Is there enough safeguarding/vetting checks being carried out in the rail industry?

[Islineclear3_1]

What's to stop a cleaner in an office block or just any random member of the public on a late night train doing the same. Should everyone just require an enhanced DBS it leave the house?

I'm not comparing cleaners or random members of the public. They're generally not charged with the safety of vulnerable people

 

[renegademaster]

I'm not comparing cleaners or random members of the public. They're generally not charged with the safety of vulnerable people

Both can cause as much damage , even if they are not "charged with the safety" of anyone

 

[Steve Harris]

The healthcare professional will work with patients in a state of undress. They will work with patients who are unconcious. They may be performing intimate examinations of the patient.

I spent a week in hospital and not once did a "healthcare professional" see me when I was in a state of undress.

 

[renegademaster]

I spent a week in hospital and not once did a "healthcare professional" see me when I was in a state of undress.

Even a porter will regularly be alone with unconscious people.

The difference with other customer facing roles, is that almost all of them will have some scenarios where they will be alone with vulnerable people , they will not have it as the default state of their job in the same way as a doctor, teacher or police officer will.

If the criteria for requiring DBS is may be in contact with a vulnerable person you are essentially banning ex offenders from any job but work from home ones or warehouses

 

[Steve Harris]

Even a porter will regularly be alone with unconscious people.

The difference with other customer facing roles, is that almost all of them will have some scenarios where they will be alone with vulnerable people , they will not have it as the default state of their job in the same way as a doctor, teacher or police officer will. If the criteria for requiring DBS is may be in contact with a vulnerable person you are essentially banning ex offenders from any job but work from home ones or warehouses

You've quoted me but yet your not actually responding to what I said ! So, may I ask why you've quoted me yet not responded or counted on what I said ? As I'm at a loss to why my post (#123) was quoted.

 

[Gostav]

Indeed. I don't see any resemblance. Note that the historical "cover an incident up for a mate" has long since departed the rail industry, the amount to monitoring-obtrusive and unobtrusive- is actually very high.

Obviously, monitors did not prevent the sexual assault in this case. If enhanced DBS is needed to meet the requirements of some of the people involved, I very much doubt whether it is sufficient. As far as I know, this just a system that check people's past criminal records and cannot assess their potential future criminal behaviour.

In this case, only a more complex investigation and evaluation system can predict the employee's future criminal possibility to a certain extent. From the employee's origin: whether he comes from a high-crime area, whether his family members have a criminal history; the employee's personal speech, including social media accounts, is likely to be traced back to their very early records; the employee's family and marital status, such as sexual needs in this case is an important clue.

In theory, these indicators can indicate the crime risk of employees, but this requires a large amount of data aggregation and a large number of professional records and evaluations (You don't want a random person to assess you that "this person looks like a rapist, HIGH RISK"). This requires a large number of investigators, spies, coordination between departments, and a professional assessment team to achieve.

Given the number of railway employees who come into direct contact with passengers, it is clear that a large budget to operate a huge assessment agency is need.

 

[The exile]

Obviously, monitors did not prevent the sexual assault in this case. If enhanced DBS is needed to meet the requirements of some of the people involved, I very much doubt whether it is sufficient. As far as I know, this just a system that check people's past criminal records and cannot assess their potential future criminal behaviour.

In this case, only a more complex investigation and evaluation system can predict the employee's future criminal possibility to a certain extent. From the employee's origin: whether he comes from a high-crime area, whether his family members have a criminal history; the employee's personal speech, including social media accounts, is likely to be traced back to their very early records; the employee's family and marital status, such as sexual needs in this case is an important clue.

In theory, these indicators can indicate the crime risk of employees, but this requires a large amount of data aggregation and a large number of professional records and evaluations (You don't want a random person to assess you that "this person looks like a rapist, HIGH RISK"). This requires a large number of investigators, spies, coordination between departments, and a professional assessment team to achieve.

Given the number of railway employees who come into direct contact with passengers, it is clear that a large budget to operate a huge assessment agency is need.

The implication behind this is one of the most frightening things I’ve heard in a long while (on this side of the Atlantic at least)

 

[Horizon22]

In this case, only a more complex investigation and evaluation system can predict the employee's future criminal possibility to a certain extent. From the employee's origin: whether he comes from a high-crime area, whether his family members have a criminal history; the employee's personal speech, including social media accounts, is likely to be traced back to their very early records; the employee's family and marital status, such as sexual needs in this case is an important clue.

