12.01.2015 Views

Carers or suspeCts? - Manifesto Club

Carers or suspeCts? - Manifesto Club

Carers or suspeCts? - Manifesto Club

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

A <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> Rep<strong>or</strong>t<br />

<strong>Carers</strong> <strong>or</strong><br />

Suspects<br />

CRB Checks and the<br />

Regulation of the<br />

Caring Professions<br />

Ken McLaughlin / Josie Appleton<br />

October 2010<br />

manifestoclub.com


Executive summary / 3<br />

<strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> Campaign Against Vetting<br />

The <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> has been campaigning<br />

against the Safeguarding Vulnerable<br />

Groups Act since October 2006, when we<br />

launched a petition signed by individuals<br />

including Fay Weldon, Johnny Ball and<br />

Alan Silitoe, and hundreds of volunteers,<br />

parents and concerned adults. We have<br />

also published a series of rep<strong>or</strong>ts,<br />

documenting the expansion of vetting and<br />

its damaging effect on social life, including:<br />

The Case Against Vetting October 2006<br />

provides an overview of the dramatic<br />

expansion of vetting, and shows how this<br />

feeds a child protection bureaucracy,<br />

while undermining everyday relationships<br />

between adults and children.<br />

How the Child Protection Industry<br />

Stole Christmas December 2006 shows<br />

how overregulation is ruining seasonal<br />

celebrations.<br />

Hobby <strong>Club</strong>s April 2007 documents how<br />

some mixed-age clubs are banning children.<br />

Briefing Document April 2008 shows<br />

how the government’s new vetting laws<br />

are late, over-budget and over-stretched.<br />

Briefing Document Regulating Trust<br />

July 2009 rep<strong>or</strong>ts on a leaked government<br />

document, and exposes officials’ absurd<br />

plans f<strong>or</strong> the vetting database.<br />

Vetting Under-18s: An education in<br />

mistrust December 2009 shows how<br />

Criminal Rec<strong>or</strong>ds Bureau (CRB) checks<br />

are undermining teenage volunteers.<br />

Volunteering Made Difficult June 2010<br />

shows how CRB checks and other child<br />

protection rules are undermining volunteers.<br />

A rec<strong>or</strong>d of our campaigning is at:<br />

www.manifestoclub.com/hubs/vetting<br />

Executive summary<br />

–The discussion about CRB checks and the vetting<br />

database has so far focused on adults caring f<strong>or</strong> children.<br />

Yet there is another dimension to the vetting and<br />

barring scheme, which concerns those who care f<strong>or</strong><br />

‘vulnerable adults’. There has been a massive growth<br />

of CRB checking in the caring professions, and these<br />

professionals would also have to register on the vetting<br />

database if it goes ahead as laid out in the Safeguarding<br />

Vulnerable Groups Act (2006).<br />

–In total, CRB checks of those w<strong>or</strong>king with ‘vulnerable<br />

adults’ have increased from 369,049 in 2004–5, to<br />

568,877 in 2009–10: a total of nearly 3 million checks<br />

since 2004. People who are now CRB checked<br />

include doct<strong>or</strong>s and nurses, social w<strong>or</strong>k academics<br />

and students, care home w<strong>or</strong>kers, and volunteers f<strong>or</strong><br />

hospice <strong>or</strong> homeless charities. Many are repeatedly<br />

checked: NHS w<strong>or</strong>kers are CRB checked when they<br />

change jobs, and some social w<strong>or</strong>k students will clock<br />

up four CRB checks during an undergraduate course.


Executive summary / 4 Executive summary / 5<br />

–CRBs are expensive f<strong>or</strong> the caring professions and<br />

f<strong>or</strong> individuals themselves. The total cost f<strong>or</strong> the CRB<br />

checks f<strong>or</strong> those w<strong>or</strong>king with vulnerable adults is<br />

some £164.7 million since 2004. In 2009–10 alone,<br />

the bill f<strong>or</strong> CRB checks f<strong>or</strong> the medical and care<br />

sect<strong>or</strong>s was £69 million.<br />

–In effect, carers have become suspects. All caring<br />

relationships between adults are cast as one between<br />

potential abuser and abused. <strong>Carers</strong> are also restrained<br />

by other suspicious rules – f<strong>or</strong> example, they cannot<br />

assist an old lady to the toilet, <strong>or</strong> cannot be alone with<br />

an elderly person. One carer cited in this rep<strong>or</strong>t says<br />

‘I find it hard to do my job the way I would like to …<br />

we risk our jobs caring f<strong>or</strong> people because we care’.<br />

–In reality, abuse within the caring professions is rare,<br />

and requires m<strong>or</strong>e targeted mechanisms, rather than<br />

general measures f<strong>or</strong> the monit<strong>or</strong>ing of all adults in<br />

health and social care. The money spent on CRB<br />

checking and monit<strong>or</strong>ing carers would be m<strong>or</strong>e productively<br />

spent on delivering social and health services<br />

to the public. This rep<strong>or</strong>t argues that we need to roll<br />

back this suspicious bureaucracy, which is preventing<br />

adults from caring f<strong>or</strong> other adults and wasting vast<br />

amounts of public money that could be better spent.<br />

–The policy of protecting ‘vulnerable adults’ vastly<br />

inflates the vulnerability of adults who are receiving<br />

health <strong>or</strong> social care. The number of state-defined ‘vulnerable<br />

adults’ has undergone a massive expansion,<br />

from a small number of unusually vulnerable individuals,<br />

to a categ<strong>or</strong>y that includes the maj<strong>or</strong>ity of the population.<br />

‘Vulnerable adults’ now includes anyone who<br />

receives any f<strong>or</strong>m of healthcare <strong>or</strong> a range of welfare<br />

supp<strong>or</strong>t, which in any year is over 80% of the population.<br />

One <strong>or</strong>ganisation even defined drunk people as<br />

vulnerable, and CRB checked volunteers who were<br />

helping them home on a Friday night.


