Yes. They are done but sometimes ignored or not vetted properly. For example the Reform MP who *booted* his ex across the floor and served time for it didn't declare it before being taken on. When farage was asked about this recently he gave the journalist a sermon on Christian forgiveness.
Better question why arent they? If they mingle with vulnerable groups and children I’m schools, hospitals, constituents ect it seems logical if you fail a DBS check before you campaign or anytime during your term you must be forced to resign
Why not make the DBS results public and let the public decide in a by-election? This attitude would exempt many of the heroes in the post office horizon scandal.
I find it difficult to fathom the cost implications of conducting developed vetting on such a large number of prospective MPs. Historically, these thorough background checks were known to take approximately six months to complete, though I’m uncertain whether that timeframe remains accurate today.
@PixelRatedGames they take a while but ultimately it would almost eliminate the conflicts of interest and those susceptible to bribery. And yes, it would take a while, but prospective MPs have 5 years between elections and can be vetted in that time. Current MPs can be vetted while sitting.
They should all have DBS checks. I had to have one in order to work with the public, and i worked in social care. The mps have access to vulnerable people all the time. I don't want violent criminals standing in Parliament pretending to be "better" than me!
This would have excluded a significant number of politicians from public service. Including many from Northern Ireland prior to the 90s that people did vote for.
You also dont want to vote for people who are inexperienced , underqualified , rich & entitled & incompetent,spiteful & callous which would disqualify all tories from becoming MPs never mind being in government !
Depends on the crime. As long as everything is disclosed, why add artificial barriers if someone wants to run? If they went to prison for, let's says, mortgage fraud and contempt of court, this should not prevent them asking the electorate for their support and vote.
Shouldn't be allowed to be nominated in a party without disclosing any criminal activities/past and depending on the crimes the party should make that decision, then with full disclosure of any crimes to the voting public. A career in Parliament will give an MP every chance to start their criminal activities.
No way and they should not be allowed to stand. Normal people struggle to get a job if they have a criminal record so why should the politicians be different
When people apply for a job they are checks and balances, whether the candidates are worthy of that post or not? Maybe not if they have criminal back grounds, vote wisely
You mean they Aren't? 😮
It should be done before they are selected as candidates, never mind after election!
Yes. They are done but sometimes ignored or not vetted properly. For example the Reform MP who *booted* his ex across the floor and served time for it didn't declare it before being taken on. When farage was asked about this recently he gave the journalist a sermon on Christian forgiveness.
Yes. Not always vetted properly though. See the Reform plc MP who booted his ex across the floor served time and didn't declare.
You mean you thought they were?
You mean they aren’t already!?
You mean you thought they were?
@@TheGeneReyvamost people definitely thought this would of been standard procedure to check
@@TheGeneReyva never occurred to me either way. Surprised they aren’t that’s all
Better question why arent they? If they mingle with vulnerable groups and children I’m schools, hospitals, constituents ect it seems logical if you fail a DBS check before you campaign or anytime during your term you must be forced to resign
Why not make the DBS results public and let the public decide in a by-election? This attitude would exempt many of the heroes in the post office horizon scandal.
@andrewpotato6002 Great idea!
@andrewpotato6002 The public have no standards. They voted for the tories for 14 years.
@@TheGeneReyva we live in a democracy. Voters get the MPs they deserve.
They should be DV vetted to national security standards
I find it difficult to fathom the cost implications of conducting developed vetting on such a large number of prospective MPs. Historically, these thorough background checks were known to take approximately six months to complete, though I’m uncertain whether that timeframe remains accurate today.
@PixelRatedGames they take a while but ultimately it would almost eliminate the conflicts of interest and those susceptible to bribery. And yes, it would take a while, but prospective MPs have 5 years between elections and can be vetted in that time. Current MPs can be vetted while sitting.
@@PixelRatedGameskeep it to yourself then
@@PixelRatedGames Perhaps the prospect of being vetted would deter a few wronguns from applying in the first place?
@@joshuadtedd agreed, it is a better situation to be in, no question. Hopefully there's some movement on this in the not too distant.
They should all have DBS checks. I had to have one in order to work with the public, and i worked in social care. The mps have access to vulnerable people all the time. I don't want violent criminals standing in Parliament pretending to be "better" than me!
Wait what… they aren’t DBS checked I thought this was mandatory in every business
It's not in most jobs I've done. Only ones involving vulnerable people.
