Thursday, 24 December 2009

Oh, Those CRB Checks Work So Well, Don't They..?

Congratulations to staff at Norwood Manor Day Nursery, who spotted a convicted paedophile who had applied to work there after seeing him on a TV programme and alerting police.

Sadly, their efforts were in vain, as he was then placed in front of one of Coppersblog's mad judges, one Judge Christopher Hardy, who promptly gave him a suspended sentence:
Sentencing him at Southwark Crown Court on Tuesday, Judge Christopher Hardy said while it was “a serious matter” Smith had breached a ban from working with children given to him when originally jailed, he believed he had “not actively sought" to work with children.
Say what..?
The court heard there was "no evidence" of any "direct harm" to any child there and he had "tried to avoid contact with children”.
Apart from that whole 'applying to work at a nursery' thing, yes...

And how did he get past the CRB check? Simple. He didn't mention it. And they didn't check:
He had lied to Reed about not having a criminal record when he went seeking work following his release from prison, and the agency did not check him out further because he had a clean CRB check from when he worked with the agency in 2004.

The nursery did not check his record because it trusted Reed’s recommendation, the court heard.
And there we see the futility of relying on regulation.

And also the futility of imposing work restrictions on these people when no-one seems to care when they break them.

And yet, the justice system gets into a paddy when a washed-up 80s pop star released under license wants to take part in a reality show:
Alison Macdonald, O'Dowd's barrister, was refused permission by the judge to appeal against the ruling.

She told the court yesterday the probation service's decision was based on fears that it "would get another kicking" in the media.
And they don't think they would get one for this case?
at

5 comments:

  1. banned24 December 2009 at 09:58

    The management of the nursery will be liable to prosecution; their staff Have to have CRB checks but they last 3 years only, his ran out in 2004 as you note.

    ReplyDelete
  2. von Spreuth.24 December 2009 at 11:20

    She told the court yesterday the probation service's decision was based on fears that it "would get another kicking" in the media.

    WHAT!?

    So "saving face" is more important to the Probation service than actualy carrying out their JOB?

    Pity they do not fall on their swords as well then.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Angry Exile24 December 2009 at 11:53

    And there we see the futility of relying on regulation.

    And that's just the biggest thing wrong with the CRB: that people assume the regulations will do for them what used to be done by thinking for themselves. The other big problem is that it's a check against what you've been caught for. If someone has so far never been caught the CRB check is no deterrent anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  4. North Northwester24 December 2009 at 12:32

    I think I've worked out how to apply that old snobbery scale thing: "U" and non"U."
    This judge beggars belief.

    Not perfect, I know, but I'm at the office party.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AntiCitizenOne24 December 2009 at 16:21

    I think once I get rich I'm going to start a fund to give free accomodation to released paedophiles.

    It will be a "total coincidence" that they'll be in rented accomodation as close as possible to the judge that released them.

    ReplyDelete