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In my view this is wrong and this should be repealed along with the growing number of laws passed in the last two years exempting employers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.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.
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.
In the coalition government's manifesto ' The Coalition: Our Programme for Government' published in May 2010, it states, in Section 3: Civil Liberties, Page 11 :
We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
In order to do this the Government MUST review the information included in CRB checks as well as the effectiveness of the Vetting & Barring Scheme and arrive at the conclusion that only true convictions where a person has defended him/herself in a court of law yet has still been found guilty by tiral and jury are included in the checks made available to employers.
As cautions, reprimands, warnings etc do not fall under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, CRB checks currently provide no protection whatsoever for people's freedoms with the inclusion of NON-CONVICTION data held on Police databases.
Instead, each time a CRB check is returned with non-conviction data, the subject is effectively forced to stand trial by his/her future employer without any ability to defend themselves. Forcing a person to explain themselves (if they get as far as interview) and thus discuss very private data in order to be deemed guilty or not by a future employer (not a judge in a court of law but joe bloggs) is just MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG. Why not just set up public stocks or brand people across their foreheads as this procedure is archaic!
The only way to protect people's freedoms and also privacy (relying on future employers to not discuss very private and often unproven incidents is no protection at all is to have a blanket approach and that is to:
OMIT ALL NON-CONVICTION DATA (INCLUDING CAUTIONS, REPRIMANDS, WARNINGS, NFA's, OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION, ETC) FOR EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF AGE OR IMPLIED SEVERITY OF EVENTS MENTIONED.
Why is this idea important?
In the coalition government's manifesto ' The Coalition: Our Programme for Government' published in May 2010, it states, in Section 3: Civil Liberties, Page 11 :
We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
In order to do this the Government MUST review the information included in CRB checks as well as the effectiveness of the Vetting & Barring Scheme and arrive at the conclusion that only true convictions where a person has defended him/herself in a court of law yet has still been found guilty by tiral and jury are included in the checks made available to employers.
As cautions, reprimands, warnings etc do not fall under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, CRB checks currently provide no protection whatsoever for people's freedoms with the inclusion of NON-CONVICTION data held on Police databases.
Instead, each time a CRB check is returned with non-conviction data, the subject is effectively forced to stand trial by his/her future employer without any ability to defend themselves. Forcing a person to explain themselves (if they get as far as interview) and thus discuss very private data in order to be deemed guilty or not by a future employer (not a judge in a court of law but joe bloggs) is just MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG. Why not just set up public stocks or brand people across their foreheads as this procedure is archaic!
The only way to protect people's freedoms and also privacy (relying on future employers to not discuss very private and often unproven incidents is no protection at all is to have a blanket approach and that is to:
OMIT ALL NON-CONVICTION DATA (INCLUDING CAUTIONS, REPRIMANDS, WARNINGS, NFA's, OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION, ETC) FOR EVERYBODY, REGARDLESS OF AGE OR IMPLIED SEVERITY OF EVENTS MENTIONED.
To quickly repeal and abolish the legislation that gave every body in the UK the right to demand these useless and pointless requirements. They are bureaucratic, costly, of no effect whatever for their stated purpose and highly dangerous.
Why is this idea important?
To quickly repeal and abolish the legislation that gave every body in the UK the right to demand these useless and pointless requirements. They are bureaucratic, costly, of no effect whatever for their stated purpose and highly dangerous.
Introduce one-time CRB checks which will be acceptable by agencies other than the one initially requiring it
* issue a visa like certificate of passing to successful applicants which will be placed on a page of their passport
* the person's passport then becomes their proof of passing as well as of ID and will last the lifetime of the passport
Why is this idea important?
Introduce one-time CRB checks which will be acceptable by agencies other than the one initially requiring it
* issue a visa like certificate of passing to successful applicants which will be placed on a page of their passport
* the person's passport then becomes their proof of passing as well as of ID and will last the lifetime of the passport
Remove cautions from CRB checks
UNTIL A PERSON IS TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE IN A COURT OF LAW THEY DO NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND AS SUCH ANY CAUTIONS (ADMINISTERED BY THE POLICE) OR MALICIOUS HEARSAY REPORTED TO THE POLICE MUST BE OMMITTED FROM CRB CHECKS.
PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE BEING DESTROYED.
Why is this idea important?
Remove cautions from CRB checks
UNTIL A PERSON IS TRIED AND FOUND GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE IN A COURT OF LAW THEY DO NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND AS SUCH ANY CAUTIONS (ADMINISTERED BY THE POLICE) OR MALICIOUS HEARSAY REPORTED TO THE POLICE MUST BE OMMITTED FROM CRB CHECKS.
PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE BEING DESTROYED.
My proposal is that the need for Criminal Records Board checks should be removed or simplified in relation to volunteers in charitable organisations who are only involved with the charity's users on a group basis – e.g. volunteers who help at group meetings for stroke victims or people with learning disabilities.
Why is this idea important?
My proposal is that the need for Criminal Records Board checks should be removed or simplified in relation to volunteers in charitable organisations who are only involved with the charity's users on a group basis – e.g. volunteers who help at group meetings for stroke victims or people with learning disabilities.
All cautions (spent and unspent) and 'relevant information' should be removed from all levels of CRB checks.
Why is this idea important?
All cautions (spent and unspent) and 'relevant information' should be removed from all levels of CRB checks.
If you want to axe an absurdly bureaucratic systerm, read on…
I would like to see a rational, radical reform of the CRB system. As a teacher I have filled out more CRB forms than I care to count, most of which have contained identical information. I say “most” because I have just received a new form from a teaching agency I have just signed up with, which demands even more intrusive personal data.
I have lived at the same address for almost 14 years, never changed my name, never been in trouble with the police, held a valid and unblemished UK driving licence and a UK passport for over 40 years… and every time I fill out one of these forms I become more disillusioned with our society. Once upon a time it was enough to say who you were: whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?
This system was I believe introduced as a result of “Soham”. Perhaps it has prevented repeats, or perhaps we have been lucky.
Why is it that a CRB clearance issued to one organization is not valid for another? I have had concurrent CRBs for Hants CC, Surrey CC, the Scouts, various teacher supply agencies, etc.: I could paper my walls with them. And yet if I had stayed with the same employer all my teaching life I would presumably have one at most. Would that have made me a better person or proved my lack of criminal habits?
If we must have this obnoxious system, surely it is possible to create a central database which all bona fide organizations could interrogate? Once I am on the system, surely any changes to my behaviour or status can be recorded and checked – which I gather they are every time I fill out another form?
At a time when you are busy cutting all the posts and programmes you can lay your hands on, surely this one is ripe for surgery? Or is it inviolate because it is actually a source of revenue?
Do all those people who spend their time typing my information onto the database actually make money for the government?
Could they be doing something useful?
Why is this idea important?
If you want to axe an absurdly bureaucratic systerm, read on…
I would like to see a rational, radical reform of the CRB system. As a teacher I have filled out more CRB forms than I care to count, most of which have contained identical information. I say “most” because I have just received a new form from a teaching agency I have just signed up with, which demands even more intrusive personal data.
I have lived at the same address for almost 14 years, never changed my name, never been in trouble with the police, held a valid and unblemished UK driving licence and a UK passport for over 40 years… and every time I fill out one of these forms I become more disillusioned with our society. Once upon a time it was enough to say who you were: whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”?
This system was I believe introduced as a result of “Soham”. Perhaps it has prevented repeats, or perhaps we have been lucky.
Why is it that a CRB clearance issued to one organization is not valid for another? I have had concurrent CRBs for Hants CC, Surrey CC, the Scouts, various teacher supply agencies, etc.: I could paper my walls with them. And yet if I had stayed with the same employer all my teaching life I would presumably have one at most. Would that have made me a better person or proved my lack of criminal habits?
