Dear All I was given a police caution for a very minor event which I cannot go into details for legal reasons. This has dramatically changed my life because although I have numerous degrees behind me it was all for nothing because it seems as if no one is interested in employing me. I am currently being treated by psychologists for depression and trauma.
However, there are many of us who were given or accepted a police caution for numerous reasons. This includes signing the form under pressure by a police officer, being given the wrong information such as the caution would be removed within a period of time (mainly 5years), or for fear of being kept in a cell for over a night. Whatever the reason may be, I am of the opinion that those who have received a police caution particular for minor offences should not be punished for the rest of their life. Though the police have the power to caution individuals, they are not judges and it is not certain that if you have gone ahead with court proceedings you would be convicted. I am sure that many of us now wished that we went ahead with court proceedings because in my case I was advised that CPS would not accept my case but now is too late. A CAUTION IS AS GOOD AS A CONVICTION. My only problem is I cannot live under this oppression of being labelled a criminal by employers and other members
of the public. I much prefer to get a prison life sentence than to live in this society being turned down jobs after jobs and having only one option of depending in benefits. As you may be aware the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011-2012 maintains that adults with cautions will have their records kept indefinitely which is disproportionate. Therefore, I am asking those who have not got a chance to come before a judge to sign a caution Epetition at HM Government. Website is: Epetitions.direct.uk/petitions. 100.000 signatures are required for the government to consider the discussion in the parliament. Let us do something or lets us live in rejection, discrimination, and in misery for the rest of our lives for a minor mistake or choice that we have taken. Thanks
Why is this idea important?
Dear All I was given a police caution for a very minor event which I cannot go into details for legal reasons. This has dramatically changed my life because although I have numerous degrees behind me it was all for nothing because it seems as if no one is interested in employing me. I am currently being treated by psychologists for depression and trauma.
However, there are many of us who were given or accepted a police caution for numerous reasons. This includes signing the form under pressure by a police officer, being given the wrong information such as the caution would be removed within a period of time (mainly 5years), or for fear of being kept in a cell for over a night. Whatever the reason may be, I am of the opinion that those who have received a police caution particular for minor offences should not be punished for the rest of their life. Though the police have the power to caution individuals, they are not judges and it is not certain that if you have gone ahead with court proceedings you would be convicted. I am sure that many of us now wished that we went ahead with court proceedings because in my case I was advised that CPS would not accept my case but now is too late. A CAUTION IS AS GOOD AS A CONVICTION. My only problem is I cannot live under this oppression of being labelled a criminal by employers and other members
of the public. I much prefer to get a prison life sentence than to live in this society being turned down jobs after jobs and having only one option of depending in benefits. As you may be aware the Protection of Freedoms Bill 2011-2012 maintains that adults with cautions will have their records kept indefinitely which is disproportionate. Therefore, I am asking those who have not got a chance to come before a judge to sign a caution Epetition at HM Government. Website is: Epetitions.direct.uk/petitions. 100.000 signatures are required for the government to consider the discussion in the parliament. Let us do something or lets us live in rejection, discrimination, and in misery for the rest of our lives for a minor mistake or choice that we have taken. Thanks
After 5 years of clear behaviour for people with a caution it should be automatically removed from a crb as long as it doesn’t involve children or vulnerable adults.
Why is this idea important?
After 5 years of clear behaviour for people with a caution it should be automatically removed from a crb as long as it doesn’t involve children or vulnerable adults.
I would like to see a limit on storing and sharing information about spent convictions after a period of time and believe it minor criminal records should be scraped after a period of time.
I believe the current status recently ammended to expand the data to employers on spent convictions are a disgrace and will allow for discrimination in the workplace for many young people who may have got into a bit of bother as teenagers.
A criminal conviction 20 years ago for theft should not hang around a persons neck as an intrusive life sentence and there should be limitations as to how long the police can hold such information. I am not talking about serious crime like murder or rape etc., CRB checks are in place to protect people at risk, not to continually punish reformed people who may have made a few mistakes many many years ago.
The current status quo in the UK is in my humble opinion unfair, discriminatory and quite frankly disgusting.