Introduction: Suspecting <strong>Carers</strong> / 6 CRB Checking <strong>Carers</strong> / 7<br />

s<strong>or</strong>ting items at a hospice, serving customers in a charity shop, <strong>or</strong> teaching<br />

social w<strong>or</strong>k in a university.<br />

Introduction: Suspecting <strong>Carers</strong><br />

The discussion about CRB checks has so far focused on adults caring<br />

f<strong>or</strong> children. Yet there is another dimension to CRB checks and the<br />

vetting and barring scheme, which concerns those who care f<strong>or</strong> ‘vulnerable<br />

adults’. Under these provisions, those w<strong>or</strong>king <strong>or</strong> volunteering<br />

with medical patients, the elderly, disabled <strong>or</strong> homeless, must undergo<br />

regular CRB checks. They would also have to register with the Independent<br />

Safeguarding Auth<strong>or</strong>ity (ISA), if the vetting and barring scheme<br />

goes ahead as planned.<br />

Alongside the child protection bureaucracy, theref<strong>or</strong>e, there is now a<br />

‘vulnerable adult bureaucracy’ – a system f<strong>or</strong> the monit<strong>or</strong>ing of social<br />

w<strong>or</strong>kers, doct<strong>or</strong>s, charity w<strong>or</strong>kers, and other members of the caring<br />

professions who play a role in caring f<strong>or</strong> other adults. As with adult-child<br />

relations, adult-adult relations are also increasingly likely to be viewed<br />

with suspicion, and those who purp<strong>or</strong>t to care are seen as potentially<br />

predat<strong>or</strong>y.<br />

The number of adults defined by the state as ‘vulnerable’ has expanded<br />

massively over the past decade, from a small number of unusually vulnerable<br />

individuals, to a definition that now includes, in any given year,<br />

over 80% of the UK population. In effect, the state has defined the vast<br />

maj<strong>or</strong>ity of adults as vulnerable, and those who offer care services as<br />

potential abusers.<br />

It is now common practice to CRB check carers including: doct<strong>or</strong>s and<br />

nurses; social w<strong>or</strong>kers; social w<strong>or</strong>k academics and students; w<strong>or</strong>kers<br />

and volunteers with homeless, aged, blind <strong>or</strong> hospice charities. This<br />

process has gone so far that some of these who are CRB checked have<br />

little actual contact with the so-called ‘vulnerable’. They could just be<br />

This rep<strong>or</strong>t charts the growth in CRB checks of the caring professions;<br />

the expansion of the definition of ‘vulnerable adult’; and finally, the implications<br />

f<strong>or</strong> service users, professionals and adult-adult interactions.<br />

CRB Checking <strong>Carers</strong><br />

Pri<strong>or</strong> to 2002, guidance f<strong>or</strong> police checks was set out in Home Office<br />

Circular 47/93, and covered people who applied f<strong>or</strong> employment with<br />

local auth<strong>or</strong>ities <strong>or</strong> schools f<strong>or</strong> w<strong>or</strong>k that would give them ‘substantial<br />

unsupervised access, on a sustained <strong>or</strong> regular basis … to children<br />

under the age of sixteen’. 1<br />

As a significant section of the adult population became officially vulnerable,<br />

we have seen the extension of vetting to those w<strong>or</strong>king with the<br />

‘vulnerable adult’ population. And, in line with developments f<strong>or</strong> those<br />

w<strong>or</strong>king with children, not only those with ‘substantial unsupervised<br />

access’ to ‘vulnerable adults’ required vetting, but any employee <strong>or</strong><br />

volunteer whose duties may bring them into contact with such people.<br />

It is not even necessary to have any contact with a ‘vulnerable person’<br />

to be required to undergo CRB clearance: merely having access to<br />

confidential inf<strong>or</strong>mation about children <strong>or</strong> vulnerable adults is sufficient<br />

f<strong>or</strong> many <strong>or</strong>ganisations to require the vetting of their staff. 2 In other cases,<br />

people are checked who have ‘access to inf<strong>or</strong>mation about vulnerable<br />

adults’, f<strong>or</strong> example care rec<strong>or</strong>ds – <strong>or</strong> who do intellectual w<strong>or</strong>k on vulnerable<br />

adults, f<strong>or</strong> example in social w<strong>or</strong>k academia. In a sh<strong>or</strong>t space of<br />

time we have gone from viewing the need to vet staff as a rare event in<br />

very specific circumstances to one in which such vetting is ubiquitous.<br />

Even drunk people are classed as ‘vulnerable adults’. A Christian <strong>or</strong>ganisation<br />

that walks the streets helping drunken revellers at weekends<br />

requires its volunteers to be CRB checked, since they are helping the<br />

‘vulnerable’. 3 Homeless charities routinely CRB check the volunteers


CRB Checking <strong>Carers</strong> / 8 The Cost of CRB Checking <strong>Carers</strong> / 9<br />

who w<strong>or</strong>k in their shops, whose main activity is putting customers’ items<br />

into carrier bags. Homeless charities CRB check the volunteers who take<br />

food to people living on the streets around Christmas time.<br />

Age Concern Sussex advertised a ‘befriender’ scheme, which would<br />

include volunteers visiting an old person f<strong>or</strong> ‘general chatting <strong>or</strong> sharing<br />

hobbies such as crossw<strong>or</strong>ds and chess’. The Age Concern representative<br />

said that ‘volunteers will need a CRB check’. 4<br />

In addition to a CRB check, carers are also checked against the Protection<br />

of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) list. The POVA scheme was launched<br />

in July 2004, and laid down by section 80 of the Care Standards Act 2000.<br />

It is a system whereby ‘known abusers’ of vulnerable adults have their<br />

names put on a register. Section 80 of the Care Standards Act requires<br />

care agencies to refer a w<strong>or</strong>ker to the list if they have been suspended,<br />

sacked <strong>or</strong> moved to a non-care role because of evidence <strong>or</strong> suspicion<br />

that they have harmed a service user <strong>or</strong> placed them in danger.<br />

Care providers and agencies in England and Wales have a statut<strong>or</strong>y<br />

duty to consult the register whenever they employ someone whose w<strong>or</strong>k<br />

involves care duties f<strong>or</strong> those considered vulnerable, and they cannot<br />

employ anyone whose name appears on the list. It is a criminal offence,<br />

punishable by up to five years in prison, f<strong>or</strong> someone whose name appears<br />

on the list to seek employment in a care position. So, while the employer<br />

has the discretion to appoint someone with criminal convictions, they<br />

have no such discretion over anyone whose name is on the POVA list.<br />

The rise of CRB checking of those w<strong>or</strong>king with ‘vulnerable adults’ is<br />

shown by looking at the number of CRB applications received since<br />

2002 where a check of the POVA list was also requested. The POVA<br />

list, f<strong>or</strong>merly owned by the Department f<strong>or</strong> Education and Skills, is now<br />

owned and maintained by the Independent Safeguarding Auth<strong>or</strong>ity<br />

