river, i'm sure you would take steps to safeguard against it, why not treat children the same.

Jay Oram
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:03 am
Location: South east London/South Wales Hay-on-Wye
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Jay Oram » Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:42 pm

Kind of hijacked this topic, I've started a new one here on CRB's if people would like to carry on discussing;

http://www.ukriversguidebook.co.uk/foru ... =3&t=67009

Sorry to have taken so far off topic,

Jay

User avatar
Flo
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:47 am
Location: Chandlers Ford

Re: CODE is no longer useful

Post by Flo » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:27 pm

Might of been my fault, just trying to point out a useful, if irrataing piece of info in the CODE

Post Reply

Return to “Whitewater and Touring”