Garda Vetting!!!!!!!

racso1975

Why do people think this is the be all and end all when it come to their childrens safety??? All it shows is if somebody has been caught obviously show no potential threat or dangers.

For example I train a kids team and brought sun cream today due to weather. Gave it to the kids to put on and asked them to get their parents to rub it in. One of the parents goes sure tis grand your vetted work away!!!!! WTF????? You Dont know anything about me!!!

And no i did not rub it in or whatever sick jokes ye come up with.

But did you rub one out.
That's the main question.

Sauve

racso1975 wrote: »

One of the parents goes sure tis grand your vetted work away!!!!! WTF????? You Dont know anything about me!!!
.

Ah I'm sure it was just a figure of speech, her way of implying that she was ok with you rubbing in the suncream, and that you had her permission to do so.
Just a poor choice of words on her part.

humbert

So far I have only second hand information that one person thinks that it is the be all and end all.

Also, from your narrative I'm assuming the parent was present so the risk was very small.

MidlandsM

in fairness, Garda vetting is not a crystall ball way of knowing if the person being vetted is a preditor or not, but what other way is there?

I train kids in the GAA, I'm garda vetted but I get what you're saying too.

kneemos

racso1975 wrote: »

Why do people think this is the be all and end all when it come to their childrens safety??? All it shows is if somebody has been caught obviously show no potential threat or dangers.

For example I train a kids team and brought sun cream today due to weather. Gave it to the kids to put on and asked them to get their parents to rub it in. One of the parents goes sure tis grand your vetted work away!!!!! WTF????? You Dont know anything about me!!!

And no i did not rub it in or whatever sick jokes ye come up with.

What does the vetting process involve and what grade of guard does it?

Sauve

kneemos wrote: »

What does the vetting process involve and what grade of guard does it?

They just run a check on your criminal record in whichever country you're applying for, and if it comes back clear then you're good to go. Simple as that.

It's done in a specific office in Thurles if I remember correctly.

racso1975

kneemos wrote: »

What does the vetting process involve and what grade of guard does it?

They have a Vetting unit so dont know grades and it shows all crimes you have been convicted in court for

MidlandsM

Sauve wrote: »

They just run a check on your criminal record in whichever country you're applying for, and if it comes back clear then you're good to go. Simple as that.

It's done in a specific office in Thurles if I remember correctly.

+1 , and it can take ages for it to be processed.......

Micky Dolenz

kneemos wrote: »

What does the vetting process involve and what grade of guard does it?

It is basically looking at your criminal record. That's it. I've been vetted lots of times for many reasons and it always comes back with my one road conviction. Fecking thing takes months too.

humbert

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

It is basically looking at your criminal record. That's it. I've been vetted lots of times for many reasons and it always comes back with my one road conviction. Fecking thing takes months too.

The standard, once per forum, I presume.

MagicMarker

racso1975 wrote: »

For example I train a kids team

Are they sexy kids?

WhatNowForUs?

I think the OP is saying that just because the person is vetted it shouldn't absolve the parent in letting go their minding duties.

Micky Dolenz

humbert wrote: »

The standard, once per forum, I presume.

I do some volunteer work and each one needed one.

boards didn't require one. Blood oath and a sacrifice was all they needed here. Which was nearly easier to get.

MidlandsM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are they sexy kids?

only a sicko would ask :pac:

Son Of A Vidic

Vetting will obviously detect previous convictions. But if you have none, then who knows what an individuals future intent maybe. Vetting also serves to reduce an organisations exposure to future litigation. Which I suspect is the main motivating factor behind it. Vetting adds a level of reassurance for parents and nothing more. It certainly shouldn't absolve them of the need to still use their cop on.

Pain in the hole, vetting especially when you working a hospital.

Rew

racso1975 wrote: »

Why do people think this is the be all and end all when it come to their childrens safety??? All it shows is if somebody has been caught obviously show no potential threat or dangers.

This country is full of convicted pedo's and sex offenders unfortunately we dont take them out and shoot them so at least vetting keeps them from rubbing sun crem on kids with one hand and rubbing one out with the the other.

darlett

I've been vetted a few times too. I always feel nervous about it too! I know I've done nothing but its the same guilty feeling I get when I'm driving and see the cops. Hows my speed, lights, tax, nct, insurance discs, tyre thread, correct lane, seat belt. Im usually half a mile gone before I draw breath!

I did a period of work and travel and when I came back I used to include those addresses where I stayed awhile on the vetting forms. Now I cant be arsed looking them up but I worry about the differences in my submitted details. Ah paranoia!

StewartGriffin

If parents want suncream on their kids they should be around to apply it themselves. I never touch other peoples kids 'cos you never know where they've been.

SB2013

Vetting shows unsuccessful prosecutions as well as convictions afaik.

