Repeal the CJ&IAct 2008 s49sch10 which treats cautions as ‘convictions’.

Section 49, Schedule 10 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act (2008) provides protection for spent cautions in Section 8a of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in England and Wales. 

In my view this is wrong and this should be repealed along with the growing number of laws passed in the last two years exempting employers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Whilst some would argue that this is a good thing in that after 5 years the 'conviction' is spent and is non-declarable unless when applying for a non-exempt post,  I argue that it is treating those people with cautions as 'rehabilitated' 'convicts' and 'ex-offenders' when this is not the case.

Most often recipients of cautions are not 'ex-offenders', were not 'convicted' of any crime in a court of law and were not 'rehabilitated'. So why should they be treated as such in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of future employers? THIS IS WRONG.

People have been claiming quite rightly that their civil liberties are being blighted by the fact that all cautions and other non-conviction data are declared on CRB checks. So what do they do? They  treat them as 'convictions' which then become 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' but are still disclosable to most employers as they've expanded the list of occupations exempt from The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not provide recipients of cautions with any protection but instead labels them as 'ex-offenders' with 'convictions'.

WRONG.

UNTIL SOMEONE HAS BEEN TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW AND FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AFTER BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, ONLY THEN SHOULD THEY BE LABELLED AS AN EX-OFFENDER WHO HAS BEEN REHABILITATED AND WHO HAS A STATUTORY CRIMINAL RECORD. 

A CAUTION IS NOT STATUTORY BUT INFORMAL, GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT BY A POLICEMAN WHO IN MANY CASES ADVISED OR CAJOLLED  THEM INTO 'ACCEPTING' IT AND WHICH WAS 'ACCEPTED' BY THE RECIPIENT OFTEN WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE AND NOT IN A COURT OF LAW WHERE PROCEDURES CAN BE ADHERED TO.

AS SUCH, NON-STATUTORY INFORMATION IS PRIVATE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO ANYONE REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF EMPLOYMENT APPLIED FOR.

This whole mess needs to be unwound, starting with:

1) Repeal Section 115(7)a and 115(7)b of the Police Act 1997 which states that 'relevant matters' which 'might be useful' 'ought to be included' in CRB checks,

2) Repeal Section 115(5) of the Police Act 1997 which states that cautions are a 'relevant matter'.

3) Repeal the numerous amendments made by the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act which provide exemption of occupations from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

4) Repeal the Criminal & Justice Act 2008 S49,sch10 which states 'it protects cautions by treating them as 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' when in fact it treats cautions as 'convictions' and recipients as 'ex-offenders' who have or have been 'rehabilitated'.

5) Delete all non-conviction data including cautions, bind overs, reprimands and malicious hearsay from police databases that feed the CRB system and remove fingerprints, DNA, photographs, etc.

In my view a caution is a caution, it was spent as soon as it was given.

Why is this idea important?

Section 49, Schedule 10 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act (2008) provides protection for spent cautions in Section 8a of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in England and Wales. 

In my view this is wrong and this should be repealed along with the growing number of laws passed in the last two years exempting employers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Whilst some would argue that this is a good thing in that after 5 years the 'conviction' is spent and is non-declarable unless when applying for a non-exempt post,  I argue that it is treating those people with cautions as 'rehabilitated' 'convicts' and 'ex-offenders' when this is not the case.

Most often recipients of cautions are not 'ex-offenders', were not 'convicted' of any crime in a court of law and were not 'rehabilitated'. So why should they be treated as such in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of future employers? THIS IS WRONG.

People have been claiming quite rightly that their civil liberties are being blighted by the fact that all cautions and other non-conviction data are declared on CRB checks. So what do they do? They  treat them as 'convictions' which then become 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' but are still disclosable to most employers as they've expanded the list of occupations exempt from The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not provide recipients of cautions with any protection but instead labels them as 'ex-offenders' with 'convictions'.

WRONG.

UNTIL SOMEONE HAS BEEN TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW AND FOUND TO BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AFTER BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, ONLY THEN SHOULD THEY BE LABELLED AS AN EX-OFFENDER WHO HAS BEEN REHABILITATED AND WHO HAS A STATUTORY CRIMINAL RECORD. 

