Enhanced CRB Checks (Unproven malicious allegations)

It is not right that allegations made against a person, which have been investigated by the police and no further action taken should show up on an enhanced CRB check for future employers to see and potentially provent a person from getting a job.

If you are accused of a crime and charged you can go to court and defend yourself and potentially be exhonorated. If you are accused of a crime and there is no basis to it, no further action and no charge it lingers over you for the rest of your days. It shows up on enhanced CRB checks and irrespective of what people say, if something negative comes back people do think "theres no smoke without fire", you are not going to get a job.

What happend to the presumption that you are inncocent until proven guilty? I agree we should protect the vulnerable but there has to be a better way of doing it.

Why is this idea important?

It is not right that allegations made against a person, which have been investigated by the police and no further action taken should show up on an enhanced CRB check for future employers to see and potentially provent a person from getting a job.

If you are accused of a crime and charged you can go to court and defend yourself and potentially be exhonorated. If you are accused of a crime and there is no basis to it, no further action and no charge it lingers over you for the rest of your days. It shows up on enhanced CRB checks and irrespective of what people say, if something negative comes back people do think "theres no smoke without fire", you are not going to get a job.

What happend to the presumption that you are inncocent until proven guilty? I agree we should protect the vulnerable but there has to be a better way of doing it.

DNA Database – Destroy All Records Of Those Not Convicted

No Conviction should mean that NO DNA is held.

All DNA samples held on the Database should be DESTROYED for EVERYONE

who has NOT been convicted of a Criminal offence.

Once an investigation has been completed then those NOT accused should have

their DNA samples Destroyed WITHIN 5 DAYS and RECEIVE written Confirmation

that this has been done.

 

Currently, procedure for DNA removal is totally unacceptable as it is dependent upon

the heuristic decision of the chief constable. Again, as with ALL police matters,

NO ACCOUNTABILITY, often very long times awaiting Chief Constable decision.

Complete rubbish.


 

Why is this idea important?

No Conviction should mean that NO DNA is held.

All DNA samples held on the Database should be DESTROYED for EVERYONE

who has NOT been convicted of a Criminal offence.

Once an investigation has been completed then those NOT accused should have

their DNA samples Destroyed WITHIN 5 DAYS and RECEIVE written Confirmation

that this has been done.

 

Currently, procedure for DNA removal is totally unacceptable as it is dependent upon

the heuristic decision of the chief constable. Again, as with ALL police matters,

NO ACCOUNTABILITY, often very long times awaiting Chief Constable decision.

Complete rubbish.


 

Criminal records should be deleted after a suitable period

Criminal records are currently kept on the police computers for 100 years. This does not allow a person with a criminal record to become rehabilitated and find work without their past record being known. There are many well qualified people with criminal records that are spent, but still cannot find work. Why not delete criminal records after a suitable period and allow these people to find work, and get on with their lives.

Why is this idea important?

Criminal records are currently kept on the police computers for 100 years. This does not allow a person with a criminal record to become rehabilitated and find work without their past record being known. There are many well qualified people with criminal records that are spent, but still cannot find work. Why not delete criminal records after a suitable period and allow these people to find work, and get on with their lives.

Regulation of Railways Act 1889 – criminalising people travelling without a train ticket

Train operating companies (TOCs) use an ancient piece of legislation, the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, to bring train fare "evaders" to court, resulting in the person receiving a criminal record and taking up the courts' valuable time. This piece of legislation is draconian, unnecessary and unfair and it should be repealed. 

Why is this idea important?

Train operating companies (TOCs) use an ancient piece of legislation, the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, to bring train fare "evaders" to court, resulting in the person receiving a criminal record and taking up the courts' valuable time. This piece of legislation is draconian, unnecessary and unfair and it should be repealed. 

Keeping a criminal record for really serious crimes

Getting a criminal record for anything other than serious crime is stupid and devalues the impact of having a criminal record.  

Examples:  

not having the green bin lid down properly

not having a rod licence

Why is this idea important?

Getting a criminal record for anything other than serious crime is stupid and devalues the impact of having a criminal record.  

