That all sounds so sad, and typical of our current Government. Set up legislation on the pretence of protecting children, but make some dosh out of it at the same time. I must admit I've really had it with this Labour lot and their stealth taxes, their spin and total disregard/lack of interest, in the counrtyside. So who do I vote for, Conservative? Can't think why, they are simply New Labour Mark 2 (or maybe New Labour is Tory Mark 2). Lib Dem? Nice people, but would their policies be radically different from the others? At least in Scotland I can vote SNP, and Alex Salmond, for all his smugness, is bright, even though his only interest in the outdoors is horseracing.
Sorry to swerve off topic, and thanks for the insight SPM. It explains a lot.

I'll be honest here. I grew up in a rough area, and got in a few scrapes when i was younger. The odd punch up on a Saturday night. I had a couple of fines from the court for this.
I'm now in my 40's with 2 kids, one still at uni, and have been hill-walking, climbing, backpacking for about 25 years. I would say i'm a pretty decent member of society.
I used to help out on hill-walking and camping trips with city teenagers. I stopped when all these checks came into force. I didn't want the embarresment of failing a check because i got in a fight 30 years ago, and folk thinking i was some kind of child molester. I can't see the relevance of a few punch ups when i was a lad, to being a danger to kids?
Most of my friends that i grew up with also got into the same kinds of scrapes, and they are perfectly normal members of society.

This is the problem, exactly, Mike - honest, decent people such as yourself are being dissuaded from helping out with children's activities, either because they got into a few irrelevant scrapes when they were younger or because they simply refuse to comply with Labour's requirement for people to have to prove their innocence.

I don't think you've wandered off topic at all, Cameron - for the sake of our children we need to decide what sort of society we want them to grow up in, and the current crop of politicians fill me with horror, motivated as they are by money and spin. Who, indeed, whould we vote for?

Perhaps if enough people speak up for common sense then we can reverse this damaging trend, though my hopes are not high.

My wife applied for a job recently for which she needed to be CRB checked. There was also a form to fill in to do with "Rehabilitation of Offenders". Does this mean that there is a time after the misdemeanor when a person can be accepted for a post. It seems grossly unfair to me that a misdemeanor can follow someone around for life. I'd hope that it would depend upon the offence. Getting involved in a few fights or recieving a caution after a few years shouldn't be held against you if we believe someone should be allowed a 2nd chance. But do the rules allow for this? If not - why the rehabilitation form? My wife got the job :) but unfortunately has a clean record :( so I can't say if it's just political correctness with no substance. Also it could be a form that goes with any job now>

I don't know all the details Ian, but most minor convictions, cautions etc, are covered under the Rehabilition of Offenders Act. I think after 5 years you don't need to mention them if applying for a job, and they are effectively wiped from your record. It's different if you have actually went to prison for a more serious offence.
However, a CRB check goes all the way back. Your 'record' is then disclosed to any potential employer that asks for a CRB check as a condition of employment, wether any past offence was relevant to the job you have applied for or not.

The CRB check makes sense in some situations, as you wouldn't want someone convicted of theft working in your cash department, or a known molester working with children. However, wouldn't it be better if an employer could simply be told if a potential employee has been convicted for any offences that may make them unsuitable, rather than be handed that persons full record from childhood?

wouldn't it be better if an employer could simply be told if a potential employee has been convicted for any offences that may make them unsuitable, rather than be handed that persons full record from childhood?

This would depend on the offence. If it was a minor offence then it might be better that the employer know the details rather than be left to imagine what it might be. Then the employer can decide based on severity, how long ago it was, and the duties required by the post.

It seems to me that paedophilia is in a different class to most other crimes. Someone who stole at one time in their life could easily become reformed - especially if circumstances changed (like getting a paid job). If we want to give 2nd chances then we need a cut off in the CRB checking system for such offences. With paedophilia it seems this is often a lifelong tendancy, and it seems reasonable to me that it remain with the offender for life. Plus if you look at the consequences of re-offending of petty theft vs child molesting I think its harder to justify giving the paedophile a job with kids, but an understandable mistake with the thief.

This would depend on the offence. If it was a minor offence then it might be better that the employer know the details rather than be left to imagine what it might be

I don't think this is how it works though. As far as i know, all the employer gets is the bare facts. eg, 'Date, Court xxx, Theft, £100 fine.
The employer doesn't know if it was a woman with Post-natal Depression shoplifting, or perhaps stealing from an employer because they were a drug addict. The prospective employee probably wouldn't get to the interview stage to give their explanation of the offence.

For those interested in CRB checks and what they involve you can find out more information here:
http://careersadvice.direct.gov.uk/helpandadvice/exoffenders/disclosure.htm

Call me cynical, but I suspect that the CRB don't make a judgement call on what is relevant and what is not is that they could be held accountable. In my experience civil servants will avoid being held accountable if possible. Decision by committee is far less risky. Alternatively, you could argue that if the CRB were to take the risk in making a decision, they would have to charge for taking the risk.

[I apologise in advance if the above offends any civil servants. I'm sure there are examples that would contradict my experience. I could probably think of a couple myself if I gave it some thought for long enough.]

I completely understand the issues raised by this thread however I have a tale to tell that has only just happened this year. A very good skilled climber, mountaineer who has been guiding for several years approached a youth group about a position. He handed in all the relevant forms for background checks but in the meantime they used his skills to train groups of youngsters in scrambling and bouldering. He had been supervised at all times but after what seems quite a long time 3 months it came back that this guy was on the sex offenders register and was a convicted peodophile who had spent over 8 years in prison.
these guys betray your confidence and although he was completely suprevised throughout the whole period it had to become a police matter and this only alerts psrents to potential problems. I think the checks are nessesary and the cost of them is unfortunate but I would rather we have them.

He was on the Sex Offenders Register and it took THREE MONTHS for the much trumpeted new system to stop him working with children. Says it all really, total and complete waste of money.

Ian.