crb « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Best Article Of 2009

Katherine — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:00:18 +0000

I’m participating in the Best Of 2009 Blog Challenge. Every day this month, I write something different about what’s happened this year.

For me, by far and away the most useful article this year has been this photographers’ rights guide. I keep a printed copy in my camera bag, just in case I’m stopped when I’m out and about with my camera.

Photographer’s rights are a massive issue for me. I take a lot of photos in public places, and a lot of photos that are likely to have other people’s children in them. In the last week I’ve read about photographers being stopped for taking photos of Christmas lights or sunsets at St Paul’s Cathedral, supposedly for “terrorism prevention”.

Photographers may legally be stopped and searched under Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism act. It’s a catch-all clause that lets the police search anyone they like, regardless of whether they have reasonable grounds to suspect that that person is involved in terrorism. Security guards often have the same attitude: the leader of Hull City Council, Liberal Democrat Carl Minns, was stopped whilst taking photos of a shopping centre: he had every legal right to do so. Question: with so many high-resolution cameraphones on the market these days, and when the police seem to be so quick to react to photographers, would a potential terrorist likely carry a light, easily-hidden cameraphone, or a big, noticeable DSLR? Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I haven’t yet heard of anybody being stopped and searched simply for using a cameraphone. And aren’t detailed photos and area photos of any area, especially those popular with tourists, available on Google Maps and Google Street View? Why go out and risk being discovered when you could, quite simply, open your web browser?

The other stick used to beat photographers with, of course, is suspicion of paedophilia. I am a young woman, with a child of my own. I have had my non-existant criminal record checked by no fewer than four organisations for volunteering and for work, and am about to pay to be CRB-checked AGAIN through my own company. When David and I go somewhere, I usually want to take some pictures of what we’re doing. Our local council prohibits photography on leisure centre property, so I can’t take pictures of David swimming. Of the three soft play centres we’ve attended, I’ve been asked not to take pictures in one (we didn’t go back), and told that I should only be taking pictures of my own child in the second and the third. (All credit to the third play centre, the only one we visit now. The staff are fantastic, I can take as many pictures of David and whoever he’s playing with as I want, and I have never been asked to stop taking pictures by a member of staff there.) The labelling of all people who take photos of children as potential paedophiles is as ludicrous as the suggestion that everyone who takes “too many” photos in a public place is a terrorist. And again, I have never seen anyone stopped for using a cameraphone in either a soft play centre or a leisure centre: equally, the Plymouth nursery paedophile Vanessa George took her disgusting and vile pictures on a cameraphone, not an SLR.

This paranoia affects me professionally, too. Most of my work involves taking childrens’ portraits. I’m about to pay a not insignificant amount of money to show potential clients that I’m not a padeophile; I have to have express signed permission from the parents of any children I photograph to both take and use the images, until they reach the age of eighteen.

Part of the reason for the disproportionate reaction is down to Daily Mail-type public hysteria. If you believe that every person with a camera in the park is a padeophile, or every Asian a terrorist (thank you, tabloids!) then you’re not going to want them to take photos of your children or your home or the city where you work, in case something happens to you or your family. But here’s the truth: there has been one, just ONE, terrorist attack in the UK in the last ten years, before the mass public hysteria. The kind of anti-terrorism crackdowns we see today just didn’t happen during the IRA bombing campaign, and the 7th July bombings weren’t carried out with tripods and cameras. Children are still most likely to be molested by someone they know, not some random strange woman whose camera just happened to be expensive and specialised.

It’s getting harder and harder to be a photographer in this changing world, with this changing climate of public opinion. Articles like the photographer’s guide to rights are extremely helpful in clarifying the situation and helping us to retain some of our dearly-held liberties. I don’t believe that we live in an Orwellian society, but I do value the freedom to take pictures of whatever I want, and to share those pictures, without being suspected of evil and awful crimes.

If this is all too depressing for you, head over to the Daily Photo, where there’s a lovely picture of a ginger kitten to cheer you up.

Dick Thackston has been awarded the designation of Accredited Buyer Representative Manager, ABRM by the National Association of Realtors

dickthackstonrealtor — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:29:36 +0000

Keene – The National Association of REALTORS, REALTOR University has awarded Dick Thackston, Managing Broker of R. H. Thackston & Company REALTORS, the designation of Accredited Buyer Representative Manager, ABRM.

The designation of ABRM is only awarded to those REALTORS who have significant experience and specialized training in managing buyer’s representatives. The ABRM^SM is the only buyer-representation designation for managers, brokers and owners affiliated with NAR. To earn and use this designation, you must complete all four (4) requirements: completion of the ABRM Designation Course; Successful completion of the ABRM challenge exam; documentation of a minimum of two years experience managing buyer’s representatives and membership in the Real Estate Buyer’s Agency Council and the National Association of REALTORS.

Thackston’s Professional Memberships and Recognitions include licensed real estate broker in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Vermont; Council of Real Estate Broker Manager’s; Monadnock Region Board of REALTORS and Contoocook Valley Board of REALTORS. Thackston is a licensed real estate instructor in New Hampshire for the Academy of Professional Real Estate Training in Keene.

