Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006: the implications for employers in educational settings

Vetting those who work with children and vulnerable adults is an emotive topic and one which can prove a challenging area for employers. The legitimate interest that parents, carers and employers have in screening those charged with the care of others can be in direct conflict with the most fundamental principles of economic freedom and employees’ human rights. The desire to balance these conflicting objectives is at the heart of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which introduces what is being heralded as the most inclusive and comprehensive vetting and barring system to date. The changes dramatically widen the scope of workers who are subject to vetting and barring processes, covering employees, volunteers and contractors in the education, care and health industries, and affecting some 11.3 million people in the UK. This new scheme is of particular relevance and importance to schools and other educational institutions, who will be directly affected by the changes. This article will examine the practical employment implications of the new regime and the new obligations that the Vetting and Barring Scheme creates for both employers and employees.     

The politics of other citizens

In all kinds of political action, citizens are confronted with the performances of other citizens. An important guide to political behaviour is therefore likely to be the assumptions people make concerning how others can be expected to behave. This article explores common sense ideas about other citizens as potential political participants, drawing on a series of group interviews conducted with taxi-drivers in Britain, Germany and the Czech Republic. I argue the expectations voiced of other citizens tend to be pessimistic in nature, casting them as ill-informed, apathetic, passive and unduly self-interested, notwithstanding the appearance of a more optimistic view which holds they can be expected to follow the lead of those who ‘take a stand’. These empirical observations lead to a discussion of the theoretical issues they raise, notably where to locate the origins of such views, and how to appraise their implications for democracy.     

Lay persons' versus psychologists' judgments of psychologically aggressive actions by a husband and wife

Literature assessing knowledge of and attitudes toward social issues has demonstrated that mental health professionals and lay persons often differ greatly. To add to the normative information in the field of psychological abuse and to determine whether the differences previously found between mental health professionals and lay persons extend to this field, a sample from each group rated psychologically aggressive items by a husband toward his wife. For the 102 items, psychologists were more likely to label the behaviors as "psychological abuse," but this tendency was due to psychologists considering the behaviors as either "always" or "possibly" abusive, whereas lay persons demonstrated a bimodal response pattern of rating the behaviors as "always" or "never" psychological abuse. Lay persons were much more likely than psychologists to rate items high in terms of severity level, however. The two groups used different contextual factors for determining that a behavior was psychological abuse when they initially were uncertain that it was abusive.     

Instructions for Authors

Instructions for Authors

Instructions for Authors