NuckingFacker

I had my dog vetted and since then he's started eating more, getting fat and is lazy as anything. My advice, give it a miss.

endacl

I currently hold 7 up to date GV letters from 7 different (but closely related) organizations. Can anyone beat this?

I'd love to know why, when I'm applying for my eight next month, can't I just send in certified copies of my current 7 so the GVU can just check from the most recent date which would be about 5 months ago.

This is why your application may take up to 6 months. I've actually in the past, sent in an application and completed my work with the organization in question before clearance came through to them.

Clandestine

Better safe then sorry I say

endacl

Clandestine wrote: »

Better safe then sorry I say

Better efficiently safe. Six month wait for my last vetting. Because I was checked at multiple addresses in several countries since 1973. Instead of at one address for less than a year.

Smidge

Deleted User wrote: »

Pain in the hole, vetting especially when you working a hospital.

Proctology Department?

endacl

Smidge wrote: »

Proctology Department?

Good catch, sir.

The Backwards Man

Usually takes eight to ten weeks for me, there's nothing to check but you always get paranoid when it takes so long that maybe they have found something out about you you didn't even know yourself.

endacl

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Usually takes eight to ten weeks for me, there's nothing to check but you always get paranoid when it takes so long that maybe they have found something out about you you didn't even know yourself.

Did the first time. Now, I just get frustrated that they won't accept a photocopy of my last application with the old organization's name scribbled out, and the new one written in. The information is the same. The result would be the same.

tiredofthis

If you read a story in the Sunday Business Post on 11th November 2012, you would see that some (well-connected) people get around garda vetting. The headline was "Child abuse suspect was given clearance by Gardai". It's now behind a paywall but anyone interested can find the story

The Garda National Vetting Office granted full clearance to a man who had outstanding warrants against him for child abuse. The man was accused of indecently assaulting 4 girls between 11 and 3 in the mid 90s. He went to the US and lived there for several years. After he had left Ireland, the DPP ordered that he be charged. When he returned to Ireland some years ago, he applied for garda clearance as part of his work and it was granted – the vetting unit did not find out that the DPP had ordered that he be arrested and prosecuted.


In 2011, one of the original complainants asked the gardai if there had been any progress in the case. The gardai arrested the wanted man charged him with several sexual assaults. He took a High Court action against the State because the authorities' delay bringing him to trial had breached his rights. Justice Gerald Hogan said it was clear that the detectives dealing with the case had not attempted to pursue the accused by contacting Interpol or the US authorities although they knew he was in the US. The court ruled that the accused man can now sue the State for damages for the delay in prosecuting. The State can proceed with prosecution but there's no sign that it will.


The story also reported that the accused had (before the US trip) been brought to trial on previous abuse charges but the trial collapsed.

sheep-go-baa

The reason that you have to be vetted for organisations separately is because of data protection. So it's technically in the interests of the person being screened even if it does seem like a pain in the ass.

But I think that they are hiring someone else for the vetting unit so hopefully they will get through things a bit quicker.

flutterflye

I've had to get vetted 2 or 3 times - Volunteering and college placements.
And I have no criminal record, so that was grand - But the wait for it to go through was irritating - Think it took 4 months for one of them, and in the meantime I couldn't do any work on the field.
But yeah, I have thought the same thing - That if you don't have any record of anything, then that doesn't mean you aren't dangerous, and if you do have a record, that doesn't mean you are.
Are all convictions included? Like if you have gone to jail for a few days for an unpaid fine or something, do you not get the all clear? Or is it only if you have serious crimes like child abuse or something?

Peter The Pedo

I work in a hospital and worked for a number of months before my boss told me I had to go and fill out the vetting form. Dangerous stuff

Zen65

Peter The Pedo wrote: »

I work in a hospital and worked for a number of months before my boss told me I had to go and fill out the vetting form. Dangerous stuff

I hope your Boards name is not a reflection of your inclination? That would be dangerous stuff!

Z

amen

The reason that you have to be vetted for organisations separately is because of data protection./QUOTE]

thats nonsense.

Everyone who applies to be vetted should be issued with a Vetted License (like a drivers licence) and it should last 5 years. Every time you need to work with an organisation that requires vetting you show them your vetted license and they send the details to the Garda Vetting unit. They quickly reply that the license is fine nothing changed and they register the organisation you are working with.

If you do anything that means you are a danger to children they revoke the license and tell all the organisations you are vetted against.

Simple quick and efficient. Having to wait 10-12 + weeks to be vetted a second,third, fourth time etc is a waste of resources.

Of course one of the biggest groups of abusers (priests) do not need to be vetted and can enter local primary schools without vetting.

An of course the biggest group of abusers also do not require vetting and have 24 hours access to children...Parents!

Andy-Pandy

7 months it took me to get vetted for work that I needed as part of my thesis. Bit of a joke tbh, I had to start the work before it had come back, and they let me, although i wasnt permitted to be on my own with the clients. I understand the need for it, but i dont understand how it can take so long, i've never had so much as a penalty point.