It's Child Protection gone mad...

cogitodexter — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:43:59 +0000

The Times Online is reporting a story about a school that is taking its perceived responsibilities in respect of criminal record checking parents way too far. It appears that Graham McArthur, headmaster of Somersham primary school in Cambridgeshire is insisting on CRB checking all the parents who are helping accompany children on the 10 minute walk to the school’s Carol Service, despite the fact that there will be teachers present as well as law enforcement officers. Naturally there is a lot of indignation about this, and for very good reason.

Mr McArthur is clearly overstepping the mark and obviously doesn’t understand the requirements of the Safeguarding legislation. I am a Child Safeguarding representative for a local organisation and trained to do so in order to carry out CRB checks on people and volunteers who work with children and vulnerable adults. As I understand it, provided there’s one person who’s “in charge” of children (and who remains present with them) has a valid check then that is sufficient. Unless there’s a time where children would be solely under the supervision of someone who’s unchecked, there is no need to get checks done for other adults who are present (at least not all of them). Since in this case there will be teachers present at all times, there’s no requirement to get all the parents checked as well.

What this case does show though is that the government is quite willing to let the import of its policies stretch far beyond their legal requirements. It does nothing about the climate of fear that these laws engender in perfectly innocent people because it suits its purpose in regulating and stifling perfectly innocent people in their ordinary lives.

On one hand it allows the impression of an overweening law to take root (and thereby sneakily regulate people by default) and on the other hand it can throw up its hands in mock horror any time someone complains and say “nobody was ever meant to take it so seriously.” The fact is they have done nothing to correct the situation, and they are just as much to blame for people’s misapprehensions about over-intrusive regulation as if they had legislated for it in the first place.

I often say the government – and in particular Gordon Brown – has lost the plot. In one sense they have – the plot should never have been this ’stalinist’ in the first place. On the other, I think this situation is exactly their ‘plot’. I think that these effects are a prime demonstration of the controlist, statist, anti-freedom intentions of this government. Of course we’ll hear from Ed Balls that people have gone too far in their interpretation of the law and therein lies the problem. Laws that regulate should be clear. They shouldn’t be subject to interpretation. Laws should set out exactly what is required – no more and no less. This government is guilty of writing laws that extend the government’s reach far beyond what could be considered reasonable because they deliberately write them to be vague. It started as a creeping sort of totalitarianism. And the creep is now becoming a flood. This is a plot that needs to be unmasked.

Comment: Petty playground regulations, a step too far

georginaforrest — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:20:08 +0000

By Georgina Forrest

It is 3.00pm and the school bells rings, home time. Children of all ages armed with rucksacks, P.E. kits and empty sandwich boxes flood out of the doors onto the playground in search of that familiar face to take them home. But there’s no sight of Mum or Dad, or even Gran or Granddad – Where are they? – Not on the playground that’s for sure.

Yet again I find myself wondering what this country is coming to. A local council has come under fire for banning parents from entering two children’s’ playgrounds without a Criminal Records Bureau check (CRB).

Watford Borough Council sent a letter to parents and carers detailing that any adult without a CRB check ‘must be supervised by vetted play-workers’ when entering the playground facilities, according to reports.

The Telegraph reported that local parents had branded Watford councils policy as ‘a disgrace’ and claimed that the legislation almost ‘labelled’ the parents and relatives as ‘potential paedophiles.’ While councillors in Watford claimed they are merely adhering to Government guidelines and cannot allow adults to walk around any playground areas ‘unchecked.’

I believe that the general public, myself included are fully aware of the concern over the safety of our children in today’s society, and understand that precautionary measures must be taken to protect our children from some of the harsh realities of life. I also strongly agree with the law that all staff employed in any establishment working with children should be subject to CRB checks, but asking parents to do the same in order to drop their own children off and pick up from a playground is a step too far.

It comes amid of a current debate over the Government’s latest anti-paedophile database, which will hold personal details of over 11 million adults ‘cleared to work with children and vulnerable adults’.

The Daily Mail reported that mother-of-five Marcella Bergin, who visits the Watford play areas on a regular basis said, ‘ninety-nine per cent of people are great parents and certainly not child abusers.’

It is not fun for children to be separated from their parents during play, similarly not pleasurable for parents to be segregated from their children and watch them playing through fencing or bars. It’s the paedophiles and criminals that belong behind bars, not loving, doting parents!

The issue mirrors the recent case over childminding at home and Ofsted regulations. Two police officers were accused of breaking the law when caring for each other’s children around part-time work commitments. The Children’s Services watchdog claimed the child care arrangement ‘contravened the Child care Act 2006’ because they were providing a service ‘for a reward.’ It was also made clear that the mother’s in question would have to register as childminders and subject themselves to Ofsted inspections. BBC news reported that Minister for Children, Schools and Families, Vernon Coaker insisted that The Childcare Act 2006 existed ‘to ensure the safety and well being of all children’ but did advise that the legislation should not ‘penalise hard-working families.’

‘Penalise’ being the operative word. The state appear to apply rules instigated by the minority and apply it to the undeserved, innocent majority.