If we must have this obnoxious system, surely it is possible to create a central database which all bona fide organizations could interrogate? Once I am on the system, surely any changes to my behaviour or status can be recorded and checked – which I gather they are every time I fill out another form?
At a time when you are busy cutting all the posts and programmes you can lay your hands on, surely this one is ripe for surgery? Or is it inviolate because it is actually a source of revenue?
Do all those people who spend their time typing my information onto the database actually make money for the government?
Could they be doing something useful?
Please review the current system whereas every crime committed is recorded on a CRB check, regardless of the nature of the crime, the harm to the public, and the possibilty that it may prevent that person from ever being able to gain employment ever again. The CRB system is crippling many in an already impossible world to achieve a healthy working career, that otherwise would'nt have a problem.
A job application always asks do you have any criminal convictions. If the answer is yes, I'm sure the application goes straight in the bin. and that person remains on JSA.
Is it fair that someone with a minor conviction such as possesion of a small amount of cannabis, is deamed to dangerous to work, for the rest of their life.
I know some employers are open minded, and may overlook such an offence. But the truth is they don't . not when there are so many other applicants. The aim of reducing the deficit in the economy, and getting people back into work would be so much easier if the CRB system was overhauled and minor criminals were not kept in the poverty trap and relying on the state to keep them, when all they want is to work.
Why is this idea important?
Please review the current system whereas every crime committed is recorded on a CRB check, regardless of the nature of the crime, the harm to the public, and the possibilty that it may prevent that person from ever being able to gain employment ever again. The CRB system is crippling many in an already impossible world to achieve a healthy working career, that otherwise would'nt have a problem.
A job application always asks do you have any criminal convictions. If the answer is yes, I'm sure the application goes straight in the bin. and that person remains on JSA.
Is it fair that someone with a minor conviction such as possesion of a small amount of cannabis, is deamed to dangerous to work, for the rest of their life.
I know some employers are open minded, and may overlook such an offence. But the truth is they don't . not when there are so many other applicants. The aim of reducing the deficit in the economy, and getting people back into work would be so much easier if the CRB system was overhauled and minor criminals were not kept in the poverty trap and relying on the state to keep them, when all they want is to work.
Annual CRB checks are required for all voluntary organisations involving children or vunerable adults. No account is taken of the age and vunerability of the volunteers. As an 81 year old doing voluntary work with stroke victims, some younger and fitter than me, I need a CRB Check, they do not. This is an expensive absurdity.
CRB Checks should not be compulsary in voluntary organisations unless a sizeable minority of those at risk, or their parents, ask for it. CRB Checks only catch those who have comitted an offence and been found out – probably a minority of offenders. Vigilant parents and affected individuals are the real safeguards, not remote individuals with computers.
Existing legislation should be amended to remove compulsary CRB Checks for voluntary organisations unless 10%? of those at risk request it.
Why is this idea important?
Annual CRB checks are required for all voluntary organisations involving children or vunerable adults. No account is taken of the age and vunerability of the volunteers. As an 81 year old doing voluntary work with stroke victims, some younger and fitter than me, I need a CRB Check, they do not. This is an expensive absurdity.
CRB Checks should not be compulsary in voluntary organisations unless a sizeable minority of those at risk, or their parents, ask for it. CRB Checks only catch those who have comitted an offence and been found out – probably a minority of offenders. Vigilant parents and affected individuals are the real safeguards, not remote individuals with computers.
Existing legislation should be amended to remove compulsary CRB Checks for voluntary organisations unless 10%? of those at risk request it.
The soft information included in CRB checks is provided by the Police to employers (or potential employers) when the police had suspected a crime had been committed or had received intelligence on a person but the person had not been convicted.
It is fundamentally wrong to disclose this information. The Police are promoting hearsay and gossip to the point where a false allegation could have far reaching consequences to an innocent persons life.
If the Police suspect someone is guilty of a crime, put them before a jury of his peers and let them decide guilt when he or she can have the right to defend themselves.
If they cant do that, then it has zero relevance to future employers.
Why is this idea important?