(ISA), and is known as the ISA adults barred list.<br />

This table shows the number of CRB checks f<strong>or</strong> those w<strong>or</strong>king <strong>or</strong><br />

volunteering with vulnerable adults (ie, where a POVA check was also<br />

requested as part of the CRB check).<br />

Year<br />

2002–035<br />

2003–04<br />

2004–05<br />

2005–06<br />

2006–07<br />

2007–08<br />

2008–09<br />

2009–10 6<br />

Total<br />

Even allowing f<strong>or</strong> overlap, where the same person may have been POVA<br />

checked m<strong>or</strong>e than once, such figures indicate a massive expansion in<br />

the numbers of care employees and volunteers being vetted.<br />

If current plans go ahead, a substantial number of adult carers would<br />

have to register on the vetting database. Acc<strong>or</strong>ding to figures from the<br />

CRB, released to the <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong>, out of a total of 2 million volunteers<br />

who would have to register on the vetting database if it goes ahead as<br />

planned, around 500,000 of these would be volunteering with vulnerable<br />

adults. 7<br />

The Cost of CRB Checking <strong>Carers</strong><br />

CRB Checks<br />

These CRB checks come at a considerable cost to health and social<br />

care sect<strong>or</strong>s that are currently experiencing cuts.<br />

The cost of these 2,940,766 CRB checks is £36 fee per check, plus<br />

an average £20 administration fee per check (which is either paid f<strong>or</strong><br />

directly, <strong>or</strong> b<strong>or</strong>ne within the costs of the <strong>or</strong>ganisation). This means a<br />

total of some £164.7 million.<br />

The vetting database, and the additional requirement f<strong>or</strong> all w<strong>or</strong>kers<br />

with vulnerable adults to be ISA-registered, will make matters w<strong>or</strong>se if it<br />

goes ahead. 8 The registration of each carer would cost £84 in total (at a<br />

cost of £64 f<strong>or</strong> ISA registration, plus a £20 admin fee). The CRB is not<br />

6<br />

29<br />

369,049<br />

516,062<br />

483,961<br />

487,441<br />

515,341<br />

568,877<br />

2,940,766


The Cost of CRB Checking <strong>Carers</strong> / 10 The Expansion of State-defined ‘Vulnerable Adults’ / 11<br />

currently releasing estimates on the number of adult carers who would<br />

be expected to go on the vetting database. If this figure was 2 million –<br />

a relatively conservative estimate out of a total of 9.5 million adults on<br />

the database – this would mean a total cost f<strong>or</strong> the ISA registration of<br />

carers of £168 million. This is another good reason f<strong>or</strong> scrapping the<br />

ISA scheme.<br />

Many of these ‘vulnerable adult’ CRB checks are f<strong>or</strong> people who w<strong>or</strong>k<br />

in public bodies – doct<strong>or</strong>s, nurses, social w<strong>or</strong>kers – and so the public<br />

body generally covers the cost of the check. This is theref<strong>or</strong>e a substantial<br />

expenditure f<strong>or</strong> public services, at a time of widespread cuts.<br />

Acc<strong>or</strong>ding to the CRB’s response to a recent FOI request, the UK Home<br />

Care Association alone submitted 17,654 CRB checks between August<br />

2009 and August 2010, which would mean a total cost of nearly a million<br />

pounds; the Registered Nursing Home Association submitted a similar<br />

number of checks. 9<br />

FOI requests also reveal that, in the year 2009-10, the CRB carried<br />

out 610,461 checks f<strong>or</strong> the care sect<strong>or</strong>, and 621,469 f<strong>or</strong> the medical<br />

sect<strong>or</strong>. This means a total of 1.23 million CRB checks, at the cost of<br />

£69 million to these substantially publicly funded sect<strong>or</strong>s. 10<br />

In some cases, professionals – such as agency nurses – must pay f<strong>or</strong><br />

the CRB check themselves. This has caused substantial conflict in some<br />

local health boards. When NHS Central Lancashire brought in a new<br />

policy asking staff to pay f<strong>or</strong> their own CRB checks, health staff rebelled<br />

and their unions lodged a grievance, stating: ‘These checks are compuls<strong>or</strong>y<br />

f<strong>or</strong> large numbers of NHS staff and to demand that staff pay at<br />

the same time as they are being told that they will not be receiving a pay<br />

rise f<strong>or</strong> two years is disgusting.’ 11<br />

In other cases, voluntary <strong>or</strong>ganisations have had to bear the cost of checks<br />

themselves, creating difficulties as highlighted in the following case study:<br />

I am the secretary f<strong>or</strong> a charity which is f<strong>or</strong> blind and<br />

partially sighted elderly people. Originally only the<br />

<strong>or</strong>ganiser had to have a CRB check, but later this Spring<br />

all volunteers will need to undergo the check. This<br />

includes our rota of drivers, who collect and deliver the<br />

members to the club, supplied by the local Rotary <strong>Club</strong>.<br />

It is an extremely small charity and I am uncertain who<br />

will have to pay f<strong>or</strong> the 20-25 volunteers’ CRB checks.<br />

I am absolutely certain that if the volunteers have to pay<br />

to have the checks, i.e. pay to be a volunteer – then the<br />

club will be f<strong>or</strong>ced to close. 12<br />

Small <strong>or</strong>ganisations are essential to providing valuable help to adults in<br />

local communities. However, this is a fragile economy and simply cannot<br />

cope with these heavy bureaucratic demands and costs.<br />

The Expansion of State-defined ‘Vulnerable Adults’ 13<br />

In 1992, I [Ken McLaughlin] was appointed as a supp<strong>or</strong>t w<strong>or</strong>ker f<strong>or</strong><br />

homeless families. My main place of w<strong>or</strong>k was in a shared house/hostel<br />

that could accommodate approximately 14 women and over 30 children.<br />

No adult male residents <strong>or</strong> visit<strong>or</strong>s were allowed on site as many of<br />

the women were fleeing domestic violence. I recall asking my manager<br />

why I did not have to undergo a police check (the precurs<strong>or</strong> of today’s<br />

CRB check). Her reply was to question why such a measure would be<br />

necessary. The women residents, she said, were homeless, with specific<br />

needs, but they were not vulnerable. The children were not in care; they<br />

were being looked after by their mothers. I accepted this explanation as<br />

entirely sensible. 14<br />

What is striking about this episode is the extent to which, from today’s<br />

perspective, such a response would be seen as seriously naive at best,<br />

to grossly irresponsible and dangerous practice at w<strong>or</strong>st. Today, the<br />

children and their mothers would be automatically classed as vulnerable,<br />

and I would be CRB checked bef<strong>or</strong>e being allowed to set foot in the<br />

hostel. I have often reflected on this incident in my decade in academia<br />

as I have witnessed both the expansion of the definition of ‘vulnerable<br />

adults’ and the related extension of those required to undergo a criminal<br />

rec<strong>or</strong>ds bureau check f<strong>or</strong> helping them.