Not only is it possibly a breech the Human Rights Act, it makes the notion of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 absolutely worthless.
Why is this idea important?
I would like to see a limit on storing and sharing information about spent convictions after a period of time and believe it minor criminal records should be scraped after a period of time.
I believe the current status recently ammended to expand the data to employers on spent convictions are a disgrace and will allow for discrimination in the workplace for many young people who may have got into a bit of bother as teenagers.
A criminal conviction 20 years ago for theft should not hang around a persons neck as an intrusive life sentence and there should be limitations as to how long the police can hold such information. I am not talking about serious crime like murder or rape etc., CRB checks are in place to protect people at risk, not to continually punish reformed people who may have made a few mistakes many many years ago.
The current status quo in the UK is in my humble opinion unfair, discriminatory and quite frankly disgusting.
Not only is it possibly a breech the Human Rights Act, it makes the notion of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 absolutely worthless.
one- minor- single-first- mistake-misunderstanding and a police caution for life its completely unfair..this way caution becomes lifetime punishment..every day one has to live with caution…depression…humiliation…for single mistake for life..job prospect becomes limited lead to frustration and unemployment..UK police… Government must give positive chance for single -minor mistakes cautions and must not punish any one to suffer every day and night with it ..else caution is life time punishment not slap on wrist and ruining life for single mistake is not right – single caution must be removed from Enhanced CRB after 3 years to allow and support victim of caution to live normal life and not made them suffer for lifetime..its unfair if you don’t give enough support and chance to live normal life after single mistake
Why is this idea important?
one- minor- single-first- mistake-misunderstanding and a police caution for life its completely unfair..this way caution becomes lifetime punishment..every day one has to live with caution…depression…humiliation…for single mistake for life..job prospect becomes limited lead to frustration and unemployment..UK police… Government must give positive chance for single -minor mistakes cautions and must not punish any one to suffer every day and night with it ..else caution is life time punishment not slap on wrist and ruining life for single mistake is not right – single caution must be removed from Enhanced CRB after 3 years to allow and support victim of caution to live normal life and not made them suffer for lifetime..its unfair if you don’t give enough support and chance to live normal life after single mistake
Remove the power of judging whether candidate is suitable to work for a company from employers to the state, if the state are going to continue to interfere in that judgement.
This country has a crippling debt and there is a real strain on public resources. How can it possibly recover if people are not allowed to work and pay taxes because of some misdemeanor which happened 10+ years ago. Productivity = Wealth, basic economics that the Eton educated politicians can't fathom.
Why is this idea important?
Remove the power of judging whether candidate is suitable to work for a company from employers to the state, if the state are going to continue to interfere in that judgement.
This country has a crippling debt and there is a real strain on public resources. How can it possibly recover if people are not allowed to work and pay taxes because of some misdemeanor which happened 10+ years ago. Productivity = Wealth, basic economics that the Eton educated politicians can't fathom.
Like a TV or vehicle licemce, a SRB check should be valid for a fixed period and acceptable to all bodies requiring it, avoiding the need to get a new one for every new appointment where one is needed.
Why is this idea important?
Like a TV or vehicle licemce, a SRB check should be valid for a fixed period and acceptable to all bodies requiring it, avoiding the need to get a new one for every new appointment where one is needed.
Like many volunteers I am involved with schools, vulnerable adults and am a foster grandparent. All require seperate CRB checks , which have to be renewed quite frequently.( I believeits every 6 months )
We recieve a CRB certificate so surely the one check and then presenting the certificate to the other agencies who ,if in doubt, could do an e-mail check of the agency giving the relevant Reference Nos. from the CRB certificate . The Agency should keep the records up to date with any latest offences and so be able to confirm or otherwise.
This would surely save money interms of admin staff and other peoples time.
Why is this idea important?
Like many volunteers I am involved with schools, vulnerable adults and am a foster grandparent. All require seperate CRB checks , which have to be renewed quite frequently.( I believeits every 6 months )
We recieve a CRB certificate so surely the one check and then presenting the certificate to the other agencies who ,if in doubt, could do an e-mail check of the agency giving the relevant Reference Nos. from the CRB certificate . The Agency should keep the records up to date with any latest offences and so be able to confirm or otherwise.