A CAUTION IS NOT STATUTORY BUT INFORMAL, GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT BY A POLICEMAN WHO IN MANY CASES ADVISED OR CAJOLLED  THEM INTO 'ACCEPTING' IT AND WHICH WAS 'ACCEPTED' BY THE RECIPIENT OFTEN WITHOUT LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND ADVICE AND NOT IN A COURT OF LAW WHERE PROCEDURES CAN BE ADHERED TO.

AS SUCH, NON-STATUTORY INFORMATION IS PRIVATE AND SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED TO ANYONE REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION OF EMPLOYMENT APPLIED FOR.

This whole mess needs to be unwound, starting with:

1) Repeal Section 115(7)a and 115(7)b of the Police Act 1997 which states that 'relevant matters' which 'might be useful' 'ought to be included' in CRB checks,

2) Repeal Section 115(5) of the Police Act 1997 which states that cautions are a 'relevant matter'.

3) Repeal the numerous amendments made by the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act which provide exemption of occupations from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

4) Repeal the Criminal & Justice Act 2008 S49,sch10 which states 'it protects cautions by treating them as 'spent' after a period of 'rehabilitation' when in fact it treats cautions as 'convictions' and recipients as 'ex-offenders' who have or have been 'rehabilitated'.

5) Delete all non-conviction data including cautions, bind overs, reprimands and malicious hearsay from police databases that feed the CRB system and remove fingerprints, DNA, photographs, etc.

In my view a caution is a caution, it was spent as soon as it was given.

Remove cautions from CRB

Cautions are blighting people's job prospects and ruining lives. I received a caution after my abusive ex-husband reported me to the police for common assault.  He had threatened my life and the lives of my children and had assaulted me on several occasions (including when pregnant).  Whilst feeling under threat and duress I I used reasonable force to remove him from my house.  I ended up with a caution (very much sold to me by the police) after spending hours without food in the police station.  I was too scared of the consequences of going to court , but now very much regret having my day in court.  The police did not charge my ex-husband despite him admitting to kicking me whilst pregnant in his statement!

I have a PhD and hoped to train as a teacher (my ex knew this and knew the consequences of his malicious complaint).  I do not want to have to discuss my appalling marriage every time I apply for a job, so I only apply for those that do not require a CRB. These tend to be low paid jobs.

My ex-husband also got cautioned, but due to his career will never need a CRB check…

I should never have been cautioned in the first place. Now my earning potential has plumetted and my ability to forge a career is pretty much ruined. 

Cautions were supposed to be a 'telling off', not a black mark that sticks for life,

Remove cautions fom CRB checks and allow people such as myself to have the career opportunities that we deserve.

Why is this idea important?

Cautions are blighting people's job prospects and ruining lives. I received a caution after my abusive ex-husband reported me to the police for common assault.  He had threatened my life and the lives of my children and had assaulted me on several occasions (including when pregnant).  Whilst feeling under threat and duress I I used reasonable force to remove him from my house.  I ended up with a caution (very much sold to me by the police) after spending hours without food in the police station.  I was too scared of the consequences of going to court , but now very much regret having my day in court.  The police did not charge my ex-husband despite him admitting to kicking me whilst pregnant in his statement!

I have a PhD and hoped to train as a teacher (my ex knew this and knew the consequences of his malicious complaint).  I do not want to have to discuss my appalling marriage every time I apply for a job, so I only apply for those that do not require a CRB. These tend to be low paid jobs.

My ex-husband also got cautioned, but due to his career will never need a CRB check…

I should never have been cautioned in the first place. Now my earning potential has plumetted and my ability to forge a career is pretty much ruined. 

Cautions were supposed to be a 'telling off', not a black mark that sticks for life,

Remove cautions fom CRB checks and allow people such as myself to have the career opportunities that we deserve.