And I hope you just forgot to say "...all of which would of course be an outrageous invasion of privacy and profiling of the very worst kind". Or I hope you were just thinking completely hypothetically...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2025 ==

but this requires a large amount of data aggregation and a large number of professional records and evaluations (You don't want a random person to assess you that "this person looks like a rapist, HIGH RISK"). This requires a large number of investigators, spies, coordination between departments, and a professional assessment team to achieve.

Pure Orwellian nonsense.

 

[Gostav]

And I hope you just forgot to say "...all of which would of course be an outrageous invasion of privacy and profiling of the very worst kind". Or I hope you were just thinking completely hypothetically...

The implication behind this is one of the most frightening things I’ve heard in a long while (on this side of the Atlantic at least)

This is not an exaggeration considering that the South Manchuria Railway once had its own powerful spies and troops.

 

[Horizon22]

This is not an exaggeration considering that the South Manchuria Railway once had its own powerful spies and troops.

Oh and that's something to emulate is it?!

 

[bramling]

After seeing this:

on the BBC news website https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgdp4nve4po
which says :

Made me wonder if sufficient safeguarding/vetting checks are being carried out on staff.

Is the case I've quoted just a bad apple or is it like the Met Police and there is a underlying problem which isn't being sufficiently being addressed ?

First thing to say is 7 years doesn’t seem very long considering the seriousness of the crime.

As to vetting of staff, I’m not convinced. These sorts of incidents are, thankfully, exceptionally rare, and a train guard ultimately doesn’t hold the same position of power and authority as someone like a police officer. Indeed the person carrying out the assault could just have easily been a passenger, and from my reading his position as train manager doesn’t really seem to been particularly central to the crime taking place (though I agree it does make it *even* more appalling).

Thankfully these sorts of incidents are exceptional. So I’m not convinced there’s a significant case for change, though I’d be open to changing my view if a case could be made based on data.

 

[Krokodil]

I spent a week in hospital and not once did a "healthcare professional" see me when I was in a state of undress.

That you could dress and wash yourself in hospital doesn't mean that the staff attending to you weren't also attending to other patients who couldn't.

Everyone from porters to consultants comes into unsupervised contact with extremely vulnerable patients. Even your dentist has access to anesthetics.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2025 ==

First thing to say is 7 years doesn’t seem very long considering the seriousness of the crime.

Does any sentence these days? These days I consider it a win whenever someone gets sent down for a sentence measured in years rather than months.

 

[PLY2AYS]

Everyone from porters to consultants comes into unsupervised contact with extremely vulnerable patients. Even your dentist has access to anesthetics.

It’s also important to recognise that healthcare professionals, whilst maybe not clinical, do have access to personal data and information, and that is also a big factor in why they require DBS check… not solely because of physical contact, which makes the comparison moot, because onboard rail staff do not.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is not an exaggeration considering that the South Manchuria Railway once had its own powerful spies and troops.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[bramling]

Does any sentence these days? These days I consider it a win whenever someone gets sent down for a sentence measured in years rather than months.

Agree. 7 years does seem quite short by any comparison though, for what (if I’m understanding correctly) is a rape. I’m not particularly familiar with what a typical rape sentence would be, but 7 years really seems on the low side.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The implication behind this is one of the most frightening things I’ve heard in a long while (on this side of the Atlantic at least)

What it near enough describes is Developed Vetting, which would be gross overkill for railway employees, it is used for those exposed to Government secrets and something a bit similar for Police officers (but bad ones still get through).

 

[The exile]

What it near enough describes is Developed Vetting, which would be gross overkill for railway employees, it is used for those exposed to Government secrets and something a bit similar for Police officers (but bad ones still get through).

Indeed - and I fully understand that there are certain very specialist roles for which it is necessary and appropriate. It was the apparent acceptance of it as a near blanket process that was frightening- after all it’s not much of a step on from that to locking people up because they are the sort of person who might do something.

 

[island]

Hard cases make bad law.

 

[43066]

In the same way, guards/conductors have access/interaction with vulnerable adults and children for the duration of their roster. The train could be empty. Who's to stop another bad 'un from dragging somebody to the toilet for their sexual pleasure? Of course, they would lose their job too but doesn't necessarily stop them from carrying out their desires

By this logic we should be DBS checking passengers too, as the vast majority of assaults on trains are committed by the travelling public, not staff members! Or perhaps simply closing public transport down entirely?

There’s no way of totally eliminating risk, and adding layers of intrusive bureaucracy to railway recruitment won’t make any difference to this, just as they wouldn’t have made any difference in this case.

 

[matt]

We will bring this thread to a close now that everyone has had their contribution.