Criminal Record Bureau Check

[w/robe]

I was in a school recently - there to check they were assessing correctly. The teacher and I had been chatting and as we walked out, a group of kids were 'playing' music. The teacher said that the bass player was having real problems as she hadn't been playing long - could I give her any tips. So I sat down and spent 15 mins with her going through some basic techniques. Should the school have even allowed me into the building? Should I have been able to do what I did. I suspect the answer should be no - but it is such a mess to get right?

 

This should not be a problem so long as the teacher stayed with you as they are then responsible for the child's safety and welfare.

 

Fitting of radio mics is an entirely different problem and should only be done by someone who has been checked. Rather than have all your crew checked you have to teach the chaperones to fit the mics and if one goes down during the performance that is unfortunate but can not be rectified by the crew until it is removed.

 

As for removing a child as they are about to be brained by a piece of scenery flying in, I'm sure you would always take every precaution to avoid this sort of incident in the first place but if it becomes necessary anyone rescues the child as you would if you saw them about to be run over in the street. However you could not argue that the scene change taking longer than usual, the flying cue being missed or even the show having to be cancelled would be a reason to lift a child out of the way.

[jhughes01]

I worked as a technician in a school immediately after leaving it, and while the senior staff thought that them knowing me for the previous 5 years would suffice, the County Council demanded that I underwent a CRB Enhanced Disclosure. This is the same level as teaching staff - so I guess it must differ between LEAs/Employers.

Also, I took on a responsibility for an enterprise team (as part of my role) and had to be re-CRB'd despite having an "in-date" CRB. Luckily it was paid for on both occasions.

 

As for supervision, the "non-teaching staff" union recommended that their members did not spend time with people "one-to-one" - but this was more to do with the risk of false accusations which sadly happen withor without a CRB. Despite my CRB check, I always used a willing pupil of the same age (and normally gender) as the performers to fit radio mics - if you're not there, you can't be litigated against!

 

Most of the time places seem to want a CRB to cover their backs - I have to have one to live in my university accomodation, because there is the risk I will come into contact with "vulnerable persons".

[char-p]

Really this should be a question that we bat up to the professional organisations most of us pay to be a part of, ABTT etc... as they could forsee processing enough applications - maybe this would be a better line of inquiry.

 

Paul

[Guest lightnix]

Then again, given the current "ar5e / elbow" problems at the Home Office, are CRB checks currently of any value?

 

1,500 people given criminal records after CRB blunders

 

THE Liverpool-based Criminal Records Bureau was at the centre of a political storm last night after it emerged... a series of errors at the Home Office centre reportedly led to people... being identified as pornographers, thieves and violent robbers.

 

...some people were turned down for jobs or university places while others had to be fingerprinted at their local police station to prove that they were not criminals...

 

[The Home Office] said the mistakes were a result of "mismatches" that arose when the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) was carrying out checks on people applying for jobs working in positions of trust... because the individual's details are similar or even identical to someone else's conviction data on the Police National Computer...

 

...Run by IT firm Capita, the CRB employs more than 500 people at its Princes Dock headquarters.

Full story here - icLiverpool, 22/05/2006

 

CRB chief apologises over blunder

 

The head of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) apologised to a young victim of his department's blunders as the Home Office faced a series of damaging revelations about its work.

 

Speaking on GMTV, CRB chief executive Vince Gaskell said he "deeply regretted" the distress and hurt to an estimated 2,700 people wrongly labelled as criminals due to errors by the bureau...

Full story here - Guardian Unlimited, 22/05/2006

 

I read elsewhere (but can't find the link now) that the problem is due to Capita's system depending on a Name / DoB combination as a unique personal identifier; as far as their system is concerned their can only be one John Smith born on 1st April 1960 :D

 

ID cards, anybody? ;) :P

[Ellis]

The letter of the law is that it is illegal to permit someone to work with children (or vulerable adults) if they are forbidden from doing so (list 99, sex offenders register... ).

 

The CRB Enhanced check, while not essential, is the widely accepted best practice for ensuring that a prospective employee is not on such a list. The standard check can also be used by a security company to check that their prospective security guard has not got any relevant covictions, or by the SIA when issuing a door supervisor licence (the SIA acts as an umbrella body in this respect).