This would surely save money interms of admin staff and other peoples time.
EMPLOYERS ARE REQUESTING ENHANCED CRB CHECKS EVEN THOUGH THE JOB DOES NOT REQUIRE ONE. EG.ROYAL MAIL, FOR LOADING DELIVERY VANS, NHS, FOR CLEANING AMBULANCES. WHERE ARE THE CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE PEOPLE HERE?
Why is this idea important?
EMPLOYERS ARE REQUESTING ENHANCED CRB CHECKS EVEN THOUGH THE JOB DOES NOT REQUIRE ONE. EG.ROYAL MAIL, FOR LOADING DELIVERY VANS, NHS, FOR CLEANING AMBULANCES. WHERE ARE THE CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE PEOPLE HERE?
A couple of years ago, I was in employment transition. I ended up having my CRB checked 6 times!! As a nurse, I am required to renew my registration annually – given that a lot of the job roles that require CRB checks actually also require professional registration of one kind or another, why not incorporate a CRB check in the professional registration renewal process? This would mean that employers would do one check – valid registration – and that, if there are people who have a questionable CRB, which has not been picked up because they have not changed jobs recently, this will become apparent.
Why is this idea important?
A couple of years ago, I was in employment transition. I ended up having my CRB checked 6 times!! As a nurse, I am required to renew my registration annually – given that a lot of the job roles that require CRB checks actually also require professional registration of one kind or another, why not incorporate a CRB check in the professional registration renewal process? This would mean that employers would do one check – valid registration – and that, if there are people who have a questionable CRB, which has not been picked up because they have not changed jobs recently, this will become apparent.
Local Government Authorities are making statement such as all personnel are to be CRB checked (usually Ebhanced) when working on schools and hospitals.
This results in the requirement to have such a clause included in the tendering packaged issued for contracts to buils schools and hospitals, with the end result that all construction, installation and fit out employees need to have CRB Enhanced check carried out before they can work on what is a construction site.
The cost of this is made even worse as each Authority and then Contract company will not recognise the CRB check carried out for a different project so the whole burden has to be repeated.
Peter Walker
BCSA, Health, Safety & Training Manager
Why is this idea important?
Local Government Authorities are making statement such as all personnel are to be CRB checked (usually Ebhanced) when working on schools and hospitals.
This results in the requirement to have such a clause included in the tendering packaged issued for contracts to buils schools and hospitals, with the end result that all construction, installation and fit out employees need to have CRB Enhanced check carried out before they can work on what is a construction site.
The cost of this is made even worse as each Authority and then Contract company will not recognise the CRB check carried out for a different project so the whole burden has to be repeated.
Peter Walker
BCSA, Health, Safety & Training Manager
I am national secretary of FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers) www.factuk.org and run their help line. Virtually every day someone rings us over CRB issues affecting Enhanced Certificates of Disclosure.
At present the law allows Chief Constables to share police intelligence with prospective employers for individuals who require an enhanced certificate of disclosure,
Enhanced CRB's are required by all teachers, care workers, health care professionals, youth workers, workers engaged in community activities with children and/or vulnerable adults/groups – vast numbers of people.
The Chief Constable has absolute discretion to share what ever information he/she feels is relevant. This could include mere gossip, information shared with the police by other agencies e.g social services, or information gathered by the police in the course of their work and irrespective of whether the prospective employer was involved in criminal activity or not.
As a result the police now routinely record the fact that an allegation was made against the prospective employee on enhanced CRBs even though they may have been cleared of any wrong doing by an employer or by a Court.
They also routinely record the fact that a person appeared before a Court even if he/she was found not guilty and was told they leave the Court with their reputation intact.
Adverse comments on a CRB basically result in that person being unemployable. What is needed is complete repeal of Section 115(7) of the Police Act 1997 or some kind of system which allows for only such information to be placed on it for a limited time (as is the case in the rehab of offenders act)and provides for a proper appeal process. At the moment all you can do is make representation about the content of the disclosure which is invariably ignored. There is no right of appeal.
THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM WHICH AFFECTS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR AND FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
For further information you might like to read the report of the Children, Schools and Families Subcommittee Report in 2009 which touched on indiscipline in schools which referred to this matter and the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Past Abuse in Children's Homes (on which David Cameron served) which was published in 2002. Both these reports highlight some of the injustices felt by carers and teachers on these issues.
Our organisation FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers)would be pleased to provide further information mailto:sec@factuk.org
Why is this idea important?
I am national secretary of FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers) www.factuk.org and run their help line. Virtually every day someone rings us over CRB issues affecting Enhanced Certificates of Disclosure.
At present the law allows Chief Constables to share police intelligence with prospective employers for individuals who require an enhanced certificate of disclosure,
Enhanced CRB's are required by all teachers, care workers, health care professionals, youth workers, workers engaged in community activities with children and/or vulnerable adults/groups – vast numbers of people.
The Chief Constable has absolute discretion to share what ever information he/she feels is relevant. This could include mere gossip, information shared with the police by other agencies e.g social services, or information gathered by the police in the course of their work and irrespective of whether the prospective employer was involved in criminal activity or not.
As a result the police now routinely record the fact that an allegation was made against the prospective employee on enhanced CRBs even though they may have been cleared of any wrong doing by an employer or by a Court.
They also routinely record the fact that a person appeared before a Court even if he/she was found not guilty and was told they leave the Court with their reputation intact.
Adverse comments on a CRB basically result in that person being unemployable. What is needed is complete repeal of Section 115(7) of the Police Act 1997 or some kind of system which allows for only such information to be placed on it for a limited time (as is the case in the rehab of offenders act)and provides for a proper appeal process. At the moment all you can do is make representation about the content of the disclosure which is invariably ignored. There is no right of appeal.
THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM WHICH AFFECTS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR AND FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.
For further information you might like to read the report of the Children, Schools and Families Subcommittee Report in 2009 which touched on indiscipline in schools which referred to this matter and the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Past Abuse in Children's Homes (on which David Cameron served) which was published in 2002. Both these reports highlight some of the injustices felt by carers and teachers on these issues.
Our organisation FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers)would be pleased to provide further information mailto:sec@factuk.org
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).
Teachers with an enhanced CRB check should be allowed to chaperone children backstage without having to become a licensed chaperone. At induction in their schools, teachers undergo child abuse training no different to what takes placeo n a licensing course and they schools that they work in have policies they follow. They should not then have to undergo further training for what amounts to the same thing and have to have another enhanced CRB check done with the SAME county (but a different department) in order to go backstage with the same children they teach. It is an insult to their integrity and the training they have done as teachers. It is ridiculous that they are allowed to watch children in their classes change for dance, swimming and P.E. and yet the minute thay want to take the same children backstage they have to have a different qualification in order to be allowed to be in charge of them (this included my own daughter by the way!).
There is too much discrepancy between counties.WSCC only offer training, which is voluntary, in working hours during the week so parents have to take time off work in order to do the course. As a result fewer and fewer voluntary chaperones exist and it is costly to hire them and the focus of the show becomes the admin and backstage and not on the production – as a result more and more groups are packing in and defeating the whole purpose of what they were about, which is for the children. It is too stressful. WSCC offer one hour training, SCC make you do 2 hours over 2 weeks in the evenings – difficult when drama clubs are often taught in the evenings. The course content was also inappropriate for an amateur kids show with kids you love and teach every week – I do not think the seeds of what the odd rogue may get up to should be planted into our heads – it is not my world and i do not want to know – They say they are protecting the children but it is having the reverse affect – the very children they are trying to protect are losing out because a lot of these places are closing down – it's too much hassle, turning something that was exciting and fun into a chore.
Also if you don't need them for rehearsals why should you have them for the perofrance – not all amateur groups are doing lots of shows – we only do one performance.
Practically speaking it is much easier to identify a missing child (unlikely!) if you know them and to waste time training chaperones an hour before the show when you can use someone who you know and who the kids know is much more practical from both the artistic and supervisory point of view – it is ridiculous that the childrens' own teachers in my last show were not allowed to chaperone the children because they were not licensed chaperones even though they teach the classes every week and took the rehearsals.
