Ross,
That's right AFAIK but I think we should not view CRB's as a "nice to
have, so why not".
I am no lawyer either. But the law in the UK protects people who have
come out of prison against discrimination. For this reason CRB checks
are limited to people who need them for valid reasons, as listed. Some
organisations do take a very liberal view of what "in direct contact
with children" means and hope that they will win trial by tabloid if
they get caught (since ex-prisoners do not have much popular support).
But you should not regard CRBing everyone as being "safe, just in
case". That's misuse. Overuse of CRB is as dodgy underuse of CRB
checking.
In these circumstances I would say the correct route is to appoint the
board without CRB checks but get them to approve a CRB policy with
checking as necessary before people undertake activities requiring
them.
Andrew
===============
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Ross Gardler
<ross.gardler(a)oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
Andrew Cates wrote:
Friends,
If I may add a comment on this? I think you are in danger of breaking
the law in requesting a CRB from a candidate.
I'm no lawyer, I can only speak from experience.
It was a requirement of the (public) funding of a social enterprise
working with children (in this case very young children) that all
volunteers *who came into direct contact with children* were CRB checked.
It was *not* a requirement for the board members to be CRB checked,
although the board agreed to implement a voluntary CRM checking scheme
for all volunteers.
Ross
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l