Again this over-protective governmental jurisdiction was reiterated in an issue covered over the summer, where parents were banned from primary schools’ sports days over fears of paedophiles. The Telegraph reported that ‘more than 270 pupils from four primary schools in Bedfordshire took part in the East Beds School Sports Partnership Athletics Day’ but there were no spectators present as ‘organisers said allowing them would make it impossible to prevent ‘unsavoury’ characters from attending.

Once more the decision of the school was described as ‘totally unreasonable’ by the parents of the pupils attending the school. Many parents were highly disappointed to miss out on an opportunity to merely support their children in a school activity.

Going back to the playground – Watford Borough Council have since released a statement stating that the play areas that it referred to were ‘supervised sites where parents must drop children off and then leave’ and not facilities open to the general public. But this is not the point- the point is that the rules signify that parents are not permitted on the premises without a CRB clearance ‘just incase.’

We as parents cannot stand by and allow the state to punish those who are aiming to provide a safe yet enjoyable upbringing for our children and must take a stand to stop these ‘jobs-worths’ from ruining society as we know it.

It seems that as per usual, we have over complicated legislation with no room for any common sense.

Forex: AUD/USD hits 0.9080 as fresh intra-day high

asx200 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:21:15 +0000

(CFD.net.au – Contract for Difference, Share, Forex, ETFs, Commodities Traders) –

Today the pair has been trading in a narrow range between 0.9020 and 0.9050, on consolidation mode after reaching 14-month high at 0.9090 in the yesterday’s American session.

According to TJ Marta, analyst at The Overnight Express, the

AUD/USD is Slipping

: “AUD/USD (0.9035) is down slight …

<!–TITOL:

Forex: AUD/USD hits 0.9080 as fresh intra-day highFITITOL–>

Today the pair has been trading in a narrow range between 0.9020 and 0.9050, on consolidation mode after reaching 14-month high at 0.9090 in the yesterday’s American session.

According to TJ Marta, analyst at The Overnight Express, the

AUD/USD is Slipping

: “AUD/USD (0.9035) is down slightly overnight after making a new high since Aug’08 yesterday. Technical resistance for AUD/USD exists at 0.9090 (Oct 8 high) and 0.9275 (May ’08). Support lies at 0.8570 (Oct 2 low), 0.8545 (Sep 14 low) and 0.8478 (Aug high). AUD/USD has correlated most strongly with equities (S&P 500, positive) and commodities (CRB, positive). The correlation with gold (positive) is slipping.”

Source: Forex: AUD/USD hits 0.9080 as fresh intra-day high

CRB Forms and the ISA - another mini rant

thevicarswife — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:13:13 +0000

More bureaucracy to hamper volunteering?

You might remember that a couple of weeks ago I had a little rant about CRB forms. A local journalist picked it up and made a bit of a news item of it. Comments were made on the Express and Star article and on the blog – it seems to be an issue that affects many people.

Since my rant I’ve been off to Sandwell Council to fill in my form and have a mini interview where they viewed all my documents. It’s a good thing I took my marriage certificate, cos since I’d retained my maiden name as a middle name they wanted a copy of that too. I’m still waiting for the disclosure to come through. According to the lady at the council, neither the school nor the council pays for my form since I’m a volunteer. I’d like to know how the agency is funded then – it has to be the taxpayer in the end.

From that interview, and from blog comments, I understand that the really important part of a CRB form is not the disclosure you get given yourself, but the ’soft information’ sent to the applying organisation. But I can’t see why the applying organisation couldn’t see a previous disclosure and then have a system where the CRB takes the number of that form and gives the soft information to the new organisation.

And it seems that the new Independent Safeguarding Authority’s Vetting and Barring scheme will merely add an additional layer of bureaucracy, not simplify the system. The CRB’s website makes it clear that

…the ISA will prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults The CRB will continue to support employers, through CRB checks by providing them with access to an individual’s full criminal record and other information so that they can asses that individual’s suitability for a particular post or position

So now people who volunteer or work in different organisations will have to have both a fistful of CRB disclosures and an ISA clearance. Joy. At least the ISA are able to make their check transferable. Why not the CRB? This seems to be a case of a total lack of joined up government or maybe it’s just a job creation scheme.

Kindermode Winter 2010 bis 30% günstiger

shoppifant — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:39:45 +0000

Holländische Kindermode für den Winter 25% günstiger Ab sofort erhalten Sie in unserem Onlineshop fü

Council bans parents from play areas

Epex — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:08:38 +0000

From the article: Only council-vetted “play rangers” are now allowed to monitor youngste

Sleepwalking into disaster?

elcin54202 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:14:55 +0000

Following on fron Ms Mungall’s look at when Social Services go horribly wrong – here is

Enhanced disclosure and the vetting and barring of health and social care workers

stuartsorensen — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:30:41 +0000

Given the recent sporadic and I think rather biased media reporting on new adult protection procedures in UK the topic has become a major issue for many health and social care workers. Many care providers seem to believe that every slight misdemeanour will result in them being prevented from working with vulnerable groups. This media-driven view is inaccurate and more than a little melodramatic.

The reality is that in order for someone to be barred from working with vulnerable groups there must be reasonable evidence on balance of probabilities. This represents no change from the system that has operated in England & Wales for several years already. In order to make sense of the reality we need to look at what the courts call the ‘burden of proof’.

