I believe the phrase we're looking for is...
...quis custodiet custard?
The boss of the government's "database of doormen" Michael Wilson has lost his job after it emerged that his department had failed to check security clearance of the staff employed to...err...check security clearances. The Security Industry Authority issues licences to doormen and security staff - including those used by …
As usual with our lords and masters it seems that there is one rule for them and another for the rest of them. Had they been able to keep this whole thing quiet I doubt the guy would have been sacked.
I seriously believe that nobody should be employed to perform security checks unless they have a higher level of cetification. What's that? You've noticed the fatal flaw in my argument. You would have to keep creating ever higher levels of certification and there would never be a level high enough to check the highest level and the whole thing would collapse. Yup that's the idea.
People have lost their livliehoods as a result of erroneous CRB checks and if that happens to one person then that is one person too many. Worse still the way the system works if it comes up with a false positive that wrecks your life then it's up to you to spend a fortune disproving their "evidence". A fortune that you don't have because you are now unemployable. The whole CRB system stinks and needs to be torn appart and rebuilt from first principals.
Why is it that if I say something about you that isn't true, you can sue me for slander, but if a CRB check says something about you that isn't true and as a result causes potentially incalculable damage the government think you should have no rights? The government thinks that such victims are necessary for the system to work. What we need are a few damages payouts running into the millions plus massive costs and they'll rebuild the system properly.
The worst part of the whole CRB situation is, however, that it only picks up on people with convictions. Those who have faith in the system surely have a false sense of security. There seems to be a belief in government that the only people likely to offend are those who have already offended.
As a security provider I'm all too aware of the shortcomings of the system.
I check each member potential staff ensuring that their SIA licence number is correct and belongs to them using this database. (There are some good fakes out there)
I still ended up employing someone who wasn't properly licenced because the f&£%ers gave someone a licence they shouldn't have.
Needless to say he doesn't work for me anymore but a security breach ina security firm is just embarassing to say the least.
Why should they be giving special powers to cirtain people? Why should somene with a bow tie and a thick neck be granted a licence to do stuff that I am not allowed to do? Especially on a comercial basis.
Everytime an activity becomes one in which you require a licence that's one less thing the ordinary person can do. Oh sure I could go and train for the licence, but that's a big step, a barrior to doing something I could have done on the spur of the moment.
This raises the status of the person with the licence and lowers the status of those without. In return the licenced person indirectly carries out the bidding ot the body issuing the licence (the government).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019