Change The Check

20/08/2026

🚨 HOW MANY WARNINGS DO WE NEED BEFORE WE FIX SAFEGUARDING?

In January, The Guardian reported that failures to properly vet Metropolitan Police officers resulted in people being recruited or retained who should not have been.

The figures are staggering.

More than 5,000 officers and staff were recruited without the correct checks.

1,400 officers who should have been flagged were left with police powers.

As far as they know, at least 131 went on to commit criminal or misconduct offences.

And the review found that failures in vetting contributed to people remaining within policing who went on to cause devastating harm.

My campaign will have been running for almost a YEAR this September.

And this is exactly why I keep asking the same fundamental safeguarding question:

Why do we wait for something catastrophic to happen before information about RISK is taken seriously?

This isn’t about assuming somebody is guilty because an allegation has been made.

It’s about having safeguarding systems capable of identifying patterns, credible risk information and serious civil outcomes — and ensuring that information is appropriately considered when someone occupies a position of trust.

Police officers.
Teachers.
School governors.
Healthcare professionals.
People working with children and vulnerable adults.

A criminal conviction cannot be the only lens through which we view safeguarding risk.

Police vetting has been forced to confront this issue.

Now we need to ask whether our wider safeguarding and Enhanced DBS system is doing enough too.

Thank you The Guardian for continuing to expose failures that demonstrate why robust vetting matters.

This isn’t about punishment.

It’s about prevention.

England and Wales deserve a safeguarding system that acts before another victim is created.

StalkingAwareness

18/08/2026

🚨 ANOTHER SAFEGUARDING LOOPHOLE. ANOTHER CALL FOR CHANGE.

The Daily Mail has exposed the shocking case of a convicted pa******le who was reportedly able to keep changing his identity — using 20 aliases.

Once again, we are talking about a system that can leave dangerous gaps in safeguarding.

And this is exactly why I continue to campaign for .

We cannot keep waiting until a loophole is exposed by a horrific case before asking whether our safeguarding systems are actually sharing the information that matters.

Serious civil safeguarding outcomes — including Stalking Protection Orders, Non-Molestation Orders, civil injunctions and undertakings relating to stalking and harassment — can still fall outside what an Enhanced DBS check routinely reveals.

If information is relevant to safeguarding children or vulnerable people, why should the route through which that information was obtained determine whether it is visible?

This Daily Mail investigation shows why safeguarding systems must evolve as quickly as the loopholes people can exploit.

👏 Important reporting from Rebecca Camber, Crime & Security Editor at the Daily Mail, and the Daily Mail Crime Desk.

It’s time to close the gaps.

A “clean” DBS should never automatically be assumed to mean “safe”.


Home Office Deborah Scheck

17/08/2026

A serious stalking order can exist — yet it may not automatically appear on a DBS check.

Think about what that means for safeguarding.

In England and Wales, someone can be subject to significant civil restrictions because of stalking or harassment, yet that information may not necessarily be visible to an organisation carrying out a DBS check.

When someone is applying to work or volunteer with children or vulnerable adults, should relevant serious civil orders be considered as part of safeguarding checks?

This is the gap is campaigning to address.

Safeguarding shouldn’t depend on whether dangerous behaviour resulted in a criminal conviction.

Patterns matter. Behaviour matters. Civil orders matter.

We need a system that gives employers the relevant information they need to make safer decisions.

ViolenceAgainstWomen

17/08/2026

A CLEAN DBS DOESN’T ALWAYS MEAN SOMEONE IS SAFE.

And that is exactly why the system needs to change.

Serious patterns of stalking, harassment and abusive behaviour can result in significant civil court orders and injunctions — yet crucial safeguarding information may not automatically appear on a DBS check.

That matters when someone is working with children or vulnerable people.

We need a safeguarding system that looks at patterns of behaviour and risk, not simply whether someone has a criminal conviction.

A “clean DBS” should never be mistaken for proof that there are no safeguarding concerns.

It’s time to .

Civil orders relating to serious stalking, harassment and abuse must be properly considered within safeguarding and Enhanced DBS decision-making.

Because safeguarding should be about preventing harm — not waiting until it becomes a criminal conviction.

🔴 SHARE this if you believe safeguarding checks need to catch up.

09/08/2026

🚨 A CLEAN DBS DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN SAFE.

This investigation should concern every parent, professional and safeguarding lead in the country.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that vulnerable children have been placed in illegal, unregistered children’s homes — while raising serious questions about the vetting of adults entrusted with their care.

One particularly important detail: the company said a manager at the centre of serious allegations had undergone an Enhanced DBS check which raised nothing of concern.

This is exactly why I keep campaigning.

Safeguarding cannot simply be about whether someone has a criminal conviction.

We need systems capable of identifying patterns of concerning behaviour, relevant police intelligence, civil outcomes and safeguarding information — particularly when someone is working with children or vulnerable people.

A “clean DBS” should never automatically be interpreted as a clean safeguarding history.

Children deserve better than gaps between agencies, systems and checks.

Safeguarding must look at the whole picture.

09/08/2026

🚨 A CLEAN DBS DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN SAFE.

This investigation should concern every parent, professional and safeguarding lead in the country.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that vulnerable children have been placed in illegal, unregistered children’s homes — while raising serious questions about the vetting of adults entrusted with their care.

One particularly important detail: the company said a manager at the centre of serious allegations had undergone an Enhanced DBS check which raised nothing of concern.

This is exactly why I keep campaigning.

Safeguarding cannot simply be about whether someone has a criminal conviction.

We need systems capable of identifying patterns of concerning behaviour, relevant police intelligence, civil outcomes and safeguarding information — particularly when someone is working with children or vulnerable people.

A “clean DBS” should never automatically be interpreted as a clean safeguarding history.

Children deserve better than gaps between agencies, systems and checks.

Safeguarding must look at the whole picture.

SafeSpace4U employs a manager who has been accused of r**e and its HQ is owned by a convicted drug dealer

07/08/2026

You didn’t choose to live in fear.
You didn’t ask for your life to be changed.

Victims don’t need more sympathy after the harm is done. They need protection before it happens.

A “clean” DBS check does not always tell the full safeguarding story. It’s time our systems recognised patterns of harmful behaviour and put the safety of children and vulnerable people first.

If you believe safeguarding must come before reputation, share this.

07/08/2026

The hardest part isn’t what happened.

It’s knowing you did nothing wrong… yet you’re the one who changes your life, your routines and your sense of safety.

Real safeguarding means recognising risk before someone is convicted.

It’s time to strengthen DBS checks and better protect children and vulnerable people.

Share if you believe safeguarding should always come first.