Tories have fought to keep such checks from being implemented, because so many of them would fail.
How comes I get DBS check but the people running the country are not?!?!! Make it make sense! 😮
and drug tested regular ramdon tests
To make sure they’ve got the ‘life experience’ to sit in parliament?
Who cares
This would have excluded a significant number of politicians from public service. Including many from Northern Ireland prior to the 90s that people did vote for.
Of course they should everybody else is
If that were the case, tories would lose a lot of MPs.
Hang on! They don’t worry about our privacy🤷♂️
Shock horror mp’s don’t get checked. 😂😂😂
Said it years ago - it’s common sense
Every member of staff in parliament has to have a check before they can get a job there but MP don't ??
You also dont want to vote for people who are inexperienced , underqualified , rich & entitled & incompetent,spiteful & callous which would disqualify all tories from becoming MPs never mind being in government !
You describe kier starmer
@@StevenGoundry bait used to be a lot better. Try again.
@@StevenGoundryEx failed lawyers should be nowhere near parliament
YES
Why not?
Perhaps if fewer prospective MPs went to private school then parliament at Westminster would be more representative
Yes!
Yes they should because most of them dont live in the real world.
All MP's and Police should be vetted. Any crime other than low traffic offences and they should be Barred.
None of them are worth voting for
Depends on the crime. As long as everything is disclosed, why add artificial barriers if someone wants to run? If they went to prison for, let's says, mortgage fraud and contempt of court, this should not prevent them asking the electorate for their support and vote.
Voting for candidates on their merits, not just because they are rich or well known and connected.
all these mp s are criminals they havent been caught yet and the "justice " system is full of LEGAL CRIMINALS THAT NEED TO GO TO JAIL
The question would have to be answered; why would an MP not want to be subject to a DBS check.
Tbh, it feels like the MP would be less trustworthy if they didn't have a criminal record.
Right to privacy? An MP checking criminal record check.
Can’t actually be trying to justify this not being checked years ago
Its always seemed strange to me that the only people that dont need a DBS check to get their parliementary pass is the MPs themselves......
Shouldn't be allowed to be nominated in a party without disclosing any criminal activities/past and depending on the crimes the party should make that decision, then with full disclosure of any crimes to the voting public. A career in Parliament will give an MP every chance to start their criminal activities.
No way and they should not be allowed to stand. Normal people struggle to get a job if they have a criminal record so why should the politicians be different
A lot of them should have criminal records.
How many at LBC have had DBS checks?
How many Labour councillors have had DBS checks?
I don’t recall DBS checks being made when I went for jobs.
Yes! they should, seems common Sense 🤦🏻♂️
Depends why they have the criminal record. And a DBS checks for much more than just convictions.
Start by banning all of LFI/CFI.
Ah, but who does the checks and who checks them?
I dont know if the rehabilitation of offenders act would protect them
Yes 💯
There are all sorts of criminalities.....
They are criminals with a clean DBS
Politicians are a bit like degrees and policemen,they no longer carry the respect that they once did!
Yes I would, depending on the offence.
Judging by past recoids I would have thought it was a "must have" to get elected
People like Boris Johnson & half of the conservatives would never have got to there positions had this policy been brought in earlier
It’s the London crowd that are the biggest problem!
Neither would Labour
@RichardGallagherthesecond
With a handle like yours your definitely a tory
@RichardGallagherthesecond Ye they would. Nice cope tho
Yes, please put crimiinals in as all the MPs because they have "life experiences"
When people apply for a job they are checks and balances, whether the candidates are worthy of that post or not? Maybe not if they have criminal back grounds, vote wisely
Would you vote for someone who can't speak up for the very people who they are meant to be representing ?
Enhanced check..simple check is not effective. All you here are excuses.
No they should be at a higher standard and up hold the law because they make the laws
we should not allow anybody without at least 50yrs life and business experience no career jobsworths or grifters need apply as they can do now.
Thought it was a qualification for selection 🤔
Breaking: Everyone alive has life experience.
Yes, absolutely👍 maybe a lie detector test too😜
Labour needs to take whistleblowers seriously. Instead of ignoring them or sending complaints to an ‘independent’ body that supports Labour!
You mean the tories.
I mean... tens of millions of Americans voted in Trump so...
Would vote for tommy robinson
We wouldn't have a government if they were all looked into.😂.
Free free 🇬🇧
Would depend on their policies