In order to get a criminal conviction there must be evidence of guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. This is a high burden of proof. I’m going to call this (not a legal definition – just a way to describe it) 95% probability of guilt.

This means that it is notoriously difficult to get a conviction, not least because abuses of vulnerable people tend to happen behind closed doors and the victims themselves may not be the most reliable witnesses to appear before the courts. Very often the victims are targeted precisely because they are psychologically vulnerable and so unlikely to cope well with the discrediting onslaught from a defending barrister.

All of this has meant that many, many abusers have managed to carry on for years without ever being brought to book because there was too little evidence to bring them to court in the first place, let alone secure a conviction. As a result countless vulnerable people of all ages have been victimised by the very people who were supposed to be caring for them.

Clearly this loophole in the system needed to be closed.

There is another type of burden of proof that is used by the courts. This is the civil burden of proof and it does not rely upon establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Rather it is based upon ‘balance of probabilities’. I want to describe this as 51% probability (also not a legal term). In other words it has to be more likely than not that the person is liable. This is the burden of proof used in civil lawsuits where one individual sues another for damages.

The difference between the civil and criminal burdens of proof (51 – 95% probability) is what the Scottish courts call ‘not proven’. This is the area that raises so many objections throughout UK because people not convicted of crime can be barred from working with vulnerable people so long as on balance of probabilities they are deemed most likely to have abused their charges.

Let’s put this into context.

First of all I’d like to make it clear that ‘good’ people will almost certainly end up on the list because balance of probability is not the same as criminal proof. However, not proven does not mean not true.

Whatever system is used mistakes will be made. The question a civilised society has to ask itself is this:

What do we want the price of those mistakes to be?

If we want the price of mistakes to be continued abuse of vulnerable people then we would go with the criminal (95%) burden of proof.

If we want the price of our mistakes to be someone finding a different job then we will go with the civil (51%) burden of proof.

The question we as individuals need to ask ourselves is this:

Since our society can’t have a perfect system do we want the government to opt for one that protects the vulnerable or one that allows abusers to slip through the net?

Can we, in all conscience support what amounts to an abusers’ charter?

Remember also that balance of probabilities is not easy to establish. There needs to be significantly more evidence than simply an allegation. There is also an appeals process and recourse to the courts too before a person is finally placed on the list.

Personally I think that this is the best system that society can achieve and although it’s not perfect it is definitely the lesser of two evils in my view. There are no easy answers in the safeguarding of vulnerable people but we all need to remember that this social decision is far bigger and more important than any individual. This is true however unfair it may seem to those who are included on the list in error.

We can sympathise with those individuals. In fact I think it would be extremely callous of us not to. But that doesn’t change the fact that a less stringent system would result in far greater harm to many, many more people in our society.

Financial Machinations: The Global Debt Crisis is Destroying the Economic Structure

sakerfa — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:18:52 +0000

Last week the Dow added 1.3%, the S&P 1.5%, the Russell 2000, 0.2% and the Nasdaq 100, 0.7%. Cyc

Courts allow access to employers' criminal records

AP Partnership — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:49:44 +0000

The Court ruled criminal records can be held on police computers for ‘as long as they feel necessary’, and can be shared with the Criminal Records Bureau, which has the right to show the records to employers or prospective employers.

Opponents to the court ruling state that too many execptions are being made to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and that excessive checks will not allow people to move on from their past.

Recently, a new scheme was setup for employers who work with children and vulnerable adults, called the Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS). The scheme is administrated by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and allows employers to perform an enhanced CRB check.

The ISA has been placed in charge of ensuring that whilst children and vulnerable adults are protected, employees NOT working with these groups have the chance to move on from spent convictions.

The VBS already allows an employer to check an employee for any sexual convictions; hence the recent ruling does not add any extra ability to strengthen these searches – it only serves to diminish the ability of employees with non-sexual convictions to move on.
Employment law specialists
www.appartnership.co.uk

A Message from Keynote Speaker for CRS 41

Mike — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:04:04 +0000

Dave Ramsey is an incredibly successful broadcast personality and is on over 400 radio stations. In

CRB disclosures and other ridiculous forms

thevicarswife — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:28:37 +0000

The bureaucracy is criminal

I have recently volunteered to hear kids at our school read. This means that I need an enhanced CRB disclosure. I can completely understand why schools need to ensure that people in contact with the children need to make some checks. Children need to be protected from dodgy characters.

What I fail to understand is why my existing enhanced CRB disclosure, obtained in July this year, is not acceptable to Sandwell Council. I got that disclosure for helping on a young people’s residential summer holiday, where I had far more access to youngsters than I will sitting in a classroom once a week. Our sensible diocese did accept my existing disclosure for my work with young people in church on Sundays. The diocesan policy is to accept ones less than six months old where the applicant has been known to the church all that time.

When I made a comment on my Facebook status about this earlier today, and got the following comments from Vicar’s wife friends:

The Nurse told me ‘I was going in last year but then I got all that to fill in during the summer in order to carry on this year and I must admit, I haven’t done them yet. I’d mostly been helping my own child in the classroom and hearing them all read, do I really need a police check for that!? I’m going to need a police check to look after them at home next!’
Dr Life commented ‘If had had them for everything I needed them for I would have needed 6 at one point last year’.
Snap said ‘I’ve got 5 current ones for various things I do. It’s crazy, especially as they’re only really relevant from the day you are ‘certified’ and different organisations have different guidelines on how often they need to be redone’.

Sandwell Council, bless their hearts, like to make it even more of a pain. So you have to go the council’s main offices for an interview to fill out the form. Apparently this was because the schools weren’t completing the forms correctly. I don’t see why schools can’t be trained to do it right. Although the form is now ridiculous as half of it doesn’t need to be completed.

And Sandwell want me to provide 2 referees (although the form didn’t say how long the referees have to have known me). CRB no longer ask for this, but the council do. And they want my full employment history including all voluntary work! I can’t remember my employment and volunteering history for the last twenty plus years. The lady at the council then told me that the school can decide how much employment history is required and that the form had been approved by the council AND the unions. She said that it ought to say that referees should have known me at least two years, but that too was up to the school. Thankfully I think the school will be sensible.

Our head teacher is about to send a letter out to parents asking for folk to volunteer to read with the children – currently no-one is helping out at all. But if they have to fill in forms, provide referees and long term histories and travel a 4 mile round trip in order to do it, I don’t hold out much hope of floods of volunteers. Many families round here don’t have cars, so the trip to the council would take a whole morning.

I’m going to encourage people to volunteer, but I’m also going to see if the council will come down here for the interviews or let me help people fill out their forms first. Surely the council want to be encouraging volunteering rather than hindering it with bureaucracy?

The council lady I spoke to said that the new Independent Safeguarding Authority should streamline things ‘but they keep on putting it back’. In the meantime money is being wasted all round the country as people have to collect multiple forms and fill in extra paperwork to satisfy the total lack of trust that now characterises our society. I wonder what the record is for multiple CRB forms. Any advance on five?

Canada Dollar Climbs, Bonds Tumble on Job Gains, Growth Outlook By Chris Fournier Oct. 9 (Bloomberg)

asx200 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:21:41 +0000

(CFD.net.au – Contract for Difference, Share, Forex, ETFs, Commodities Traders) – recession. The yield on the two-year Canadian bond climbed, increasing the gap between it and the comparable U.S. Treasury note to the widest since December 2008. “The bond market is generally weaker in response to the much-better-than-expected Canadian jobs report,” said Sal Guatieri , a senio … recession. The yield on the two-year Canadian bond climbed, increasing the gap between it and the comparable U.S. Treasury note to the widest since December 2008. “The bond market is generally weaker in response to the much-better-than-expected Canadian jobs report,” said Sal Guatieri , a senior economist in Toronto at BMO Capital Markets. “It’s possible that the unemployment rate has peaked. People are revising up their estimates for Canadian gross domestic product and employment.” The Canadian dollar appreciated 0.8 percent to C$1.0436 per U.S. dollar at 4:57 p.m. in Toronto, from C$1.0518 yesterday. It touched C$1.0411, the strongest since Sept. 29, 2008. One Canadian dollar buys 95.82 U.S. cents. The yield on the two-year Government of Canada security rose 22 basis points, or 0.22 percentage point, to 1.70 percent, 73 basis points more than the two-year U.S. Treasury note’s 0.97 percent yield. The price of the 1.25 percent Canadian note due in December 2011 dropped 45 cents to C$99.06. Interest-Rate Bets The jump in job creation sparked speculation that the Bank of Canada may raise Interest rates sooner than it previously predicted. The central bank has pledged to leave borrowing costs at a record low 0.25 through June 2010 as long as the inflation outlook doesn’t shift. The yield on March bankers’ acceptance futures, a barometer of short-term Interest rates, rose as much as nine basis points as the contract traded as low as 99.26 on speculation a quickening recovery will force the central bank to raise rates before mid-2010, according to David Love , a trader of interest- rate derivatives at Le Group Jitney Inc., a Montreal brokerage. The price on the futures moves inversely to expectations for interest rates. “The market is starting to speculate whether the Bank of Canada will raise interest rates sooner than it conditionally pledged,” BMO’s Guatieri said. “We still think that the bank will not tighten until July next year, but the risks are more evenly balanced now.” Second Monthly Gain The unemployment rate dropped to 8.4 percent last month from 8.7 percent in August as employers added a net 30,600 workers for a second straight monthly increase, Statistics Canada said today in Ottawa. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg predicted employment would increase by 5,000 positions and the jobless rate would rise to 8.8 percent, according to the median of 23 forecasts. “The market wanted a strong number to pound the U.S. dollar lower,” said David Watt , senior currency strategist in Toronto at RBC Capital, a unit of Canada’s biggest bank. “It got it and is running with it.” Canadian businesses reported record optimism about their sales and said credit conditions were easing for the first time since 2007, the Bank of Canada said today in a quarterly Business Outlook Survey. Sixty-nine percent of executives said sales growth will accelerate over the next year, while another 16 percent expect it to slow, the widest gap since the question was first asked in 1998, the bank said. Trade Deficit Widens The Canadian currency increased even after a government report showed the nation’s trade deficit widened to C$1.99 billion ($1.91 billion) in August — more than double the median forecast of 15 economists in a Bloomberg News survey — as exports of aircraft, telecommunications gear and automotive products plunged. It was the best performer today against the U.S. dollar among its 16 most-traded counterparts tracked by Bloomberg. Australia this week was the first country from the Group of 20 nations to raise interest rates since the start of the financial crisis more than a year ago. A report on Oct. 8 showed Australian employers added 40,600 jobs in September. Economists had estimated there were 10,000 positions lost, according to a Bloomberg News survey. The Australian dollar slid 0.2 percent today to 90.39 U.S. cents as commodities declined. The Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index of 19 raw materials decreased 0.5 percent. The U.S. dollar rose against 14 of the 16 most-traded currencies after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the central bank is ready to tighten monetary policy once the economy improves, increasing the appeal of U.S. assets. To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Fournier in Montreal at cfournier3@bloomberg.net Last Updated: October 9, 2009 17:04 EDT

Source: Canada Dollar Climbs, Bonds Tumble on Job Gains, Growth Outlook By Chris Fournier Oct. 9 (Bloomberg)

New Laws make Criminal Records Checks compulsory

networkingwinchester — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:19:52 +0000

Robert Walsh of Criminal Records Checked talked about the developments at the Criminal Records Bureau where decisions on barring individuals are now made by the new Independent Safeguarding Authority, a non governmental organization. This is the beginning of a series of changes to the law under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act which ultimately will culminate in the registration of millions of individuals who work in positions of trust on a live registration scheme which will be the most comprehensive system of it’s kind in the world.

Vetting and Barring Scheme Update

vcibulletin — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:15:31 +0000

We are pleased to release the official Guidance in relation to the introduction of the initial phase of the Vetting & Barring Scheme (VBS). This is available by clicking on the following link: http://www.isa-gov.org

We are grateful to all of you who have taken part in meetings and events about the new Scheme which have taken place around the country in the past months.

We also appreciate the time that you have taken to send telephone and e-mail queries to the VBS contact centre (available on 0300 123 1111 at lo-call rate) over the same period. These interactions have helped us to shape the guidance which we are now able to share.

As the Scheme moves forward you may find it helps your staff, member organisations or other stakeholders, if you put the following on your website or in newsletters in coming weeks.

As you may know from our publicity, the three key changes at 12 October 2009 for employers and employees (including managers of, and volunteers in, unpaid work) are:

for employers: you must not knowingly employ in regulated activity, or use as a volunteer, a barred person;

for employers: if you dismiss or cease using a person in regulated activity (or in controlled activity) because you think they harmed or pose a risk of harm to children or vulnerable adults, you must refer the case to the ISA (see ISA referrals guidance, below);

for employees: if you yourself are barred from regulated activity, you must not work, or seek to work, in regulated activity from which you are barred.

Guidance documents about the new duty from 12 October for employers and others to make referrals to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), and about the ISA Decision Making Process, are available on the ISA website:

new duty to make referrals at: www.isa-gov.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=397;
ISA decision making process at: www.isa-gov.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=382;

The attached Guidance covering the first aspects of the Scheme will be followed at a later date by guidance on other changes which take place later. Three key changes which do not happen until later are:

July 2010 – new entrants to work with vulnerable groups can register with the ISA;

November 2010 – new entrants must register with the ISA before starting work;

April 2011 – existing workers can start to ISA-register. We will publish, in good time, our recommendations as to dates by when they should register.

April 2011 – existing workers can start to ISA-register. We will publish, in good time, our recommendations as to dates by when they should register.

We are aware that there is still a significant demand for this Full Scheme Guidance. We hope you would agree that it is right to prioritise first the instalment which details changes at 12 October 2009, with the second instalment – about changes in 2010 and in later years – following after.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your input to the Guidance through your comments and the questions that have shaped it, and for your patience during its production.

Commodity Assets Rise to $224 Billion, Barclays Says (Update1) By Stuart Wallace Oct. 9 (Bloomberg)

asx200 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:01:27 +0000

(CFD.net.au – Contract for Difference, Share, Forex, ETFs, Commodities Traders) – $7 billion to $80 billion. The remainder is made up of medium-term notes. “The evidence is that investors continue to value commodity exposure for portfolio diversification and as an inflation hedge,” Barclays said in the report. “Heading into the fourth quarter, we expect this trend to conti … $7 billion to $80 billion. The remainder is made up of medium-term notes. “The evidence is that investors continue to value commodity exposure for portfolio diversification and as an inflation hedge,” Barclays said in the report. “Heading into the fourth quarter, we expect this trend to continue, with commodities continuing to capture a growing share of the global investment portfolio.” The Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index of 19 commodities rebounded 15 percent this year after posting a record 36 percent decline in 2008. Assets under management at commodity hedge funds increased 6 percent this year to $60.61 billion as of the end of August, according to Hedgefund.net. To contact the reporter on this story: Stuart Wallace in London at swallace6@bloomberg.net Last Updated: October 9, 2009 01:57 EDT

Source: Commodity Assets Rise to $224 Billion, Barclays Says (Update1) By Stuart Wallace Oct. 9 (Bloomberg)

Escudo CRB

danielst93 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:10:21 +0000

Pe unde se mai gasesc informatii despre creditele noastre ??

suntrestantier — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:45:16 +0000

Centrala Riscurilor Bancare (CRB) reprezintă o structură specializată în colectarea, stocarea şi centralizarea informaţiilor privind expunerea fiecărei persoane declarante (instituţie de credit sau instituţie financiară nebancară înscrisă în Registrul special) din România faţă de acei debitori care au beneficiat de credite şi/sau angajamente al căror nivel cumulat depăşeşte suma limită de raportare (20.000 RON), precum şi a informaţiilor referitoare la fraudele cu carduri produse de către posesori.

