At the end of the day, as a Childrens charity, they should have properly vetted anyone who is going to be associated with them. This obviously was not carried out,
With regard to DRB checks ( as they are now called), there are different levels, basic and advanced. There are other types for when you are acting as a chaperone at a theatre for example.
I suspect the school governors had them, due to the possibility of being in schools whilst pupils are present or even meeting pupils. Over cautious, possibly but covering themselves which is no bad thing.
I have had a basic DRB, which seems to involve checking PNC and SOR. I also had a Chaperones license which involved DRB check and a days course with Social Servjces, of course cannot totally guarantee childrens safety but it helps.
My son recently obtained an advanced DRB for work purposes, this seems to involve the above and a more in depth look into your background

It feels warmer already!

Tips hat.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Of course one’s person’s view proves nothing. I have not suggested it does. My grandchild has loads of contacts with others, via clubs and other groups, and has relayed what they have leaned from them. I too, as a consequence of having discussed this with them, have done more investigation to inform myself, which confirmed what I was told. So it’s not one person’s view.

I needed the education. We all learn every day and only a fool thinks they know everything. I certainly don’t, but am prepared to learn whenever a situation arises which is outside my comfort zone.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Proper oversight is very necessary for any charity operating in such a sensitive are, although when so many are wielding sharp knives and are ready to pounce on anything which can be portrayed negatively, that hardly seems needed for this one.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Actually I think that is a good thing although I understand the frustration.

People who have dodgy CV's or background checks might blag it with one company but then get called out by another. A mate did this he hid his criminal record on his CV and go a job in Financial Services which should never have happened due to the nature of his offence.

However it was a small firm and they did not have the resources to fully check so he got away with it.

Today most companies now employ professional CV and background checkers if they don't they are idiots.

So whilst I sympathise if somebody has to go through that expense the alternative is employing somebody like the Soham scum because they didn't do their due diligence.

One more point

'Crystal Palace fans agree Crystal Palace are the best team in the world and any individual expressing any other opinion or challenge to this fact is hateful and bigoted' journalist discovers after speaking to Crystal Palace fans and those who seek meaning, attention and identity, having not attained it elsewhere in life, through supporting Crystal Palace fans .

'Crystal Palace to have no security at ground after study by Crystal Palace fans concludes all Crystal Palace fans are fantastic and there is no question about that. It's the terrorists, other fans, those involved with drugs and people intent on causing criminal harm that should be blamed when something inevitably goes horribly wrong.'

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!