 

Some organisations accept the candidate copy of a recent CRB disclosure for short-term engagements with limited supervised contact to children.

 

Supply teachers, working for an agency, are theoretically CRB (or DfE) checked by the agency, not the schools they work in. Since casual technicians rarely work through agencies, this would not be an option (but a group of technicians could form a co-operative, check their members and supply their members services as regularly checked technicians).

 

The ideal solution would be for the trade organisations, say BECTU, the ABTT, Equity, etc to perform CRB checks as a (chargeable) membership option and endorse membership cards accordingly.

 

CRB Disclosure is a double-edged sword. The more pervasve such checking becomes, the less value it really has. If, say, 80% of the popoulation were checked regularly, people would become complacent about letting checked individuals work with children in a completely unsupervised way.

 

The most important concept of child protection is the fact that almost all the principles are better described as Protecting the adult. There should never be a need for a casual theatre technician to ever be alone with a child or group of children (other than their own) who, in a theatre, should be properly chaperoned anyway! A little caution, making sure that you avoid such situations, ensuring that you always have another resposible adult present (your witness) and not doing something stupid like visiting the childrens dressing rooms unless essential - and definately not meeting the children outside the theatre.

[Ynot]

Fitting of radio mics is an entirely different problem and should only be done by someone who has been checked. Rather than have all your crew checked you have to teach the chaperones to fit the mics and if one goes down during the performance that is unfortunate but can not be rectified by the crew until it is removed.

That, I'm afraid, is not always an option. Especially with am-dram groups. For our longest-run show (a mere 2 weeks in panto, 14 performances) we could potentially have two, or even three sound techs who at some stage in the run would need to dish out the mics. Now on the whole, the cats of said show are 99% adult - can't recall the last child who had a mic, but the potential is there. But to put the onus on a chaperone/matron means that for the same show, you could theoretically be dealing with half-a-dozen possible matrons as they work on a rota - many of them are parents who've all been CRB been checked but you wouldn't guarantee the same person 2 nights running, which makes 'training' them more of a problem. That's if they were willing to BE trained, "...cos it's technical stuff, innit...?!"

Which takes us back to making sure that as far as possible, all ound crew are checked as a result.

As for removing a child as they are about to be brained by a piece of scenery flying in, I'm sure you would always take every precaution to avoid this sort of incident in the first place but if it becomes necessary anyone rescues the child as you would if you saw them about to be run over in the street.

'Taking every precaution' isn't as easy as it may sound. Kids being kids will wander, and if a matron has a half-dozen to monitor on a dark stage wing, there's always the potential (there's that word again!) for a child to be where they're not supposed to be! That very instance happened to one of my stage crew a while back - he was standing awaiting a scene change when he saw the adult cast en-masse just about to come hairing off stage when he saw a young girl at the side of stage about to be trampled. he dashed across, picked her up, turned, shielded her from the rush on a small wing-space which by reaction put her in the upstage corner. He then replaced the child on the deck and checked she was ok. later he thought to himself, what happens if, when asked "What did you do at the show today dear" by parents, and she replied "A nice man picked me up backstage and cuddled me in the corner".....!

Now that guy is a serving copper, but he also had to go through an enhanced CRB to get covered, which he insisted on doing.

However you could not argue that the scene change taking longer than usual, the flying cue being missed or even the show having to be cancelled would be a reason to lift a child out of the way.

There may be room to disagree with that statement under some circumstances.....!

[w/robe]

Ynot

 

OK, replies to some of your points.

 

If you are getting all of the parents who are chaperoning checked you can add a member of the sound crew to the list. On a pro. show it would be very unusual to have more than 2 chaperones working with a specific child.

 

 

Hopefully the 'nice man' was seen rescuing the small child and also reported the incident to his superiors and to the chaperone.

 

 

I don't think there is much room for disagreement when you ask 'is it acceptable to manhandle a minor just to ensure the smooth running of the show as opposed to for their safety?'

[Ynot]

If you are getting all of the parents who are chaperoning checked you can add a member of the sound crew to the list. On a pro. show it would be very unusual to have more than 2 chaperones working with a specific child.