The Expansion of State-defined ‘Vulnerable Adults’ / 12 The Expansion of State-defined ‘Vulnerable Adults’ / 13<br />

CRB checks are presented as sensible measures to protect the vulnerable.<br />

What is rarely pointed out is the way that the term ‘vulnerable’ has<br />

changed in recent years, to cover everm<strong>or</strong>e sections of the population.<br />

In 1995, the Law Commission proposed the following definition of a<br />

‘vulnerable person at risk’:<br />

a “vulnerable person at risk” should mean any person<br />

of 16 <strong>or</strong> over who (1) is <strong>or</strong> may be in need of community<br />

care services by reason of mental <strong>or</strong> other disability, age<br />

<strong>or</strong> illness and who (2) is <strong>or</strong> may be unable to take care<br />

of himself <strong>or</strong> herself, <strong>or</strong> unable to protect himself <strong>or</strong><br />

herself against significant harm <strong>or</strong> serious exploitation. 15<br />

(my emphasis)<br />

Vulnerability to risk is not automatically assumed to flow from the specific<br />

categ<strong>or</strong>ies mentioned in section one; the criteria in section two<br />

must also be met. In addition, even being at risk of harm <strong>or</strong> exploitation<br />

is not sufficient f<strong>or</strong> the label of vulnerable to be applied; the harm must<br />

be ‘significant’, the exploitation ‘serious’. This would appear to have been<br />

a commonly held w<strong>or</strong>king definition, given my erstwhile team leader’s<br />

response about police checks f<strong>or</strong> w<strong>or</strong>king with homeless adults. This<br />

reflected a view that to be vulnerable was not considered the n<strong>or</strong>m,<br />

a view that many practitioners such as my manager and I subscribed.<br />

This definition was adapted by the L<strong>or</strong>d Chancell<strong>or</strong>’s Department in<br />

1997, with ‘vulnerable person at risk’ being replaced by ‘vulnerable<br />

adult’. In this new definition, the w<strong>or</strong>d ‘serious’ was dropped, so it now<br />

read ‘significant harm <strong>or</strong> exploitation’. This definition was adopted by<br />

most local auth<strong>or</strong>ities.<br />

Three years later, the policy guidance document No Secrets kept within<br />

this 1997 definition, but elab<strong>or</strong>ated on what constituted ‘community<br />

care services’ – ‘to include all care services in any setting <strong>or</strong> context’. 16<br />

However, the same year the Care Standards Act 2000 expanded the<br />

definition to a quite considerable extent. A ‘vulnerable adult’ was now<br />

(a) an adult to whom accommodation and nursing <strong>or</strong><br />

personal care are provided in a care home;<br />

(b) an adult to whom personal care is provided in their own<br />

home under arrangements made by a domiciliary care<br />

agency; <strong>or</strong><br />

(c) an adult to whom prescribed services are provided by<br />

an independent hospital, independent clinic, independent<br />

medical agency <strong>or</strong> National Health Service body. 17<br />

Gone is the need to belong to a specific categ<strong>or</strong>y of service user, as is<br />

the need to be at risk of any f<strong>or</strong>m of harm <strong>or</strong> exploitation, never mind of<br />

a significant degree. Simply to use one such service now automatically<br />

classifies you as a vulnerable adult.<br />

The trend to further expand the categ<strong>or</strong>y of ‘vulnerable adult’ continued,<br />

culminating in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which<br />

views a person to be a vulnerable adult if they have attained the age of<br />

18 and he <strong>or</strong> she<br />

(a) is in residential accommodation<br />

(b) is in sheltered housing<br />

(c) receives domiciliary care<br />

(d) receives any f<strong>or</strong>m of health care<br />

(e) is detained in lawful custody<br />

(f) is by virtue of an <strong>or</strong>der of a court under supervision<br />

by a person exercising functions f<strong>or</strong> the purposes of<br />

Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act<br />

2000 (c.43) 18<br />

(g) receives a welfare service of a prescribed description 19<br />

(h) receives any service <strong>or</strong> participates in any activity<br />

provided specifically f<strong>or</strong> persons who fall within<br />

subsection(9) 20<br />

(i) payments are made to him (<strong>or</strong> to another on his behalf)<br />

in pursuance of arrangements under section 57 of the<br />

Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c.15), 21 <strong>or</strong><br />

(j) requires assistance in the conduct of his affairs (s.59[1]) 22


The Expansion of State-defined ‘Vulnerable Adults’ / 14 The Expansion of State-defined ‘Vulnerable Adults’ / 15<br />

This is quite a remarkable expansion, especially when you consider that<br />

health care means receiving ‘treatment, therapy <strong>or</strong> palliative care of any<br />

description’ (s.59[5], my emphasis), while any provision of assistance<br />

by virtue of age, health <strong>or</strong> any disability also renders the recipient among<br />

the ranks of the vulnerable (s.59[5]).<br />

As the vast maj<strong>or</strong>ity of disabled people require some f<strong>or</strong>m of assistance,<br />

this legislation effectively equates being disabled with being a<br />

‘vulnerable adult’. With dyslexia now recognised as a f<strong>or</strong>m of disability,<br />

and with many higher education students having assistance f<strong>or</strong> just<br />

such a diagnosis, the implication is that they are vulnerable adults also.<br />

However, in a rare moment of insight into the absurdity of such a broad<br />

definition, officials w<strong>or</strong>king on the Vetting and Barring Scheme specifically<br />

removed dyslexia-related services from the list of those officially<br />

classed as ‘vulnerable’. 23<br />

It is difficult to get precise figures f<strong>or</strong> how many people are now officially<br />

classed as vulnerable, due to the potential f<strong>or</strong> overlap. Some people will<br />

be in m<strong>or</strong>e than one categ<strong>or</strong>y, f<strong>or</strong> example receiving community care<br />

and health services and/<strong>or</strong> being in lawful custody and suffering mental<br />

health problems. Nevertheless, it is clear that, at some point in any given<br />

year, a maj<strong>or</strong>ity of the UK adult population would be labelled as ‘vulnerable’,<br />

and that those who cared f<strong>or</strong> them in a f<strong>or</strong>mal capacity would have<br />

to be CRB checked. F<strong>or</strong> example:<br />

– In 2007–08, 1.77 million clients were in receipt of social<br />

care services, 1.53 million (87%) of whom received<br />

community-based services 24<br />

– During a sample week in September 2008, 340,600<br />

people received a total of 4.1 million contact hours of<br />

home care. 25<br />

– 78% of people will see their GP at least once during the<br />

year. GPs also refer 14% of the population to hospital<br />

specialities. 26<br />

– In 2008–09, over 1.2 million people accessed NHS mental<br />

health services. 27<br />

– There were 85,086 detained prisoners as of 30 April 2010. 28<br />

Government guidance relating to the ISA’s Vetting and Barring Scheme<br />

states that the definition of ‘vulnerable adult’ depends on context:<br />

On Tuesdays Mrs B attends a day care centre which<br />

provides social activities f<strong>or</strong> frail old people. During her<br />

time at the day care centre she is receiving a service<br />

which is provided specifically f<strong>or</strong> people with age-related<br />

needs and so is a vulnerable adult. On Wednesdays Mrs<br />

B visits the library. During her time at the library she is<br />

using a service which is targeted at the general public<br />

and so is not a vulnerable adult. 29<br />

As I [Josie Appleton] pointed out in an earlier <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> document,<br />

such ‘guidance’, rather than offering clarification, merely adds to both<br />

confusion and bemusement, in that:<br />

the staff at the daycare centre would have to be vetted,<br />

because they had ‘access’ to Mrs B in a situation where<br />

she was classified as a vulnerable adult. But the staff at<br />

the library would not, because she would not be defined<br />

as a vulnerable adult in the library. 30<br />

Furtherm<strong>or</strong>e, if Mrs B were herself to volunteer at a<br />

local school, then she would be a potential risk and the<br />

pupils would be defined as vulnerable, and she would<br />

have to be vetted. If the school’s sixth f<strong>or</strong>mers were to<br />

visit her daycare home as helpers, then they would need<br />

to be vetted and Mrs B would again be defined as<br />

vulnerable. In each case, a helping <strong>or</strong> caring relationship<br />

is defined as one of potential victim and potential<br />

abuser, with the helper as the risk and the helped as<br />

the potentially abused.<br />

What is w<strong>or</strong>rying is the way a bureaucratic legal procedure overrides<br />

common assessment skills, and the implication that it is those who<br />

purp<strong>or</strong>t to care who we should view with most suspicion. In the process<br />

both professionals and service users are undermined; the f<strong>or</strong>mer viewed


Adults at Risk / 16 The Silent Repeal of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 / 17<br />

as potential threats, the latter as a homogenous group who require<br />

protection from malevolent carers.<br />

Adults at Risk<br />

Nobody w<strong>or</strong>king in social w<strong>or</strong>k <strong>or</strong> social care would deny that many<br />

adults suffer serious and sustained abuse. Such a position would be<br />

untenable. However, it is not the case that there is an epidemic of abuse<br />

that requires a state monit<strong>or</strong>ing system of all adult carers.<br />

The 2007 UK Study of Abuse and Neglect 31 found that 2.6 per cent of<br />

its sample of people aged 66 and over who lived in private households<br />

had ‘experienced mistreatment’ from a family member, close friend <strong>or</strong><br />

care w<strong>or</strong>ker. This may include some h<strong>or</strong>rific individual cases, but it does<br />

not suggest widespread mistreatment, especially when you consider<br />

that older people make up 72% of social services’ clients. 32 In addition,<br />

there tends to be a conflation of categ<strong>or</strong>ies in the way such rep<strong>or</strong>ts<br />

are interpreted. A small number of very bad cases of abuse are listed<br />

alongside a m<strong>or</strong>e common f<strong>or</strong>m of mistreatment: ‘neglect’. While the<br />

consequences of neglect can be serious, it is m<strong>or</strong>e often than not an act<br />

of omission rather than necessarily a calculated f<strong>or</strong>m of abuse.<br />

Other f<strong>or</strong>ms of abuse, such as psychological, physical and sexual, were<br />

so uncommon that the rep<strong>or</strong>t’s auth<strong>or</strong>s combined them under the term<br />

‘interpersonal abuse’. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the position is<br />

further blurred by the wide range of behaviours included in some definitions.<br />

F<strong>or</strong> instance, psychological abuse included such behaviours as<br />

shouting and taunting, which can certainly be unpleasant but are a long<br />

way from the serious end of the abuse spectrum. 33<br />

Between July 2004 and November 2006, 3,418 w<strong>or</strong>kers were referred<br />

f<strong>or</strong> investigation, f<strong>or</strong> possible inclusion on the Protection of Vulnerable<br />

Adults list. Two-thirds of these were closed at the ‘pre-provisional’ (first)<br />

stage of investigation and only 10.6% were subsequently placed on<br />

the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list following further investigations. 34<br />

This would indicate two things. First, employers are referring staff too<br />

readily f<strong>or</strong> POVA investigation, no doubt afraid not to comply with the<br />

procedures and face sanction themselves. Second, an average of<br />

12–13 people a month being placed on the POVA list does not indicate<br />

widespread mistreatment of vulnerable people. And while it has to be<br />

b<strong>or</strong>ne in mind that some perpetrat<strong>or</strong>s may have escaped censure due<br />

to lack of evidence and/<strong>or</strong> credibility of victim/witness, it is also the case<br />

that those who were deemed guilty were found so on the ‘balance of<br />

probabilities’, rather than the m<strong>or</strong>e stringent ‘beyond reasonable doubt’<br />

legal threshold.<br />

This conclusion is also suggested if we examine the numbers of CRB<br />

checked adults who turned out to be on the adults barred list, f<strong>or</strong> the<br />

period 2009–10. Out of a total of 2.25 million CRB checks, only 89<br />

were on the ISA adults barred list. 35<br />

While it has few benefits, the expansion of CRB checks of carers has<br />

significant downsides. One is the erosion of imp<strong>or</strong>tant civil liberties protections,<br />

as endowed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Another is<br />

the creation of a climate of mistrust within the caring professions which<br />

makes them less able to do their jobs and help the adults who need it.<br />

The Silent Repeal of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974<br />

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 had the aim of providing exoffenders<br />

with a ‘fresh start’. It allowed many convictions, provided they<br />

resulted in a prison sentence of 30 months <strong>or</strong> less, to become classed<br />

as ‘spent’ after a certain period of time had lapsed, and theref<strong>or</strong>e the<br />

prospective employee would not have to disclose them on an application<br />

f<strong>or</strong>m. They could legally tick the ‘No’ box if asked whether they had<br />

ever been convicted of a criminal offence.<br />

The Act, as the name suggests, was concerned with the rehabilitation<br />

of offenders. It acknowledged that preventing ex-offenders from w<strong>or</strong>king<br />

was counter-productive, and it was also of a time when there was a<br />

general belief in the ‘rehabilitative ideal’.