The soft information included in CRB checks is provided by the Police to employers (or potential employers) when the police had suspected a crime had been committed or had received intelligence on a person but the person had not been convicted.
It is fundamentally wrong to disclose this information. The Police are promoting hearsay and gossip to the point where a false allegation could have far reaching consequences to an innocent persons life.
If the Police suspect someone is guilty of a crime, put them before a jury of his peers and let them decide guilt when he or she can have the right to defend themselves.
If they cant do that, then it has zero relevance to future employers.
I agree with all postings. The current system is ridiculous. All CRB's should be stored on a central database and renewed every 3 years so that anyone can check if somone has one.
Why is this idea important?
I agree with all postings. The current system is ridiculous. All CRB's should be stored on a central database and renewed every 3 years so that anyone can check if somone has one.
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.
Currently each time you move between employers this necessitates a new CRB check. this can take up to 16 weeks, involve a huge amount of paperwork and clinical staff are not meant to start work without it. If the CRB was related to the individual only, they could produce it as evidence to a new employer along with last wage slip, references, qualification certificates etc. If required it could be made renewable annually. Currently an individual could have 3 or more different CRBs if they have two part time jobs and undertake voluntary work for example.
Why is this idea important?
Currently each time you move between employers this necessitates a new CRB check. this can take up to 16 weeks, involve a huge amount of paperwork and clinical staff are not meant to start work without it. If the CRB was related to the individual only, they could produce it as evidence to a new employer along with last wage slip, references, qualification certificates etc. If required it could be made renewable annually. Currently an individual could have 3 or more different CRBs if they have two part time jobs and undertake voluntary work for example.
CRB checks are of limited use, they take time to process and mean that you cannot do any work with children even on a stand in basis without the check.
I cannot help out in any community activity even on a temporary one-off basis without the check and this means there is no relief available for people in charge.
Why is this idea important?
CRB checks are of limited use, they take time to process and mean that you cannot do any work with children even on a stand in basis without the check.
I cannot help out in any community activity even on a temporary one-off basis without the check and this means there is no relief available for people in charge.
I am quite happy to be CRB checked every three years.
Last month I had to fill in the forms for Healthy schools and I was duly forwarded my enhanced disclosure document. I have just been recruited by another organisation to do some additional work and less than a month after receiving my clearance i have to fill in yet another form.Surely if the check is thorough it should be able to be applied to whoever you are working for, but yes, routinely have it upgraded every couple of years.
I fail to see the necessity to have it repeatedly done for different organisations, the check should apply to the individual and be accepted by all.
Why is this idea important?
I am quite happy to be CRB checked every three years.
Last month I had to fill in the forms for Healthy schools and I was duly forwarded my enhanced disclosure document. I have just been recruited by another organisation to do some additional work and less than a month after receiving my clearance i have to fill in yet another form.Surely if the check is thorough it should be able to be applied to whoever you are working for, but yes, routinely have it upgraded every couple of years.
I fail to see the necessity to have it repeatedly done for different organisations, the check should apply to the individual and be accepted by all.
Why on earth do we have to submit CRB checks for every organisation we work with. How on earth can schools, clubs, voluntary organisations get people to provide support when a CRB check is required for every group. It is time consuming, costly and prevents people volunteering. One CRB check per individual!
I believe it is correct for CRB checks to be made on coaches and assistants. However why on earth should every parent volunteering to help on a one off basis (ie a school trip or school fayre) need to be checked. They arent going to be working unsupervised with children so should still be able to assist. Its crazy!
Why is this idea important?
Why on earth do we have to submit CRB checks for every organisation we work with. How on earth can schools, clubs, voluntary organisations get people to provide support when a CRB check is required for every group. It is time consuming, costly and prevents people volunteering. One CRB check per individual!
I believe it is correct for CRB checks to be made on coaches and assistants. However why on earth should every parent volunteering to help on a one off basis (ie a school trip or school fayre) need to be checked. They arent going to be working unsupervised with children so should still be able to assist. Its crazy!
Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.
1. MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.
2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.
Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.
I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.
Why is this idea important?
Reading through some idas on this site I've found two areas where MP's are treated differently to the rest of us.
1. MP's don't have to have CRB checks even if their work brings them in contact with children.
2. MP's can choose to smoke inside Westminster licensed bars because of its 'palace' designation.
Are there any more examples of the civil liberties of MP's being more respected than the civil liberties of the rest of the population and where they are deemed above the law.
I think if we have to do it MP's have to do it too.
Currently a separate CRB check is required for each individual for each different type of activity that they undertake that costs them or their employer around £50 each time. This wastes valuable time and money for individuals who can not take up work, gaps for employees and unnecessary bureaucracy for police and agencies undertaking these checks. This problem not only covers people in employment, it adversely affects volunteering considerable as well.
Surely it would be more efficient for all concerned if people were given a CRB card once their application had been checked and completed (like a driving licence with photo ID) that had a 'license code' on it. Then each time they start working/volunteering, the new establishment can simply check the ID of the card holder on a CRB site. Since the bureau already has an online tracking service it would not be difficult to have another part of that site to validate the license holders details. This process would prevent multiple checks each year and, to ensure records are not as out of date as under the present system, there would be an expiry date so the card would have to be renewed (perhaps every two years).
Why is this idea important?
Currently a separate CRB check is required for each individual for each different type of activity that they undertake that costs them or their employer around £50 each time. This wastes valuable time and money for individuals who can not take up work, gaps for employees and unnecessary bureaucracy for police and agencies undertaking these checks. This problem not only covers people in employment, it adversely affects volunteering considerable as well.
Surely it would be more efficient for all concerned if people were given a CRB card once their application had been checked and completed (like a driving licence with photo ID) that had a 'license code' on it. Then each time they start working/volunteering, the new establishment can simply check the ID of the card holder on a CRB site. Since the bureau already has an online tracking service it would not be difficult to have another part of that site to validate the license holders details. This process would prevent multiple checks each year and, to ensure records are not as out of date as under the present system, there would be an expiry date so the card would have to be renewed (perhaps every two years).
Currently any employer must CRB check their employees and volunteers, if they are working with 'vulnerable groups', to vet their suitability. As it is employers who must do this people, such as myself, who work for different people have to have multiple checks, all running at the same time. Recently my former employer ran a check on me (April 2010), when I lost my job in July I joined several employment agencies, two of who asked me to pay upfront for a check, the other only when they would offer me work. For a while I was also a sports coach, requiring a CRB from my sports federation. This would mean that in total I could possibly have 4-5 CRB certificates!
The solution? Simple: make the CRB check portable between organisations.
Why is this idea important?
Currently any employer must CRB check their employees and volunteers, if they are working with 'vulnerable groups', to vet their suitability. As it is employers who must do this people, such as myself, who work for different people have to have multiple checks, all running at the same time. Recently my former employer ran a check on me (April 2010), when I lost my job in July I joined several employment agencies, two of who asked me to pay upfront for a check, the other only when they would offer me work. For a while I was also a sports coach, requiring a CRB from my sports federation. This would mean that in total I could possibly have 4-5 CRB certificates!
The solution? Simple: make the CRB check portable between organisations.
These should be transferable! We run a family business here serving our local community with a Residential Home for the Elderly and have now extended our services to Homecare. In order to keep costs down and deliver a fantastic price to the local authority we should be able to use our current staff but due to regulations!!!!! our homecare agency has to officially employ, crb check, train and induct a member of staff from our home before they can attend a client in the community – absolutely crackers and just adds in additional cost which then makes the hourly rate we charge to the authority more expensive
Why is this idea important?
These should be transferable! We run a family business here serving our local community with a Residential Home for the Elderly and have now extended our services to Homecare. In order to keep costs down and deliver a fantastic price to the local authority we should be able to use our current staff but due to regulations!!!!! our homecare agency has to officially employ, crb check, train and induct a member of staff from our home before they can attend a client in the community – absolutely crackers and just adds in additional cost which then makes the hourly rate we charge to the authority more expensive
To remove requirement to declare past offences for job applications not dealing with children or vulnerable adults, and make it illegal to demand such information.