SB2013

amen wrote: »

thats nonsense.

Most data protection rules are.

tiredofthis

This thread was started on 25/05 and then someone started a thread with the same name minus the question marks on 28/05. The subject is identical. Why would anyone want to do that?

Jake Rugby Walrus666

This thread was started on 25/05 and then someone started a thread with the same name minus the question marks on 28/05. The subject is identical. Why would anyone want to do that

tiredofthis

My previous post was about a person who in an unexplained fashion managed to use someone else's identity to pass garda vetting, despite the fact that there were outstanding warrants against him.

There is now a story in the Examiner about a woman who was turned down for a job because garda vetting said she had criminal convictions for drug and assault offences.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/woman-denied-job-over-incorrect-vetting-234194.html

The odd thing is that while she was waiting to hear about the job, she was convicted of drink driving. Her fingerprints would have been taken and they would not have matched the fingerprints of the person convicted of the drug and assault offences. How could the criminal records section just put all 3 offences together on one record, despite the different fingerprints?

carzony

SB2013 wrote: »

Vetting shows unsuccessful prosecutions as well as convictions afaik.

I heard that includes traffic offenses? which I think is a bit stupid. I'v been to court a few times for not producing nct, tax and insurance and they have been struck out everytime, what's the point in keeping that information?

endacl

carzony wrote: »

I heard that includes traffic offenses? which I think is a bit stupid. I'v been to court a few times for not producing nct, tax and insurance and they have been struck out everytime, what's the point in keeping that information?

It shows all pertinent information. It's up to the organisation that makes the application on behalf of the applicant to decide if they consider it relevant or not. If you were to apply for a job with an organisation that considered motor tax, nct etc relevant, there would be an issue. If not, no problem. A black mark on your vetting form doesn't automatically mean you're blacklisted for any position that requires one. It just allows organisations to make informed decisions.

Tesco Frog Muffin

You'd think the guarda recruiters went to the vets, wouldn't ya. With some of the pure dogs they recruit as female officers. Got offered either the ride or a speeding ticket from one the other day. Needless to say I'll be payin the 80 quid and I'll drive like a granny this point onwards.

Rasheed

Tesco Frog Muffin wrote: »

You'd think the guarda recruiters went to the vets, wouldn't ya. With some of the pure dogs they recruit as female officers. Got offered either the ride or a speeding ticket from one the other day. Needless to say I'll be payin the 80 quid and I'll drive like a granny this point onwards.

Yeah, course you did.

AudreyHepburn

Obviously Garda Vetting is important BUT it is not a fail safe method. Just because they can't find something on a person does not mean that person is clean, it could just mean they've never been caught.

I do think though it is not always necessary....for example my grandfather sings in the local choir and they were recently vetted. It just seemed completely uncalled for and unnecessary in that situation.

Saying that I do think we can go over board with child protection sometimes, nowadays a man can't blink near a child but he's a paedophile.

conorhal

racso1975 wrote: »

Why do people think this is the be all and end all when it come to their childrens safety??? All it shows is if somebody has been caught obviously show no potential threat or dangers.

For example I train a kids team and brought sun cream today due to weather. Gave it to the kids to put on and asked them to get their parents to rub it in. One of the parents goes sure tis grand your vetted work away!!!!! WTF????? You Dont know anything about me!!!

And no i did not rub it in or whatever sick jokes ye come up with.

My God, you're right!

We should waterboard everybody that works with kids just to make sure that they're not a paedo!

Boombastic

Kieran Boylan got a hauliers licence even though he had convictions, the department still granted one....hmmm

Pappa Charlie

tiredofthis wrote: »

My previous post was about a person who in an unexplained fashion managed to use someone else's identity to pass garda vetting, despite the fact that there were outstanding warrants against him.

There is now a story in the Examiner about a woman who was turned down for a job because garda vetting said she had criminal convictions for drug and assault offences.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/woman-denied-job-over-incorrect-vetting-234194.html

The odd thing is that while she was waiting to hear about the job, she was convicted of drink driving. Her fingerprints would have been taken and they would not have matched the fingerprints of the person convicted of the drug and assault offences. How could the criminal records section just put all 3 offences together on one record, despite the different fingerprints?

People arrested for drink driving are not obliged to give their fingerprints!

tiredofthis

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

People arrested for drink driving are not obliged to give their fingerprints!

Don't all convicted criminals have their fingerprints taken? Once she was convicted, would her fingerprints not go on record?

jamesr123

If you were arrested but never charged i'd assume that'd have to appear on the vetting form aswell?

Boombastic

tiredofthis wrote: »

Don't all convicted criminals have their fingerprints taken? Once she was convicted, would her fingerprints not go on record?

No