Date: 2009-07-28 06:22 am (UTC)
I think the initial check makes sense. You certainly don't want someone who has been arrested for sex crimes against children getting a job that puts them with kids.

I also think the process exists to dissuade people from going for those jobs. I wonder how many people who have been thinking about young girls sitting on their knee have been put off playing Father Christmas because they have to have a police check? They may never have been arrested for anything, but they might be scared off by the idea that maybe the police will dig deep and find something to arrest them on.

The problem is that, like most systems, it's very easy to get past it, deliberately or accidentally. I know one year I played Santa without having had the check done. I thought the company was going to handle it, they thought I was going to handle it. So I played Santa for six weeks without having been checked up on for the Nth time.

At the same time, I had one woman tell me about her nieces, who had been felt up in no uncertain terms by the Santa the previous year. When I asked if they reported him, they said no, and all I could think was, 'And how many other people didn't report him, which is why your nieces got felt up? And how many girls got felt up after yours?'

So, genuine question, what steps do you think should be taken to protect people like the one you're mentoring? What process would you be satisfied with as a good working proposal that protects everyone invonved?
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting
.

Profile

dalekboy: (Default)
dalekboy

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags