Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Thank you for these expansions, Anthony.

Your motivation as a parent makes absolute sense.

I find it extremely disappointing that apparently the only thing preventing someone from accessing a role like this is a criminal conviction. There are so many actions and inactions that are appalling, negligent, dangerous and unacceptable to a civilised society but that are not illegal, and which should be taken into account during vetting.

And any failure by school staff to act on reports of abuse from pupils should be a criminal offence in itself.

If there is any particular failing that has become apparent to me, it is that bodies responsible for appointing people to governance roles appear in some cases to undertake little or no due diligence. Certainly in the case of the Dean of Salisbury Cathedral and the Bishop of Bristol, in neither case have the incumbents been willing to answer legitimate questions about whether any due diligence is undertaken prior to making governance appointments. One might legitimately conclude that if they did indeed have robust processes in place, they would be keen to highlight that rather than to act evasively and avoid answering legitimately posed questions!

I do rather wonder what due diligence is available to authorities such as these over and above the standard DBS check to which I assume everyone is subjected if they are going to work with or in close proximity to children. I believe that this can contain material which was deemed insufficient for a prosecution, or for which insufficient evidence was presented in court to secure a conviction, if the Police believe it is warranted, but I suspect this is the exception rather than the rule.

Other than that I can't see what might be available. Individual recommendations or reports that contain negative comments or opinions can lead to prosecutions for libel unless they can be fully substantiated, at least to the standard required by the Civil courts. The Government has the ability to subject individuals to various degrees of vetting but this is expensive and only available to crown employees of contractors working on certain Government contracts.

I'd be interested in people's views as to how an authority wishing to engage the services of any individual might satisfy themselves of that person's suitability in the normal course of events.

It is impossible to implement a process that is flawless. But it really isn't difficult to make a decent effort and at least have a policy. For example, on the public Web you can find as an example, the checklist the NHS advises trusts to consider for non exec board members:

"We must be able to provide evidence that appropriate systems and processes are in place to ensure that all new and existing chairs and non-executive directors are, and continue to be, fit for purpose and that none off the criteria of ‘unfitness’ set out in the regulations apply. You cannot serve on an NHS Board and be:

a person who has been convicted in the United Kingdom of any offence or been convicted elsewhere of any offence which if committed in any of the United Kingdom, would constitute an offence
a person who has been erased, removed, or struck off a register of professionals maintained by a regulator of health care or social work professionals
an undischarged bankrupt, or a person whose estate has had a sequestration awarded in respect of it and who has not been discharged
the subject of a bankruptcy restrictions order or an interim bankruptcy restrictions order or an order to like effect made in Scotland or Northern Ireland
a person whom a moratorium period under a debt relief order applies under Part VIIA 9 debt relief orders) of the Insolvency Act 1986(40)
a person who has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, creditors and not been discharged in respect of it
included in the children’s barred list or the adults’ barred list maintained under section 2 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, or in any corresponding list maintained under an equivalent enactment in force in Scotland or Northern Ireland
a person who has been responsible for, privy to, contributed to or facilitated any serious misconduct or mismanagement (whether unlawful or not) in the course of carrying on a regulated activity, or discharging any functions relating to any office or employment with a service provider"

Most companies would add a web search for information about the individual including news articles and social media profiles and posts to this list.

It really isn't difficult to implement a process.

Thank you for your response Anthony.

WiltshireChap wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 4:54 pmIt really isn't difficult to implement a process.

Indeed. When I think of some of the interview and hiring processes I've been through, I really don't understand why some places still appear to be so lax, especially when some care more deeply about appearances and institutional reputation than competence.

WiltshireChap wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 4:54 pm It is impossible to implement a process that is flawless. But it really isn't difficult to make a decent effort and at least have a policy.
Most companies would add a web search for information about the individual including news articles and social media profiles and posts to this list.

It really isn't difficult to implement a process.

Sure, but they can go too far. My county education authority has a policy that applicants must produce a birth certificate. Sounds fine but they don't accept adoption certificates and adoptees cannot have certificates valid for such purposes.

I'm not a recruitment professional but surely Google, social media and news searches are standard nowadays?

Google Cairncross and you get a lot of reports about the recent trials. There shouldn't be any fear of libel because an employer has no obligation to state the reasons why an applicant was unsuccessful. And these revelations were obtained from Cairncross herself under oath at crown court, so no libel.

There have been many high-profile cases of people being un-recruited or later sacked when old reports of non-criminal but unacceptable activity are revealed through the likes of Twitter or old local news articles. Most - no, I would confidently say all - are far less serious than a safeguarding leader turning a blind eye to allegations of sexual abuse of children.

All of this conversation just cements my feeling that she was either deliberately not appropriately vetted or given a pass due to powerful friends.

Otter wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 10:34 am surely Google, social media and news searches are standard nowadays?

I would be extremely careful about what is disclosed by such searches. Reason to make further enquiries but to rely on them, no.

Just as newspaper correspondents are likely to have actual or innocent biases so those writing stuff on the internet may be biased. I was just today looking at reports about a City figure (now deceased) and even his epitaphs were abysmally lacking in important content and in one date was inaccurate.

Did anyone hear back from the C of age re Cairncross?