That's my point - with my work (mainly) being amateur we're trying to get everyone checked as a matter of course, and that includes the tech's. I agree that a pro show is very different wrt the number of staff in any position, and yes, if there were only 2 chaperones covering a specific kid then yes ou can educate them on how to wire the mics up.

Hopefully the 'nice man' was seen rescuing the small child and also reported the incident to his superiors and to the chaperone.

It was a while back, prior to the current emphasis on the CRB's becoming legend, but it's the reason he often quotes to anyone who whinges about not wanting the hassle of filling in forms, and also one I use for the same reasons.

I don't think there is much room for disagreement when you ask 'is it acceptable to manhandle a minor just to ensure the smooth running of the show as opposed to for their safety?'

Actually, whilst I agree in principle that safety should be the main reason to 'manhandle' a child, what I actually quoted was...

However you could not argue that the scene change taking longer than usual, the flying cue being missed or even the show having to be cancelled would be a reason to lift a child out of the way.

and the room for disagreement is based on the fact that at the end of the day the tech crew are there to do a job. Part of that job is to ensure the smooth runing of the show. If a child is in the wrong place at the wrong time, then a responsible crew member should take steps to remove the offending youngster. That doesn't always mean physically carrying said child, but should start with speaking toa chaperone/matron if available (and they SHOULD be available) but in the absence of that responsible person said crew-person should have the ability to appropriately deal with the situation to ensure that child does not impair the show's running. It could mean guiding them carefully, or leading them by the hand, or whatever's necessary within reason - which is precisely WHY we should encourage ALL tech crew to not only CRB registered but deliver some kind of guidance on how to deal with errant kids.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting all-out carry-out of kids just 'in the technicians' way' but there is a line - maybe a thin one, but it's there!

 

Someone else said I think in this thread that much of the regulation is actually geared to protecting the ADULT as well as the child, and in this sort of business (and others) we too do need some protection. As I said above, I'm married to a teacher and know too well the restrictions these days on that profession, as well as the overall results of the way that many teachers are left to deal with unruly pupils whilst essentially wearing a pair of procedural handcuffs!

But that's a WHOLE other topic, and very :D indeed!!! :P

[paulears]

To my mind, the weak link in this chain is the chaperone/matron - licenced person. The little badge doesn't make that person competent to supervise youngsters on a busy, and possibly dangerous stage. I found the kids to be fine, but dealing with the chaperones was a real issue. They wanted 'total' control over the kids, but seemed very unaware of how dangerous certain things were - flying, being my main problem area - they looked all around, looking for signs of anyone talking to their kids. Trouble was they didn't ever look up - causing the flymen real problems, as although the kids were socially safe, they weren't physically safe. My solution, they stay off the stage until the last minute, get brought on, perform, then clear off. No chance of any of them seeing much what was going on - very little chance of them socialising with the younger cast and crew - which is a real shame. Dancers, especially the older ones often knew the younger members of the crew, who lived locally, but any form of socialising was forbidden - I find that a bit sad. One 17 yr old asked one of the 15yr olds to go to McDonalds between shows. The girls mum didn't mind - I was happy as long as they were both there for the half, but the chaperone - she said NO.

 

when I was a teenager, the main reason I got into theatre was to meet people - well, 50% of them. As far as I can tell, this has been the way amateur companies often work, with socialising being pretty high on the importance list. Thanks to a few scumbags, theatre isn't as fun as it was until they no longer need a chaperone. They can be friends at school, on the way home from school, but not in the theatre during a show!

[Andrew C]

Here Here! What we are faced with (IMHO) is a significantly increased perception of risk. Not a real increase in risk. To counter that perceived risk a lot of fun has been taken out of life. Going for country walks, riding stupidly fast motorcycles, footie down the park, flirting with the dancers... :D

[GridGirl]

To my mind, the weak link in this chain is the chaperone/matron - licenced person. The little badge doesn't make that person competent to supervise youngsters on a busy, and possibly dangerous stage. I found the kids to be fine, but dealing with the chaperones was a real issue. They wanted 'total' control over the kids, but seemed very unaware of how dangerous certain things were - flying, being my main problem area - they looked all around, looking for signs of anyone talking to their kids. Trouble was they didn't ever look up - causing the flymen real problems, as although the kids were socially safe, they weren't physically safe.