Baza de date a Centralei Riscurilor Bancare este organizată în patru registre:

Registrul central al creditelor (RCC) conţine informaţii de risc bancar raportate de persoanele declarante şi este actualizat lunar;
Registrul creditelor restante (RCR) conţine informaţii de risc bancar referitoare la abaterile de la graficele de rambursare din cel mult ultimii şapte ani şi este alimentat lunar de Registrul central al creditelor;
Registrul grupurilor de debitori (RGD) conţine informaţii despre grupurile de persoane fizice si/sau juridice care reprezintă un singur debitor si este alimentat lunar de Registrul central al creditelor;
Registrul fraudelor cu carduri (RFC) conţine informaţii despre fraudele cu carduri produse de către posesori raportate de persoanele declarante şi este actualizat on-line.

Utilizatorii informaţiilor existente în baza de date a CRB sunt persoanele declarante şi Banca Naţională a României.

Schimbul de informaţii de risc bancar se realizează electronic prin Reţeaua de Comunicaţii Interbancară.

Raportările efectuate de persoanele declarante conţin următoarele informaţii:

datele de identificare a debitorilor faţă de care persoana declarantă înregistrează o expunere mai mare sau egală cu limita de raportare (20.000 RON);
informaţii privind fiecare din creditele şi angajamentele de care debitorul beneficiază: tipul creditului, termenul de acordare, tipul garanţiei, serviciul datoriei, data acordării şi data scadenţei, valuta în care s-a acordat creditul, comportamentul creditului, suma acordată, suma datorată utilizata si suma datorata neutilizată la momentul raportării, suma restantă;
informaţii privind grupurile de persoane fizice şi/sau juridice care reprezintă un singur debitor: denumire grup, cod grup, componenţa grup;
informaţii privind fraudele cu carduri produse de posesori: date identificare posesor card, tip card, valuta, data constatării fraudei, suma fraudată.

Difuzarea informaţiilor de Centrala Riscurilor Bancare către persoanele declarante se face în două moduri:

rapoarte lunare care cuprind informaţii privind toţi debitorii pe care persoana declarantă i-a raportat în luna respectivă. Pentru fiecare debitor raportat, raportul lunar conţine toate informaţiile disponibile la Centrala Riscurilor Bancare referitoare la creditele şi angajamentele de care acesta a beneficiat de la toate persoanele declarante, fără a se preciza identitatea instituţiei creditoare (situaţia riscului global);
ca răspuns la interogările (cereri de consultare) on-line în cazul cărora persoanele declarante pot solicita două tipuri de informaţii: situaţia riscului global şi situaţia creditelor restante (pe o perioadă de şapte ani).

Volunteer Co-ordinator's Network update 29/09/2009

volunteercentrenottingham — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:18:44 +0000

Q&A charities, volunteers and the law – Guardian article
Response to Vetting & Barring media coverage
Royal recognition for volunteers
FREE training
Impact of the third sector – research project
Jobs
NCVS training

Q&A charities, volunteers and the law – Guardian article

The second installment of a series of articles in the guardian on charity law, touches on many aspects of volunteering that we often get asked questions about here at the Volunteer Centre. Click here to see the full article.

Vetting & Barring update

As you’re probably aware there has recently been a huge amount of media coverage on the new Vetting & Barring scheme and there has been lots of conflicting information that has confused a great number of people. We’d like to draw your attention to the following press release that the CRB has recently issued in response to the media coverage, which hopefully will clarify a few things….

Please click here to view the full statement.

Royal recognition for volunteers

If you didn’t already know, the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service was created to mark the Golden Jubilee in 2002 and it recognises contributions made to local communities by groups of volunteers. Friends, family or members of the public can nominate at any time during the year but anyone who would like to be considered for the 2010 Awards, must send their completed nomination forms in by 5th October. This is a great chance to recognise any volunteers who you feel deserve an Award for their contribution to their local community. For more details please click here.

FREE training

An organisation called Vision Development Consultants are offering FREE training for the following courses:

1 day emergency first aid work
2 day first aid refresher
3 day first aid certificate
2 day paediatric first aid
1 day manual handling
Understanding the ‘Top 10′ skills that employers want

To be eligible for this free training, people must be:

Over 16
A Nottingham City resident
Unemployed or working less than 16 hours per week

Interested? Download the diary of training and the booking form here

Impact of the Third sector – research project

NCVS are looking for an established research team to provide information about the scale and impact of Nottingham’s third sector. This will build on, but not replicate, previous studies. To find out more about how you can get involved, please have a look at the Impact of the Third Sector research document. The closing date for responses is Friday 9th October.