Why is this idea important?
Teachers with an enhanced CRB check should be allowed to chaperone children backstage without having to become a licensed chaperone. At induction in their schools, teachers undergo child abuse training no different to what takes placeo n a licensing course and they schools that they work in have policies they follow. They should not then have to undergo further training for what amounts to the same thing and have to have another enhanced CRB check done with the SAME county (but a different department) in order to go backstage with the same children they teach. It is an insult to their integrity and the training they have done as teachers. It is ridiculous that they are allowed to watch children in their classes change for dance, swimming and P.E. and yet the minute thay want to take the same children backstage they have to have a different qualification in order to be allowed to be in charge of them (this included my own daughter by the way!).
There is too much discrepancy between counties.WSCC only offer training, which is voluntary, in working hours during the week so parents have to take time off work in order to do the course. As a result fewer and fewer voluntary chaperones exist and it is costly to hire them and the focus of the show becomes the admin and backstage and not on the production – as a result more and more groups are packing in and defeating the whole purpose of what they were about, which is for the children. It is too stressful. WSCC offer one hour training, SCC make you do 2 hours over 2 weeks in the evenings – difficult when drama clubs are often taught in the evenings. The course content was also inappropriate for an amateur kids show with kids you love and teach every week – I do not think the seeds of what the odd rogue may get up to should be planted into our heads – it is not my world and i do not want to know – They say they are protecting the children but it is having the reverse affect – the very children they are trying to protect are losing out because a lot of these places are closing down – it's too much hassle, turning something that was exciting and fun into a chore.
Also if you don't need them for rehearsals why should you have them for the perofrance – not all amateur groups are doing lots of shows – we only do one performance.
Practically speaking it is much easier to identify a missing child (unlikely!) if you know them and to waste time training chaperones an hour before the show when you can use someone who you know and who the kids know is much more practical from both the artistic and supervisory point of view – it is ridiculous that the childrens' own teachers in my last show were not allowed to chaperone the children because they were not licensed chaperones even though they teach the classes every week and took the rehearsals.
Inclusion of non convictions Section 113 A & 113B previously 115(7) Police Act 1997 seriously needs to be addressed the Secretary of state give the police the powers to disclose ALL information on an Enhanced Criminal records disclsoure.
This includes allegations even when the Crown Prosecution service have carried out the basic tests of the evidential test and the public interest test and they are unable to reprimand, give warning, caution or convict. (They are the Crown's lawyers, yet they do not see it in the publics interest or based on the evidence)
The Chief officer is allowed to disclose material that he/she thinks might be true but not factually true or it it ought to be included.It allows the Chief Constable to form an opinion.
( so why have the CPS?)
Under this law you are Guilty regardless even though the tests applied clearly show you are innocent.
Under the subject access you are not allowed ALL the information against you but yet the government allow them this power of disclosure.
You are not entitled to all the information because it never went to court and you were never charged; therefore you are never allowed to challenge an opinion, decision.
And lets face it the police even recently sentenced a man to 3 years 4 months that was innocent because the police never disclosed all the information, especially as it supported him in the case and not the police.
This is a massive injustice.
They do not inform the person that this disclosure will be made.
A CRB disclosure asks about convictions, reprimands, warnings, cautions it DOES NOT ask about allegations.
The police do not give you the opportunity to represent yourself, share all the evidence so that you can challenge it and the ICO have their hands tied because you the government allow an individual (chief officer)protection to disclose whatever they like, it is ridicolous.
It also needs to be made clear to the public that if a CRB is inaccurate that they only have 3 months to seek a judicial review, considering that you allow the subject access 40days in which to reply it does not leave the ordinary lay person much time to prepare a case, how convienent. The CRB is clearly flawed and constantly making mistakes making peoples lives unbearable even suicidal.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states the right to respect for a persons family life. This is not often used because the police have an opinion so there is no actual correct position in law especially for the innocent, so not allowing the person to make representation.