Institutionalising Suspicion and Mistrust / 18 Institutionalising Suspicion and Mistrust / 19<br />

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975<br />

detailed certain positions that were exempt from the Act and any convictions,<br />

whether spent <strong>or</strong> not, would have to be divulged by the applicant.<br />

In the intervening years, the number of exempt posts has grown so<br />

exponentially that to all intents and purposes the government has effectively<br />

undermined the <strong>or</strong>iginal Act in both the<strong>or</strong>y and practice. The<br />

most notable change has been the addition of posts involving w<strong>or</strong>king<br />

with children and vulnerable adults. The rehabilitative ideal has been<br />

lost, and, f<strong>or</strong> a significant section of the population their convictions will<br />

never be regarded as spent.<br />

Institutionalising Suspicion and Mistrust<br />

Personal testimonies can also help illustrate the way in which the<br />

present climate of distrust and the procedural measures that arise from<br />

it inhibit the caring relationship. One of us [Josie Appleton] experienced<br />

this first hand, as a routine trip to the physiotherapist f<strong>or</strong> a sp<strong>or</strong>ts injury<br />

became a relationship between potential victim and predat<strong>or</strong>:<br />

When I turned up f<strong>or</strong> my regular physiotherapy appointment<br />

I was told that we would ‘have to be supervised’,<br />

because my therapist’s CRB check had not come through.<br />

He had already had three checks, and because he was from<br />

China the whole thing was probably a waste of time, but<br />

still, anybody receiving medical treatment is classified as<br />

a ‘vulnerable adult’ and theref<strong>or</strong>e requires CRB protection. 36<br />

A routine appointment is recast as a potential abuse situation, to the<br />

annoyance of both patient and therapist. Such a climate can also affect<br />

w<strong>or</strong>ker-client interaction in care settings. The experience of the care<br />

w<strong>or</strong>ker below will be familiar to many within the sect<strong>or</strong>:<br />

1st CRB needed: I teach at a college where I do a lot of<br />

w<strong>or</strong>k with adults [who are not in Education, Employment<br />

<strong>or</strong> Training…]<br />

2nd CRB needed: I also w<strong>or</strong>k f<strong>or</strong> a national care group who<br />

own homes f<strong>or</strong> a national care <strong>or</strong>ganisation.<br />

3rd CRB needed: I w<strong>or</strong>k f<strong>or</strong> an agency, currently w<strong>or</strong>king in<br />

a sheltered village f<strong>or</strong> people with learning disabilities.<br />

4th CRB needed: I w<strong>or</strong>k f<strong>or</strong> another agency in nursing<br />

homes, caring f<strong>or</strong> the old, infirm and dying.<br />

The consequence In all cases, I find it hard to do my job<br />

the way I would like to. I cannot be alone with them,<br />

<strong>or</strong> I have to leave the do<strong>or</strong> open. I cannot assist an old<br />

lady to the toilet in many places, despite her requesting<br />

such help so she does not have the indignity of soiling<br />

herself. (Occasionally I do as a caring person as it<br />

distresses me and my colleagues if we don’t, and so we<br />

risk our jobs caring f<strong>or</strong> people because we care)! 37<br />

Perversely, procedures set up to ‘protect the vulnerable’ actually damage<br />

the quality of care they receive. In an email to the <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong>, a lady<br />

who w<strong>or</strong>ks in social care describes how systems f<strong>or</strong> the management of<br />

carers end up cutting off service users from potentially fruitful contacts:<br />

Modern social care services advocate practice which<br />

promotes participation and inclusion, and supp<strong>or</strong>ts<br />

people to develop social netw<strong>or</strong>ks and natural structures<br />

of supp<strong>or</strong>t within their communities. However, a<br />

dichotomy exists within the social care system, which<br />

itself creates one of the greatest barriers to achieving<br />

this vision: the framew<strong>or</strong>k of vulnerable adult protection,<br />

and the <strong>or</strong>ganisational culture that it creates, means<br />

that it is extremely difficult f<strong>or</strong> people to develop inf<strong>or</strong>mal<br />

relationships within the community, outside of the<br />

regulated environment of care services.<br />

There is minimal opp<strong>or</strong>tunity f<strong>or</strong> service users to interact<br />

and engage with the people around them, unless strictly<br />

supervised, and attempts by members of the public to<br />

f<strong>or</strong>m a friendship with a person receiving care services


Institutionalising Suspicion and Mistrust / 20 Conclusion / 21<br />

is often looked upon as suspicious. This outlook does<br />

a great disservice to both parties: it regards the public<br />

as potential abusers, and implies that adults who are<br />

elderly, disabled, homeless <strong>or</strong> have mental health<br />

problems have nothing to offer to another person; that<br />

one would only seek to engage with a vulnerable adult<br />

in <strong>or</strong>der to benefit from them by abusing <strong>or</strong> exploiting<br />

them. I think until the system of safeguarding vulnerable<br />

adults, and the attitudes it promotes, are changed, inclusion<br />

and equality will not be achievable. 38<br />

Whilst there is little evidence to suggest the expansion of CRB and ISA<br />

guidelines and procedures have improved public protection, it would<br />

appear to be the case that rather than alleviating public anxiety they are<br />

actively contributing to it.<br />

This is brought home to me [Ken McLaughlin] each year with my university’s<br />

social w<strong>or</strong>k students. Pri<strong>or</strong> to the introduction of mandat<strong>or</strong>y<br />

CRB checks, our students, as with those on most other such courses,<br />

were sent out on practice placements each year without undergoing the<br />

then ‘police checks’. It was rarely an issue. Occasionally some agencies,<br />

f<strong>or</strong> example in residential social w<strong>or</strong>k <strong>or</strong> child protection, would<br />

do their own check as per Home Office Circular 47/93, as the student<br />

would have substantial unsupervised access to children. Today, all of the<br />

5,000 plus students enrolled on initial social w<strong>or</strong>k qualifying degrees are<br />

required to have a satisfact<strong>or</strong>y CRB check. 39<br />

Indeed, it is not uncommon f<strong>or</strong> agencies to require students to undergo<br />

repeat CRB checks, even if their last one was only a year <strong>or</strong> even a few<br />

months previously. Many students will have three <strong>or</strong> four ‘current’ (within<br />

the past three years) CRB checks on the go at the same time. Such<br />

is the way that the debate around vulnerability and distrust has been<br />

naturalised that many students see the undertaking of a CRB check as<br />

akin to a rite of passage, albeit one that will be repeated frequently in<br />

the duration of their careers. With everyone viewed with suspicion the<br />

tendency is f<strong>or</strong> such measures to constantly extend.<br />

This suspicion is particularly off-putting f<strong>or</strong> volunteers, and others who<br />

have inf<strong>or</strong>mally offered their help to care f<strong>or</strong> others. One potential<br />

volunteer f<strong>or</strong> a homeless charity, Christina Davenp<strong>or</strong>t, told us that she is<br />

currently unable to volunteer because she is waiting f<strong>or</strong> her third CRB<br />

check to come through. All this in <strong>or</strong>der to be able to put items in a<br />

plastic bag in a W<strong>or</strong>thing charity shop – a shop that she says is ‘desperate<br />

f<strong>or</strong> volunteers’. She told us that the bureaucratic hassle had nearly<br />

put her off volunteering:<br />

I thought, I can’t stand this. You have to take your passp<strong>or</strong>t,<br />

and the whole process makes you feel like a criminal. But<br />

then I thought of the homeless and so I’m sticking it out. 40<br />

The <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> has been contacted by several doct<strong>or</strong>s who<br />

object to being CRB checked in <strong>or</strong>der to sit on their local health boards<br />

in an unpaid capacity. Some of these doct<strong>or</strong>s have threatened to resign<br />

in protest. 41<br />

Mistrust is only enf<strong>or</strong>ced by suspicious ‘adult safeguarding’ rules, which<br />

prevent carers being alone with clients, <strong>or</strong> taking an old lady to the toilet.<br />

The Rotary <strong>Club</strong> introduced a policy f<strong>or</strong> its volunteers to always go out<br />

in twos, f<strong>or</strong> example if they were driving an old lady to get her shopping.<br />

In this scenario, the very offer of help makes someone a source of suspicion<br />

and in need of being watched. 42<br />

Conclusion<br />

Bureaucratic measures f<strong>or</strong> regulating carers are m<strong>or</strong>e concerned with<br />

protecting agencies than their clientele. This approach to social w<strong>or</strong>k<br />

and social care does little to help the relative few who really are at risk<br />

of abuse, and diverts much-needed resources from frontline social<br />

care. W<strong>or</strong>st of all, it helps promote societal distrust by encouraging us<br />

to view everyone, especially those who purp<strong>or</strong>t to care, with suspicion.<br />

The ever-growing categ<strong>or</strong>y of the ‘vulnerable adult’ is a recent phenomenon,<br />

based on a rather degraded view of both service users and


Endnotes / 22 Endnotes / 23<br />

their carers. The f<strong>or</strong>mer are viewed as inherently fragile, the latter as<br />

potentially predat<strong>or</strong>y. It represents the institutionalisation of misanthropy,<br />

whereby thinking the w<strong>or</strong>st about people is viewed as a positive civic<br />

duty and positive social care value.<br />

This rep<strong>or</strong>t calls f<strong>or</strong> a m<strong>or</strong>e positive and humane view of carers and<br />

the adults they help. Abuse is not the n<strong>or</strong>m. The money spent on CRB<br />

checking and monit<strong>or</strong>ing carers would be m<strong>or</strong>e productively spent on<br />

delivering social and health services to the public. What is needed, we<br />

argue, is to roll back this suspicious bureaucracy, which is preventing<br />

adults from caring f<strong>or</strong> other adults and wasting vast amounts of public<br />

money that could be better spent.<br />

Endnotes<br />

1 ‘Protection of Children: disclosure of<br />

criminal background of those with access<br />

to children’, Home Office Circular no.47/1993<br />

2 CRB checks: Guidance f<strong>or</strong> departments,<br />

Queen Mary University of London www.hr.<br />

qmul.ac.uk/docs/policies_procedures/<br />

recruitment/2550.pdf<br />

3 Christian volunteers help get people home<br />

safely www.then<strong>or</strong>thernecho.co.uk/news/local/<br />

durham/8127206.A_shoulder_to_lean_on_f<strong>or</strong>_<br />

city_centre_drinkers<br />

4 www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/hailsham-news/<br />

Age-Concern-urges-people-to.6334873.jp<br />

5 Figures f<strong>or</strong> 2002–9 from <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong><br />

Freedom of Inf<strong>or</strong>mation Act request to<br />

CRB, no.14597<br />

6 Figures f<strong>or</strong> 2009–10 from <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong><br />

Freedom of Inf<strong>or</strong>mation Act request to CRB,<br />

no.14597. These figures were given f<strong>or</strong> up<br />

to the end of February 2010, so have been<br />

scaled up prop<strong>or</strong>tionally to cover until the<br />

end of March 2010<br />

7 CRB response to <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> FOI request,<br />

29 April 2010<br />

8 The vetting database is currently under<br />

review, and an announcement is expected at<br />

the start of 2011<br />

9 See FOI response, ref:16203 www.crb.<br />

homeoffice.gov.uk/pdf/FOI%2016203_.pdf<br />

10 On the basis of £36 fee, and £20 admin<br />

fee, per CRB check. See FOI response,<br />

ref:16094 www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/pdf/<br />

FOI%2016094.pdf<br />

11 www.lep.co.uk/news/nhs_w<strong>or</strong>kers_criminal_<br />

check_cost_standoff_1_928690<br />

12 Post on Saga website, 12 January 2010<br />

www.sagazone.co.uk/f<strong>or</strong>ums/thread/54062/<br />

13 This section develops material first<br />

discussed in McLaughlin, K. (2010) ‘Control<br />

and Social W<strong>or</strong>k: A reflection on some<br />

twenty-first century developments’, Practice,<br />

vol.22, no.3, pp.143–154<br />

14 In the over three years I was there it was<br />

only when I <strong>or</strong>ganised a summer playscheme<br />

f<strong>or</strong> the children that I was required to have<br />

a police check, as I was then seen as in<br />

loco parentis<br />

15 Rep<strong>or</strong>t on Mental Capacity, Law Commission<br />

no.231, 1995<br />

16 No Secrets: Guidance on developing and<br />

implementing multi-agency policies and<br />

procedures to protect vulnerable adults<br />

from abuse, Department of Health, 2000,<br />

Para 2.4 www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/<br />

groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/<br />

digitalasset/dh_4074540.pdf<br />

17 Care Standards Act 2000, Department of Health,<br />

part VII, S80(6) www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/<br />

acts2000/ukpga_20000014_en_9#pt7-pb1-l1g80<br />

18 This refers to those subject to supervision<br />

by the probation service.<br />

19 This includes services which provide supp<strong>or</strong>t,<br />

assistance, advice <strong>or</strong> counselling to individuals<br />

with particular needs.<br />

20 A person falls within this subsection if<br />

(a) he has particular needs because of his<br />

age; (b) he has any f<strong>or</strong>m of disability;<br />

(c) he has a physical <strong>or</strong> mental problem of<br />

such description as is prescribed; (d) she<br />

is an expectant <strong>or</strong> nursing mother in receipt<br />

of residential accommodation pursuant to<br />

arrangements made under section 21(1) (aa)<br />

of the National Assistance Act 1948 <strong>or</strong><br />

care pursuant to paragraph 1 of Schedule 8<br />

to the National Health Service Act 1977<br />

(c. 49); (e) he is a person of a prescribed<br />

description not falling within paragraphs<br />

(a) to (d)<br />

21 This refers to those in receipt of ‘direct<br />

payments’<br />

22 Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006,<br />

Department of Health, S.59 www.opsi.gov.uk/<br />

acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060047_en_5#pb14-l1g59<br />