Jobs

Dance 4 – 2 jobs – 9th and 6th October

NCVS – Funding Advisor (Nottinghamshire) – 7th October

NCVS – Volunteering Officer – Active Citizenship (Contract til March 2010)- 14th October

NCVS – Volunteering Officer – 14th October

NCVS – Strategic Volunteering Officer – 7th October

The Children’s Society – Senior Project Worker – 2nd October

Karimia Institute – 3 jobs – 30th October

NCVS Training

Becoming a registered charity – 4th November

Managing meetings – 19th November

Planning for success – 2nd December

A beginner’s guide to budgets – 10th December

Artists please read - CRB checks in Redcar & Cleveland

clubcreative — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:10:56 +0000

For any artist / creative practitioner wishing to work in the borough of Redcar & Cleveland you MUST have a CRB Disclosure processed by Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council. Unlike other boroughs CRB’s are non transferable and you will not be able to carry out prolonged work with children or vulnerable adults without one. THe good news is that Club Creative is now registered with R&C Council to verify the supporting documents for section X and then pass on the application to them who act as the Umbrella organisation. CRB checks costs £53 including £17 admin fee from the council (Club Creative charges nothing). Hope this helps.

The ISA To My CRB

The Futility Monster — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:35:31 +0000

Well, I know it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, but I shouldn't admit to that or I'll be getting barred from working with children and vulnerable adults...

The government likes its three letter acronyms.

A few years ago, in response to the Bichard Inquiry, Labour decided to implement a brand new “vetting and barring” scheme.

As usual, it was a typical Whitehall reinvention of the wheel. The government already had its own vetting and barring scheme. It had existed for a long time in the guise of things like List 99, a central list of undesirable people that we didn’t want working with children, based on criminal records and intelligence.

But this was insufficient. The government decided it would be better farmed out to an “independent” agency.

The Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) was born.

Why a new agency? It has long been suspected that the real reason behind this outsourcing was so that the government could wash their hands of responsibility. The government’s calculation was that, one day, an abuse would again occur involving a person not on List 99 – such as what happened with Ian Huntley. Too many questions were already being asked as to why Huntley slipped through the net, some of them rather uncomfortable (e.g. the case of Kim Howells clearing a registered sex offender for a PE teacher’s job). So taking these kind of decisions out of the hands of politicians would, indeed, be politically desirable.

The problem here is that many years earlier, the government created an agency to collate and try to ensure that the system was much tighter. It was called the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). Charged with issuing Disclosures on people, based upon nationwide police criminal records checks and intelligence, it is, ostensibly, a neutral organisation which provides employers with information and allows them to take the final decision based on what they receive back from the check.

While they are subtly different – ISA takes decisions on people’s suitability, but the CRB only provides the information required for the decision – they were still overlapping sufficiently that, at first, the CRB were told to prepare to take on the new vetting and barring scheme. They did so, spending money and time in the process. After all, they were ideally placed to deal with this new function in-house. They

Then the government pulled the plug and decided that a new layer of bureaucracy was exactly what the country needed.

This woeful tale is yet another example of the failure of modern politics.

Firstly, the creation of new bureaucracy when the existing system could be adapted is a ridiculous waste of time, money, will cause needless duplication of resources and will doubtless result in poor communication between the ISA and the CRB.

Secondly, the propensity of the modern politician to farm decisions out to quangos and other bodies (e.g. strategic health authorities, foundation hospitals, trust schools, academies…) means a lack of ministerial responsibility and accountability.

And thirdly, on principle, as we have seen in the news lately, the whole thing is going to lead to a further gross infringement on liberty and a redefinition of the fundamental relationship between adults and children in society.

Who knows where that will lead.

CRB DISCLOSURES

nannywanted — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:51:15 +0000

CRB checks/disclosures are the documents issued by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB).

Disclosures are a means for an employer or regulator to verify somebody’s answer to the questions:

- “Do you have a criminal record?”

- “Do you have any unspent or spent criminal convictions?”

- “Does your name appear on the ISA list of people barred from working with children / vulnerable adults?”

To ensure that employers receive sufficient information, there are three levels of Disclosures:

Basic Disclosures will show only current unspent criminal convictions held on the Police National Computer. They will generally not include motoring offences other than causing death by dangerous driving or driving with excess alcohol.

Standard Disclosures make the same checks as the Basic Disclosure but will show both unspent and spent convictions, including Police Cautions, Reprimands and Warnings. However, from 12th October 2009 it will no longer give access to the ISA barred lists.

Enhanced Disclosures cover the same records as Standard Disclosures, but will also give access to the ISA barred lists for working with children and/or vulnerable adults. They will additionally ask the local police if they have any intelligence that could be relevant, such as known offenders, pending/failed prosecutions or current investigations.

N.B. CRB Checks are different to “Police Checks”, which are documents issued by the police at the request of an individual asking for a copy of any data stored on the Police National Computer about them. This information is provided under the Data Protection Act and is therefore only for the personal use of the subject and nobody else has the legal right to ask to see it.