Flower arranger forced to resign after refusing criminal record check

It appears we have another contender for the dubious honour of "most bizarre story of the year"...

Annabel Hayter, the 64 year old chairwoman of Gloucester Cathedral's Flower Guild, has been forced to resign from her post as a result of her refusal to submit to a criminal record check.  As a result of her stance, five other elderly flower arrangers have also resigned in protest.

The need for the criminal record check arose, it appears, after concerns that paedophiles might infiltrate the flower guild and, as they shared a toilet with the choirboys, this could put the children at risk.

More on the case can be found here.

A Big Brother Watch supporter observed:

"This is ridiculous.  The average age of the flower arrangers is 70. I hardly think that elderly women interested in flowers fit the normal profile of predatory sex fiends!"

Hat-tip: D&PC

Comments

[startledcod]

They could be Cougars - 'An older woman who frequents clubs in order to score with a much younger man'. Who's to say that the Gloucester Cathedral's Flower Guild isn't one of those clubs? I think we know why they refused the checks, they has something to hide. 'You've nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide'. They should be ashamed.

[James Heaver]

While not a supporter of blanket CRB checks, and this case does seem ridiculous. I do haev to take issue with the quote from the Big Brother Watch supporter:

"This is ridiculous. The average age of the flower arrangers is 70. I hardly think that elderly women interested in flowers fit the normal profile of predatory sex fiends!"

I think it would be wrong to assume that a 70 year old woman can't be a paedophile. Age, race, social position etc should not be a factor in whether someone should undergo a CRB check.

50 years ago I'm sure people would say that an priest, as an elderly pillar of the community is unlikely to be a sexual predator.

[respectrights]

A CRB disclosure is no guarantee of a person being fit to share a toilet or anywhere else with children or vulnerable adults. All it means is that there was either no criminal records found or the criminal records found were not deemed to be of the sort that would prevent that person working with children or vulnerable adults. The problem with CRB disclosures is that many parents and others see them as something other than they are. If you agree that the flower arrangers (no matter what age they are) should be CRB checked because they share a toilet with the choirboys then what about gyms and other public places - do we all need to be CRB checked in case a children comes into the changing room or toilet? Many people have CRB checks, not to protect children and vulnerable adults but as a means of protecting themselves (which of course disclosures do not actually do).

CRB checks were initially a recruitment tool as part of the process of employing someone in paid or voluntary employment. Now they are demanded for all sorts of reasons, many of them inappropriately by organisations trying to cover their backs against anything 'just in case'. A lot of people have withdrawn from working with children and vulnerable adults because of all of this and whilst I agree we must do all we can to protect the vulnerable we should not do that by demonising everyone else.

[Andrew Ampers Taylor]

So much for the Big Society. Everyone will be resigning from doing good works.

I would have resigned as well. Damned if I am going to play this very stupid game.

And before you think I am a paedophile, hear this. I could never be one. A Child Murderer perhaps but I couldn't do anything else to the little b*st*rds! Vomit from one end, shit from the other, UGH!

A merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year to all.

[James Heaver]

@respectrights
I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, but I absolutely agree with you about CRB checks.

I was simply taking issue with the quote which, along with being ridiculous, seems to support profiling - something I would assume Big Brother Watch was against.

[respectrights]

@James Heaver actually no - it was a bit of a general rant (I can see though why you thought it might be aimed at your comment) about the whole CRB thing.

[Sick of modern Britain]

If you have nothing to hide you have everything to fear. Why should we be treated as potential paedophiles or wahtever unless we have a government chitty to say we're not. It's called living in a free society - we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This intrusion will not stop determined paedophiles and of course the government will never make a mistake during its checks.
Good for you Annabel Hayter and shame on Gloucester Cathedral's gestapo - if more people stood up for sanity we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Purlieu]

Is this the world we created ?

[Ian Darney]

There is no law which compels flower arrangers to undergo checks by the Criminal Records Bureau. The basic requirement is that anyone who has the responsibility of supervising children on a regular basis should undergo a CRB check. This does not include flower arrangers.

The rationale about shared toilets is spurious.

It may be that the hierarchy of one particular Church has decided to 'cover its back' by insisting on such checks.

However the checks will have to be paid for, and the money will come out of church funds. Moreover, the personnel at the CRB will not be best pleased at having to carry out unnecessary work. Once these facts are generally known, the requirement for flower arrangers to undergo CRB checks will be quietly dropped.

Ian Darney

[K. Bourque]

The issue of background checks is often for the protection of the vulnerable people served. At Sengistix, we provide electronic monitors to make sure that vulnerable people served are getting the care that they need. The staff working with these folks must have a background check, and I would hate to see what would occur if they were not checked carefully. So, everything has it's place.