However I must applaude Theresa May in the recent suspension of the Independent safeguarding Authority. What a stupid idea that was; Sir Roger claiming that 200 caseworkers will make a decision based on rumours and allegations and have an understanding of risk assessing an individual based on facts again that might not be true
Why is this idea important?
Inclusion of non convictions Section 113 A & 113B previously 115(7) Police Act 1997 seriously needs to be addressed the Secretary of state give the police the powers to disclose ALL information on an Enhanced Criminal records disclsoure.
This includes allegations even when the Crown Prosecution service have carried out the basic tests of the evidential test and the public interest test and they are unable to reprimand, give warning, caution or convict. (They are the Crown's lawyers, yet they do not see it in the publics interest or based on the evidence)
The Chief officer is allowed to disclose material that he/she thinks might be true but not factually true or it it ought to be included.It allows the Chief Constable to form an opinion.
( so why have the CPS?)
Under this law you are Guilty regardless even though the tests applied clearly show you are innocent.
Under the subject access you are not allowed ALL the information against you but yet the government allow them this power of disclosure.
You are not entitled to all the information because it never went to court and you were never charged; therefore you are never allowed to challenge an opinion, decision.
And lets face it the police even recently sentenced a man to 3 years 4 months that was innocent because the police never disclosed all the information, especially as it supported him in the case and not the police.
This is a massive injustice.
They do not inform the person that this disclosure will be made.
A CRB disclosure asks about convictions, reprimands, warnings, cautions it DOES NOT ask about allegations.
The police do not give you the opportunity to represent yourself, share all the evidence so that you can challenge it and the ICO have their hands tied because you the government allow an individual (chief officer)protection to disclose whatever they like, it is ridicolous.
It also needs to be made clear to the public that if a CRB is inaccurate that they only have 3 months to seek a judicial review, considering that you allow the subject access 40days in which to reply it does not leave the ordinary lay person much time to prepare a case, how convienent. The CRB is clearly flawed and constantly making mistakes making peoples lives unbearable even suicidal.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states the right to respect for a persons family life. This is not often used because the police have an opinion so there is no actual correct position in law especially for the innocent, so not allowing the person to make representation.
However I must applaude Theresa May in the recent suspension of the Independent safeguarding Authority. What a stupid idea that was; Sir Roger claiming that 200 caseworkers will make a decision based on rumours and allegations and have an understanding of risk assessing an individual based on facts again that might not be true
I am a govenor of a secondary school and so have had a crb check.
i am told that if I want to help with other organisations like scouts youth club etc i have to have a separate crb check for each one.
!. Is this true ?
2. If it is wouldn't it be better to have (carry) a registration card the size of a credit card with photo and details of ID renewable every year and then I could be able to volunteer for more.
I have a card for my driving licence
credit cards
Bus pass
Visa
Why not for CRB chech as well.
Cllr Martin Ray
Bridport
Why is this idea important?
I am a govenor of a secondary school and so have had a crb check.
i am told that if I want to help with other organisations like scouts youth club etc i have to have a separate crb check for each one.
!. Is this true ?
2. If it is wouldn't it be better to have (carry) a registration card the size of a credit card with photo and details of ID renewable every year and then I could be able to volunteer for more.
I have a card for my driving licence
credit cards
Bus pass
Visa
Why not for CRB chech as well.
Cllr Martin Ray
Bridport
Well, I am interested in learning the organ and so have to do so at our local church. However, my mother needs to come with me so that I am not there on my own. She has been informed that she needs to have a criminal records check that will cost £25. Whilst this is sometimes neccessary, it is not so for parents. It is only needed if the carer is a stranger.
I would be grateful if you would revise this law.
Why is this idea important?
Well, I am interested in learning the organ and so have to do so at our local church. However, my mother needs to come with me so that I am not there on my own. She has been informed that she needs to have a criminal records check that will cost £25. Whilst this is sometimes neccessary, it is not so for parents. It is only needed if the carer is a stranger.
I would be grateful if you would revise this law.