End the Police State

Police can (and do) arrest law-abiding citizens knowing they are innocent and then put them on databases as 'court convictions'. In theory the innocent can apply to have their Samples deleted. In practice it is next to impossible. a) A malcious complaint is made b) The police arrest 'to preserve the evidence c)  The allegation is disproved d) The police NFA leaving samples on the databases and inaccurate input based on the complaint e) Details of the complaint are refused citing the Data Protection Act and the malicious complainant is not pursued f) if the Accused manages (despite Westcott b Westcott) to prove that arrest was not necessary ('exceptional case') samples might be removed. Compenation: peanuts. Cost to innocent: tens of thousands. Career and earnings limitations: enhanced CRB checks = a whole industry with some 300,000+ in annually Essex alone. Police should be made to examine the evidence before arrest wherever possible and allow the 'suspect' to disprove the allegation BEFORE being put on the databases.

Why is this idea important?

Police can (and do) arrest law-abiding citizens knowing they are innocent and then put them on databases as 'court convictions'. In theory the innocent can apply to have their Samples deleted. In practice it is next to impossible. a) A malcious complaint is made b) The police arrest 'to preserve the evidence c)  The allegation is disproved d) The police NFA leaving samples on the databases and inaccurate input based on the complaint e) Details of the complaint are refused citing the Data Protection Act and the malicious complainant is not pursued f) if the Accused manages (despite Westcott b Westcott) to prove that arrest was not necessary ('exceptional case') samples might be removed. Compenation: peanuts. Cost to innocent: tens of thousands. Career and earnings limitations: enhanced CRB checks = a whole industry with some 300,000+ in annually Essex alone. Police should be made to examine the evidence before arrest wherever possible and allow the 'suspect' to disprove the allegation BEFORE being put on the databases.

crb yearly for every agent we work through

Why can't nurses have one personal CRB check , which can be used for every agent we choose to work through.   Its such a waste of time and money getting CRB checks for every agent.  If we register with one agent and they go into admistration or unable to supply us with work (both have happened to me personally)  we are without work.

I know its necessary to check us, however teachers have one done when they apply for a job and never again whilst they are employed with the same school.

Come on is this fair on nurses who are not the highest paid people.  I work hard and find this to be such a money making racket.

Looking forward to some positive  removal of this.

Dianne

Why is this idea important?

Why can't nurses have one personal CRB check , which can be used for every agent we choose to work through.   Its such a waste of time and money getting CRB checks for every agent.  If we register with one agent and they go into admistration or unable to supply us with work (both have happened to me personally)  we are without work.

I know its necessary to check us, however teachers have one done when they apply for a job and never again whilst they are employed with the same school.

Come on is this fair on nurses who are not the highest paid people.  I work hard and find this to be such a money making racket.

Looking forward to some positive  removal of this.

Dianne

Streamline CRB checks

Streamline CRB checks:

Stop paper forms

Move to online or alternative protected programme

Allow users (eg schools, nurseries, care homes etc) to become registered to use the site, pay an annual fee and pay a reduced fee for each search required.

Allow reduced rate for an annual check on current employees (previously checked).

Alert information if a current employees information changes. 

Why is this idea important?

Streamline CRB checks:

Stop paper forms

Move to online or alternative protected programme

Allow users (eg schools, nurseries, care homes etc) to become registered to use the site, pay an annual fee and pay a reduced fee for each search required.

Allow reduced rate for an annual check on current employees (previously checked).

Alert information if a current employees information changes. 

Repeal CRB checks – we’re not all criminals!

Put the names of convicted criminals on a register NOT the names of innocent citizens who just want to get involved with their community.

 

STOP the CRB paranoia.  It's not foolproof.  It's not necessary.  It's not just.

 

Why is this idea important?

Put the names of convicted criminals on a register NOT the names of innocent citizens who just want to get involved with their community.

 

STOP the CRB paranoia.  It's not foolproof.  It's not necessary.  It's not just.

 

taxi regs and crb checks

I am a licenced hackney carriage vehicle. Under Durham county council.. but i can pick up in one town and not another! Its devided into zones! Which means if i drop off in Durham.. and someone wants to jump in.. i cant take them! And they must go and join a huge que! As for police checks it all needs sorting out… if i want to use an escort… (to sit in for county contracts) i cannot use my mum (who is a dcc registered and police checked nurse)… no she must undergo another police check! Im fully checked.. but say i was to apply for another job.. id need another one! And another one! I AGREE that police checks need updating etc… but once someone is checked it should be transferable within government departments… AND county to county. Each time its another fee… and up to 3 month wait. I could not use a qualified youth worker who ran a dissabled club for an escort.. because she didnt have 'adults' on her 'category' section.. even though it was kids we were picking up.. more money was spent!   

