Today's Daily Telegraph (this link contains some very unpleasant detail but an inspiring and encouraging message for those who have been abused) sums the story up in one simple sentence: "A respected teacher, member of the church and a family friend – who would you trust more?"
Why wash this item of Methodism's dirty linen in public on this blog? I'll explain. I am fed up with complaints about the need for Criminal Records Bureau checks on those who work with children. I get fed up with tabloid stories attacking the "elf and safety" brigade. I winch when I hear people say of safeguarding policies "this is political correctness gone mad".
The reason we need these checks is precisely to avoid young boys like Brian Moore being abused in our name. I know its a nuisance. I know that it inhibits our work with young people. But what sort of witness was this "respected teacher" and "member of the church" to Brian and the other youngsters involved?
Thankfully, largely due to the pioneering work of Methodism's own charity for children and young people Action for Children, we have been ahead of many other congregations and churches in protecting young people in our care. Let's continue to provide this protection and reject those that constantly attack our bureaucratic systems which support that protection, be it in the church or from the government.
Posts
11 comments:
Thank you for your post, and for sharing this wrenching tale, and the hope that continues today because of programs like COEP and the ongoing efforts to make places safer for youth and children in the church.
The reason we need these checks is precisely to avoid young boys like Brian Moore being abused in our name. I know its a nuisance.
Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.
While I agree with the need for safeguarding of our young people there are a couple of things that bother me about CRB checks and that is that in reality they do not prove that the person is not a danger to our young people. In fact all they prove is that someone has not been caught and in some sense are about as much use as an MOT certificate on a car - good only on the day it is done.
My other concern is about the way we seem to be heading with the whole issue of safeguarding and whether there is a reality that we will end up with every member of the church having to have a CRB check.
Sorry I said two but I have a third and that is what about the person who in their teens many years ago committed an offence such as burglary which they may well be ashamed of and not want anyone to know about - might this mean that they would not be willing to go through the process because they do not want to rake up something of this time and their talents and abilities might be lost to the church. As I understand it all offences are recorded in CRB checks - surely only those relevant need to be recorded i.e. offences against the person or of a sexual nature or even those listed in our own safeguarding documents - why does all the dirty washing have to be made public - and yes I know it would not be everyone in the church but maybe even that one person knowing is more than the person being checked would like.
As a matter of interest and to prevent me getting savaged by anyone with an opposing view i did raise all of these issues in our recent safeguarding training sessions and felt there was some agreement with the points from some of the people present.
To answer FP's point about the MOT-style limit on CRB checks - the new system changes that. If I've understood it correctly, following the initial CRB-style registration, a person is issued with a PIN, and any future checks will be made using that PIN; any new convictions or offences will be automatically flagged up.
Of course, that will include any criminal convictions or cautions, however irrelevant. And it will only prove that the person has never been caught. That's why alongside CRB checks, we insist on good practice - never being alone with a child, never being behind closed doors alone with a child, etc.
Thank you Tony I was aware of the changes but was obviously commenting on the situation as it stands today. I still wonder why there is a need to flag up irrelevant convictions that would be long dead under the rehabilitation of offenders legislation - I still think it could put some people off becoming a volunteer because they see no need for it to be brought out of the past.
I also support the good sense applied in much of our 'good practice' but have seen the other side in the last twelve months when the guidelines detailed in CPD were applied so rigidly it very nearly drove a whole family away from the church. I had always thought that guidelines were exactly that but the reality in this particular case was that the guidelines were treated as rules and every single one of them was applied in a situation that really did not warrant it. In fact the person involved had applied far more stringent sanctions himself than the church could have done, and, it seemed that there was very little concern about the offender or his family as long as the process had been followed.
Fortunately there was much support from the local church which helped the family through this time and it prevented the church losing a very dedicated family.
Getting the balance right is difficult, I think.
When I left the UK this summer, I had two churches that are so small that practically all the members WERE going to have to be CRB checked under the new guidelines even though we had very few children attending. This was simply because by the time you'd filled all the "checkable" offices, it pretty well included most of the membership.
FP, I'm sure we all take your point and it's hard to comment without knowing the particular situation. People in charge who have an OCD approach to the guidelines can make things difficult for everyone. There is no reason why minor convictions have to be made known to all and sundry; in most cases, this should stop with the individual receiving the CRB report (usually the minister, but not always).
The other side of the story is that people will throw hissy-fits at the idea of being CRB checked. Now maybe EVERY single individual who was going to be newly CRB checked had some kind of minor offense that they thought the new minister was going to make public to all and sundry but somehow I doubt it. The burden of the extra effort ends up on the minister who has to fill out the form perfectly or get fined £5 for every form with any mistake on it! All the individuals have to do is show up with the right documentation.
A LOT of people seem to take CRB checks as a personal affront: "Well! If they are going to accuse me of being a pervert, then I don't want to volunteer for them!!!" I agree with David that I have no time for this. The safety of children is paramount. Also Tony makes the excellent point that we need to follow best practice; a lot of people seem to take offense at this as well.
Hi Pam may be a little dense here but what is OCD?
I appreciate your comments about not knowing the details of the case and part of the difficulty lies in the interpretation of said guidelines and the almost jobsworth zeal with which they were being applied.
I also understand the difficulty in the smaller church and for some the difficulty when after many years of service they are asked to complete a CRB check with little explanation other than we have got to do this because the government and the powers that be at church house say we have. I remember just a few years ago the problems that arose from having to sign safeguarding forms, particularly among local preachers who felt it was quite silly given that in their opinion they were never alone with children and consequently did not see the need. Again I am not sure how well this may or may not have been handled and whether that was part of the problem.
As a responsible parent I fully agree that safety of our children is paramount and have no problem with good practice being applied.
FP - I think Pam means "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder".
The debate about the extent to which the rules are applied will become even more interesting when the ISA registration starts, and covers work with vulnerable adults. That will surely trigger checks on anybody who volunteers on a transport rota for Sunday services or lunch clubs for instance.
Sorry, that Anonymous comment was mine. I wasn't deliberately being anonymous, I just had Javascript disabled.
FP - Simon has it right. By "OCD" I meant "Obsessive compulsive disorder" as a sort of metaphor. The way you put it - "the interpretation of said guidelines and the almost jobsworth zeal with which they were being applied" pretty well covers it. That helps no-one.
Thank you both (or all three) for the clarification - I really must start watching 'Monk' according to my son.
Simon I think you are right about the transport rota etc and again I do wonder if we will see more problems with arguably some of our most needy members not being able to attend church if drivers are unwilling to be subject to the checks. It may be they will argue they are only giving someone a lift!
Pam you are absolutely spot on and it is unfortunate that the guidelines in the case I relate to were applied in that way and may well have been applied in this way because the main person involved from the safeguarding perspective was taking a lead from the national person initially without knowing the circumstances of the case.
I am happy to say that almost twelve months has transpired and there has been a mellowing of opinions as the safeguarding person has come to know the offender and gained a wider understanding of the actual situation.
My main concern was the apparent lack of support from the broader church for the family of the offender. It was almost as if they were guilty by association in the eyes of the wider safeguarding team.
Post a Comment