The law states that convictions are "spent" after a period of time. However when a CRB check is done, every misdemeanor is reported even if it occured 20-30 years previously. Unless the conviction is for either physical or sexual abuse, there should be absolutely no need for an employer to know about such matters.
Why is this idea important?
The law states that convictions are "spent" after a period of time. However when a CRB check is done, every misdemeanor is reported even if it occured 20-30 years previously. Unless the conviction is for either physical or sexual abuse, there should be absolutely no need for an employer to know about such matters.
Abolish CRB checks and the proposed Independent Safeguarding Authrority. These are unnecessary, because they will only pick up people who already have a criminal record. People who have a tendency to abuse children or elderly or other vulnerable people who have not yet been caught, will not be picked up. These checks are also now causing enormous resentment among people in the community who volunteer, and may result in less people being willing to volunteer and undergo these checks.
Why is this idea important?
Abolish CRB checks and the proposed Independent Safeguarding Authrority. These are unnecessary, because they will only pick up people who already have a criminal record. People who have a tendency to abuse children or elderly or other vulnerable people who have not yet been caught, will not be picked up. These checks are also now causing enormous resentment among people in the community who volunteer, and may result in less people being willing to volunteer and undergo these checks.
The CRB check regime seems specially designed to stop people getting involved in helping others. I visit patients in hospital who have had heart attacks. As a fellow sufferer I can help to reassure them that there is life after heart attack and help their rehabilitation. I had to have a CRB check so that I could visit adults in hospital. What a nonsense as many people visit friends and relations in hospital and have access to other patients without going through this costly pantomime. Scrap it!
Why is this idea important?
The CRB check regime seems specially designed to stop people getting involved in helping others. I visit patients in hospital who have had heart attacks. As a fellow sufferer I can help to reassure them that there is life after heart attack and help their rehabilitation. I had to have a CRB check so that I could visit adults in hospital. What a nonsense as many people visit friends and relations in hospital and have access to other patients without going through this costly pantomime. Scrap it!
It is ludicrous that I now have three CRB certificates running simultaneously. I am a retired Minister of Religion in my 78th year. I have one CRB as a Minister, one as a retired Minister, and one as a volunteer taking people without transport to Hospitals in various parts of the South West for a local Charity.
This is tantamount to making a car driver with a licence having to apply again if s/he wants to go to Bognor and not Bournemouth. It is hugely wasteful of the money of many charities, now having to fork out £60 for each one, all of which appear to be identical. When a supply teacher is needed urgently by a school, s/he has to wait for umpteen weeks for Capita to get round to dealing with it yet again: some teachers end up with so many of these things that it is hardly worth their time being willing to supply. A modicum of Common sense, if there is any to be found in the system, would be welcome. An annual CRB would be preferable, as with a MoT
Why is this idea important?
It is ludicrous that I now have three CRB certificates running simultaneously. I am a retired Minister of Religion in my 78th year. I have one CRB as a Minister, one as a retired Minister, and one as a volunteer taking people without transport to Hospitals in various parts of the South West for a local Charity.
This is tantamount to making a car driver with a licence having to apply again if s/he wants to go to Bognor and not Bournemouth. It is hugely wasteful of the money of many charities, now having to fork out £60 for each one, all of which appear to be identical. When a supply teacher is needed urgently by a school, s/he has to wait for umpteen weeks for Capita to get round to dealing with it yet again: some teachers end up with so many of these things that it is hardly worth their time being willing to supply. A modicum of Common sense, if there is any to be found in the system, would be welcome. An annual CRB would be preferable, as with a MoT
MPs should also have enhanced CRBs as a condition for employment. Harriett Harman has a driving conviction.The CPS took her to court but the police did not take her DNA.Surely her DNA should now be taken as she is on the police national computer because of this conviction. Ed Balls was stopped and fined by the police because he was driving and using his mobile phone while his young children were in the back of the car. Surely he should be banned from working with children because this must come up as "soft information" on his enahnced CRB? Surely the Chief constable thinks this as being relevant in Mr Ed Balls case?
Why is this idea important?