23 ISA (2008) (Independent Safeguarding<br />

Auth<strong>or</strong>ity) ‘ISA Scheme Consultation<br />

Document F<strong>or</strong>mal Government Response’,<br />

30 May 2008 www.fairplayf<strong>or</strong>children.<strong>or</strong>g/<br />

pdf/1218024387.pdf<br />

24 Community Care Statistics 2007-08:<br />

Referrals, Assessments and Packages of<br />

Care f<strong>or</strong> Adults, England, The Health and<br />

Social Care Inf<strong>or</strong>mation Centre, 2009 www.<br />

ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/Social%20<br />

Care/RAP%20Full%20Rep<strong>or</strong>t/2007-08/RAP%20<br />

Rep<strong>or</strong>t.pdf<br />

25 Community Care Statisitcs 2008: Home care<br />

services f<strong>or</strong> adults, England www.ic.nhs.<br />

uk/statistics-and-data-collections/<br />

social-care/adult-social-care-inf<strong>or</strong>mation/<br />

community-care-statistics-2008:-help-careservices-f<strong>or</strong>-adults-england<br />

26 Royal College of General Practitioners<br />

www.rcgp.<strong>or</strong>g.uk/patient_inf<strong>or</strong>mation/<br />

what_is_general_practice.aspx<br />

27 NHS Mental Health Minimum Dataset<br />

www.mhmdsonline.ic.nhs.uk/statistics.asp<br />

rep<strong>or</strong>t_ID=1&results_type=national&sha_ID=&<br />

provider_ID=&natyear=&n=&remember=rep<strong>or</strong>t_<br />

ID%3D1%26results_type%3Dnational<br />

28 HM Prison Service Population Bulletin Weekly<br />

30th April 2010 www.hmprisonservice.gov.<br />

uk/resourcecentre/publicationsdocuments/<br />

index.aspcat=85<br />

29 Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006:<br />

ISA Scheme Consultation Document,<br />

14 November 2007, page 8 www.dcsf.gov.uk/<br />

consultations/downloadableDocs/SVG%20<br />

Act%20ISA%20consultation%20final.pdf<br />

30 Regulating Trust: who will be on the vetting<br />

database, p.15 (emphasis in <strong>or</strong>iginal),<br />

<strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong>, 2009 www.manifestoclub.com/<br />

files/RegulatingTrust.pdf<br />

31 UK Study of Abuse and Neglect 2007 assets.<br />

comicrelief.com/cr09/docs/elderabuseprev.pdf<br />

32 NHS Inf<strong>or</strong>mation Centre Statistics www.ic.nhs.<br />

uk/statistics-and-data-collections/socialcare/older-people<br />

33 Look on the bright side of ‘later life’ by<br />

Ken McLaughlin www.spiked-online.com/index.<br />

php/site/article/3811/<br />

34 The protection of Vulnerable Adults List:<br />

An investigation of referral patterns and<br />

approaches to decision making, Department<br />

of Health 2008 www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_<br />

dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/<br />

documents/digitalasset/dh_086637.pdf<br />

35 Response to <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> FOI request to<br />

CRB, no.16057<br />

36 Checking Physiotherapists www.manifestoclub.<br />

com/blog/4page=2<br />

37 Email sent to <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> Vetting Blog<br />

38 www.manifestoclub.com/node/587<br />

39 There were 5,221 students enrolled on<br />

initial social w<strong>or</strong>k qualifying degrees in<br />

2007-08. Parliament UK www.publications.<br />

parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmchi<br />

lsch/527/52706.htm<br />

40 Interview with Josie Appleton in Brighton,<br />

July 2010<br />

41 See case of Raymond Tallis in rep<strong>or</strong>t,<br />

‘Volunteering Made Difficult’<br />

42 Email to Campaign Against Vetting


About the Auth<strong>or</strong>s / 24<br />

Ken McLaughlin has twenty years’<br />

experience in social care, initially within<br />

social services training bef<strong>or</strong>e moving<br />

to w<strong>or</strong>k in the homeless families sect<strong>or</strong><br />

and then to a statut<strong>or</strong>y mental health<br />

team where he was Team Manager and<br />

Approved Social W<strong>or</strong>ker. Since 2001 he<br />

has been a seni<strong>or</strong> lecturer in social w<strong>or</strong>k at<br />

Manchester Metropolitan University where<br />

he teaches modules on sociology, social<br />

movements and mental health<br />

Josie Appleton founded and is current<br />

direct<strong>or</strong> of the <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> civil liberties<br />

group. She initiated and has co<strong>or</strong>dinated<br />

the club’s Campaign Against Vetting f<strong>or</strong><br />

the past four years. She also writes many<br />

of the club’s rep<strong>or</strong>ts and documents,<br />

and edits <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> publications.<br />

As a journalist and writer, she comments<br />

frequently on contemp<strong>or</strong>ary freedom<br />

issues of everyday life.<br />

Design: Tom Mower


The <strong>Manifesto</strong> <strong>Club</strong> campaigns against<br />

the hyper-regulation of everyday life. We<br />

supp<strong>or</strong>t free movement across b<strong>or</strong>ders,<br />

free expression and free association. We<br />

challenge booze bans, photo bans, vetting<br />

and speech codes – all new ways in<br />

which the state regulates everyday life on<br />

the streets, in w<strong>or</strong>kplaces and in our<br />

private lives.<br />

Our rapidly growing membership hails<br />

from all political traditions and none, and<br />

from all c<strong>or</strong>ners of the w<strong>or</strong>ld. To join this<br />

group of free thinkers and campaigners,<br />

see: www.manifestoclub.com/join

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!