Why is this idea important?

I am a licenced hackney carriage vehicle. Under Durham county council.. but i can pick up in one town and not another! Its devided into zones! Which means if i drop off in Durham.. and someone wants to jump in.. i cant take them! And they must go and join a huge que! As for police checks it all needs sorting out… if i want to use an escort… (to sit in for county contracts) i cannot use my mum (who is a dcc registered and police checked nurse)… no she must undergo another police check! Im fully checked.. but say i was to apply for another job.. id need another one! And another one! I AGREE that police checks need updating etc… but once someone is checked it should be transferable within government departments… AND county to county. Each time its another fee… and up to 3 month wait. I could not use a qualified youth worker who ran a dissabled club for an escort.. because she didnt have 'adults' on her 'category' section.. even though it was kids we were picking up.. more money was spent!   

Cease Bureaucratic CRB & Medical Checks.

Getting a regular job these days can take months, often leading to the opportunity being lost to obscurity. 99% of the time this is due to CRB & Medical checks which are purely there to protect companies (especially the scourge of modern employment – the job agency) and not people.

Once a company has a clean CRB etc it just creates a green light for them to wash their hands of any responsibility, if anything nefarious occurs; the same is true for medical issues too. It achieves nothing & illicits complacency  allowing potential criminals to actually play the system, rendering the rest of our lives a check box ticking, call centre driven misery.

This also feeds in to PFI related stuff too, as numerous private companies have hit the bandwagon taking £50 a time, simply becoming disorganised buffers to the actual Criminal Registration Bureau, frequently submitting incorrect information, taking the money & running.

Please lets get back to trusting people and a propensity for processes to move swiftly; I'm 41, but I remember a time not so long ago, when you could get a "proper full time", fairly paid job, in two weeks with virtually NO PAPERWORK – let's get back to that; it'll lubricate the economy too.

Why is this idea important?

Getting a regular job these days can take months, often leading to the opportunity being lost to obscurity. 99% of the time this is due to CRB & Medical checks which are purely there to protect companies (especially the scourge of modern employment – the job agency) and not people.

Once a company has a clean CRB etc it just creates a green light for them to wash their hands of any responsibility, if anything nefarious occurs; the same is true for medical issues too. It achieves nothing & illicits complacency  allowing potential criminals to actually play the system, rendering the rest of our lives a check box ticking, call centre driven misery.

This also feeds in to PFI related stuff too, as numerous private companies have hit the bandwagon taking £50 a time, simply becoming disorganised buffers to the actual Criminal Registration Bureau, frequently submitting incorrect information, taking the money & running.

Please lets get back to trusting people and a propensity for processes to move swiftly; I'm 41, but I remember a time not so long ago, when you could get a "proper full time", fairly paid job, in two weeks with virtually NO PAPERWORK – let's get back to that; it'll lubricate the economy too.

Abolish CRB Checking

CRB checking is a costly process that fails to deliver the expected outcome.   It takes away responsibilities from any local group or organization and centralizes it to a faceless bureaucrat   whose only real interest is generating statistics.   This legislation is so ridiculous that if you move from job to job within the same organization you have to be rechecked at a cost of £60 a time. 

Why is this idea important?

CRB checking is a costly process that fails to deliver the expected outcome.   It takes away responsibilities from any local group or organization and centralizes it to a faceless bureaucrat   whose only real interest is generating statistics.   This legislation is so ridiculous that if you move from job to job within the same organization you have to be rechecked at a cost of £60 a time. 

Be reasonable with CRB checks

CRB checks are stifling foreign exchange visits. If an English school child is staying in the home of another school child in a foreign country, why do the foreign parents have to be checked? In this day of instant technology, is it not possible for parents to email or chat online and decide if they are happy with their “little John” staying in the home of “petit Jacques”?

Why is this idea important?

CRB checks are stifling foreign exchange visits. If an English school child is staying in the home of another school child in a foreign country, why do the foreign parents have to be checked? In this day of instant technology, is it not possible for parents to email or chat online and decide if they are happy with their “little John” staying in the home of “petit Jacques”?