MPs should also have enhanced CRBs as a condition for employment. Harriett Harman has a driving conviction.The CPS took her to court but the police did not take her DNA.Surely her DNA should now be taken as she is on the police national computer because of this conviction. Ed Balls was stopped and fined by the police because he was driving and using his mobile phone while his young children were in the back of the car. Surely he should be banned from working with children because this must come up as "soft information" on his enahnced CRB? Surely the Chief constable thinks this as being relevant in Mr Ed Balls case?
Elimination or redrafting of the CRB check law. It is both unnecessary and counter-productive in its present form.
Why is this idea important?
Elimination or redrafting of the CRB check law. It is both unnecessary and counter-productive in its present form.
I have an enhanced CRB where I was accused of downloading indecent images. This was proven to be untrue and I was declared innocent. I teach the long term unemployed skills to get back to work but the DWP – linked employer I work for has suspended me after an investigation why I had what I had on my CRB !!! Innocent until proven guility ?? Dont make me laugh. Though innocent of the charges, the fact they appeared on the enhanced CRB has resulted in my employer forgetting my excellent work with adults (!) and asking the company Chief Medical Officer to evaluate my former OCD and its impact on my case, and even took copies of the Court records ( anonymity was assured at the case so not in the publid domain ), my ISA letter that does not bar me working with children and vulnerable adults and even other sensitive information that declares me a man of impeccable character. The chief police cuntstable would not change the comments on the CRB even though they were not quite right, and the Vetting Officer at Leicestershire Authority would not change it – he was a real arrogant man ! What relevance did the enhancement have to my role, and the fact I was innocent – I have no record and am more likely to abuse England Footballers on TV than abuse a child or a vulnerable adult ! I have lost all faith in the police – pigheaded in more ways than one. We need to start an action group to repeal the crap the Blair Government imposed as a knee jerk reaction to the police's screwups at Soham.
Why is this idea important?
I have an enhanced CRB where I was accused of downloading indecent images. This was proven to be untrue and I was declared innocent. I teach the long term unemployed skills to get back to work but the DWP – linked employer I work for has suspended me after an investigation why I had what I had on my CRB !!! Innocent until proven guility ?? Dont make me laugh. Though innocent of the charges, the fact they appeared on the enhanced CRB has resulted in my employer forgetting my excellent work with adults (!) and asking the company Chief Medical Officer to evaluate my former OCD and its impact on my case, and even took copies of the Court records ( anonymity was assured at the case so not in the publid domain ), my ISA letter that does not bar me working with children and vulnerable adults and even other sensitive information that declares me a man of impeccable character. The chief police cuntstable would not change the comments on the CRB even though they were not quite right, and the Vetting Officer at Leicestershire Authority would not change it – he was a real arrogant man ! What relevance did the enhancement have to my role, and the fact I was innocent – I have no record and am more likely to abuse England Footballers on TV than abuse a child or a vulnerable adult ! I have lost all faith in the police – pigheaded in more ways than one. We need to start an action group to repeal the crap the Blair Government imposed as a knee jerk reaction to the police's screwups at Soham.
The vetting and barring scheme should be scaled down by the government but it should then immediately replace the CRB.
1 application form is needed for VBS unlike the CRB. Only relevant cautions, convictions and soft information are considered by the VBS unlike the CRB. The VBS cannot bar a person based solely on soft information. But when soft information is printed on a CRB employers do bar the person. VBS allows a person to make representations unlike the CRB.
Also the VBS is more effective because it will tell the employer if there is relevant information recently acquired.
Why is this idea important?
The vetting and barring scheme should be scaled down by the government but it should then immediately replace the CRB.
1 application form is needed for VBS unlike the CRB. Only relevant cautions, convictions and soft information are considered by the VBS unlike the CRB. The VBS cannot bar a person based solely on soft information. But when soft information is printed on a CRB employers do bar the person. VBS allows a person to make representations unlike the CRB.
Also the VBS is more effective because it will tell the employer if there is relevant information recently acquired.
abolish the need for CRB clearance for those volunteers such as committee members on plygroups, PTA's who will ahve no contact with children
Why is this idea important?
abolish the need for CRB clearance for those volunteers such as committee members on plygroups, PTA's who will ahve no contact with children