 

I did a run of Les Mis back in New Zealand (ah, the joys of being able to get amateur rights there!) and the chaperone looking after our kids was a danger to everybody. Lovely lady, but not the youngest person in the world, and consequently not the sharpest. The kids had to be on stage around the time of the Master of the House scene change, which for us was pretty big, and slightly frantic. After the dress rehearsals (and some very near misses), the stage manager realised we had a major problem on our hands, and that someone, probably the chaperone, was going to get hurt if nothing was done. The solution was that the two stage electricians (me and another girl) who happened not to be busy at that point in the show, would take the kids from the chaperone at the dressing room door and take them round to where they needed to be - Eponine got handed over to Thenardier just before their entrance, and Cosette was taken to centre stage. I wasn't CRB checked, and I'm pretty sure the other girl wasn't either. But is that less of a risk than having a chaperone who was likely to cause safety problems in the wings? We thought so. Probably we should have found a new chaperone, but that wasn't my department, and in amateur theatre you sometimes have to take what you can get. Maybe all chaperones should be put through a stage orientation and safety course when they come onto a show....

[paulears]

That's exactly it! Gridgirl hit it spot on! The best people to do the contact are not the right ones. Back up the thread, it was suggested that fitting radio mics was somthing the chaperones should do? Er.... as in stick it in (on, or under) and it will kind of work, no matter how it's fitted. A quick battery check, slight retightening of a screw in aerial, checking a mute switch isn't accidentally on - these kind of tasks are beyond non-technical people - AND we have just the people on-stage anyway A2/3, asms, stage lx - any of these know their stuff. The key here is acting in a professional manner when doing it - but in a blind panic, finding the chaperone first simply isn't an option for most people.

 

What really gets me is that at our panto last year, the kids come up on stage for the songsheet. One little lad said "I want a wee" - backstage is off limits to the kids at this point as the finale set is coming together very quickly. The kid comes off into the wings. I'm the only person spare, so the little lad grabs my hand and I walk him safely backstage to the loo in the corridor, with the intention of sending him in, waiting outside, then taking him back. I've got two kids of my own and would like to think I've got toilet stuff off pretty well. The chaperone didn't see it like that - she pulled the kids away and marched him off to the loo - then went in with him. "You're not allowed to do that" was her comment. My teachers CRB at that time was about 7 mnths old - but I didn't push it.

 

It just annoys me that what is happening is that we are guilty until proven innocent by a bit of paper. In another show, a similar thing happened with a little girl, and the fairy took her to the loo. Some kind of common sense has to come into play here.

 

Doormen, bouncers, call them what you will have to have crb type checks too now. Now this, to me, seems far more sensible. Stopping the few dodgy bouncers makes sense to me - and is smething where criminal records can be put to good use - nobody wants to emply a security guard with a conviction for theft, or a bouncer who finds GBH acceptable. But with kids in theatre, surely things are not so bad - I accept that there may well be a few dodgy people about, but dance school kids are surrounded by willing parents, and rarely are the kids in a one-to-one situation. I suppose that a single incident does tend to focu peoples minds, but the kids that are there do it because they like mixing with the adults. Keeping them in their dressing rooms just seems harsh - and a bit sad.

[Rowan]

I seem to remember reading something on the website about the portability of the Disclosure, and that you could do it, but it wasn't recommended.

 

Personally I have three of them! I still can't manage to fill out the forms correctly first time round though.

[bruce]

Maybe all chaperones should be put through a stage orientation and safety course when they come onto a show....

 

Surely everyone who has reason to be in the stage area - chaperones included - should do this?

[GridGirl]

Back up the thread, it was suggested that fitting radio mics was somthing the chaperones should do? Er.... as in stick it in (on, or under) and it will kind of work, no matter how it's fitted. A quick battery check, slight retightening of a screw in aerial, checking a mute switch isn't accidentally on - these kind of tasks are beyond non-technical people

 

Just had another thought on this - last panto, our sound no.2 was a 17 year old lad. He was fitting radio mics to a couple of the kids (albeit always with chaperones there), and so technically should probably have had a CRB check, but can you get a check if you're under 18? Possibly a tricky situation.