Why is this idea important?
To remove requirement to declare past offences for job applications not dealing with children or vulnerable adults, and make it illegal to demand such information.
With the current system, an advanced CRB is required for not just teachers, nurses and other individuals that work with children and vulnerable adults, but for taxi drivers, lawyers, accountants (and other professions with legal protection).
Now if someone was convicted of Fraud 10 years prior to applying to be, say an accountant, it is understandable that this must be disclosed to the employer for the safety of the business. However, should it be the same for a caution for Driving without Due Care 10 years prior? For this would also show up.
What this campaign is not argueing for is the deletion of criminal records, non-disclosure of relevant offences or non-disclosure for any offences committed within 5 years.
What it is argueing for is a common sense approach to disclosure that supplys relevant information to the employer that is not in excess, and that information that is irrelevant to the job role is "weeded" from the disclosure.
Scotland currently has a "weeding" procedure for old, trivial and irrelevant offences (violent and sexual offences, as well as more serious ones are never weeded from the record), so why is England and Whales still lagging behind, desperately holding on to the nottion of an all-seeing, all-hearing Orwellian state?
Why is this idea important?
With the current system, an advanced CRB is required for not just teachers, nurses and other individuals that work with children and vulnerable adults, but for taxi drivers, lawyers, accountants (and other professions with legal protection).
Now if someone was convicted of Fraud 10 years prior to applying to be, say an accountant, it is understandable that this must be disclosed to the employer for the safety of the business. However, should it be the same for a caution for Driving without Due Care 10 years prior? For this would also show up.
What this campaign is not argueing for is the deletion of criminal records, non-disclosure of relevant offences or non-disclosure for any offences committed within 5 years.
What it is argueing for is a common sense approach to disclosure that supplys relevant information to the employer that is not in excess, and that information that is irrelevant to the job role is "weeded" from the disclosure.
Scotland currently has a "weeding" procedure for old, trivial and irrelevant offences (violent and sexual offences, as well as more serious ones are never weeded from the record), so why is England and Whales still lagging behind, desperately holding on to the nottion of an all-seeing, all-hearing Orwellian state?
A review was carried out for The Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act 1974 in 2002 called Breaking The Circle. Some superb ideas were put forward which the government of the day recommended, with emphasis on the buffer periods for the disclosure of convictions regarding job applications. Under the current legislation a custodial sentence that exceeds 2.5 years can never become spent. This is utterly ridiculous. How does the government expect an ex-offender to to get a job if he/she has to continually disclose. Many ex-offenders have just 1 or 2 convictions, they are not hardened villains and these convictions can be from years ago, such as mine are. I accept that some convictions must be disclosed for excepted occupations eg; working with children and vulnerable adults etc. I now work in this specialised field, helping ex-offenders into sustainable employment. People contact me because they are so stressed out with being refused employment all because a conviction is still following them around. The sooner the amendments for The ROA 1974 are implemented, the better. Actions speak far louder that words !
Why is this idea important?
A review was carried out for The Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act 1974 in 2002 called Breaking The Circle. Some superb ideas were put forward which the government of the day recommended, with emphasis on the buffer periods for the disclosure of convictions regarding job applications. Under the current legislation a custodial sentence that exceeds 2.5 years can never become spent. This is utterly ridiculous. How does the government expect an ex-offender to to get a job if he/she has to continually disclose. Many ex-offenders have just 1 or 2 convictions, they are not hardened villains and these convictions can be from years ago, such as mine are. I accept that some convictions must be disclosed for excepted occupations eg; working with children and vulnerable adults etc. I now work in this specialised field, helping ex-offenders into sustainable employment. People contact me because they are so stressed out with being refused employment all because a conviction is still following them around. The sooner the amendments for The ROA 1974 are implemented, the better. Actions speak far louder that words !