Examples:  

not having the green bin lid down properly

not having a rod licence

Remove criminals from Government

The Government should not allow anyone with a criminal record from working in Government, including serving in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.  in addition the rule should apply to all Government departments.

Why is this idea important?

The Government should not allow anyone with a criminal record from working in Government, including serving in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.  in addition the rule should apply to all Government departments.

All convictions should eventually become spent

Under the current Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, a conviction resulting in a custodial sentence of 36 months or more will never be 'spent' and must  be disclosed for the rest of that person's life.

What incentive does this offer them not to offend again? Many never will – but even they can never be officially 'rehabilitated', no matter how hard they try and how long for. This is surely a huge obstacle to the Government's efforts to cut re-offending – not to mention the number of people who are being supported by the state because their criminal record ensures no employer will take them on.

The consequent social exclusion plays a large part in some people's return to offending. Isolation affects mental health and decision-making. And no matter how spartan or unpleasant the prison environment is made in future, for many it will still be preferable to be part of a community where they are accepted.

Were these convictions to become spent after a certain number of (law-abiding) years, it would NOT put vulnerable people at risk – the procedures for vetting those working with children, the elderly etc already require an enhanced CRB check which shows both spent and unspent convictions. It WOULD, however, give ex-offenders something concrete to aim for and be a huge incentive not to re-offend.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Under the current Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, a conviction resulting in a custodial sentence of 36 months or more will never be 'spent' and must  be disclosed for the rest of that person's life.

What incentive does this offer them not to offend again? Many never will – but even they can never be officially 'rehabilitated', no matter how hard they try and how long for. This is surely a huge obstacle to the Government's efforts to cut re-offending – not to mention the number of people who are being supported by the state because their criminal record ensures no employer will take them on.

The consequent social exclusion plays a large part in some people's return to offending. Isolation affects mental health and decision-making. And no matter how spartan or unpleasant the prison environment is made in future, for many it will still be preferable to be part of a community where they are accepted.

Were these convictions to become spent after a certain number of (law-abiding) years, it would NOT put vulnerable people at risk – the procedures for vetting those working with children, the elderly etc already require an enhanced CRB check which shows both spent and unspent convictions. It WOULD, however, give ex-offenders something concrete to aim for and be a huge incentive not to re-offend.

 

 

Delete DNA for people who have only been cautioned

I think it is wrong that somebody with Simple Caution should be retained on the database for life.

Remember, people who have been cautioned have not been arrested, have not been charged, have not been to court, and do not have a criminal record.

It is my opinion that those cautioned should have their details (DNA, fingerprints, photographs) removed from the database at the point at which their caution ‘expires’ and is ’stepped down’ on the database.

Why is this idea important?

I think it is wrong that somebody with Simple Caution should be retained on the database for life.

Remember, people who have been cautioned have not been arrested, have not been charged, have not been to court, and do not have a criminal record.

It is my opinion that those cautioned should have their details (DNA, fingerprints, photographs) removed from the database at the point at which their caution ‘expires’ and is ’stepped down’ on the database.

CBR CHECKS under the rehabilitation laws should be stopped

This must be replaced by companies schools following up references  properly of their employees as even other company does  the government and local authorities  should not get involved in policing in who hires who.

They have turned over 2 million people in to criminals. This is effecting volunteers , full time and part time workers who refuse to go through this system. This is a great pity because this is where there are a lot of potential jobs, young and retired people and even unemployed people but this system which is driven by paranoia. At the same time with drawing benefits from unemployed people who refuse to go for these jobs and go through this system would put the government on the wrong side of personal freedom. The law needs to be scrapped   

 

Why is this idea important?

This must be replaced by companies schools following up references  properly of their employees as even other company does  the government and local authorities  should not get involved in policing in who hires who.

They have turned over 2 million people in to criminals. This is effecting volunteers , full time and part time workers who refuse to go through this system. This is a great pity because this is where there are a lot of potential jobs, young and retired people and even unemployed people but this system which is driven by paranoia. At the same time with drawing benefits from unemployed people who refuse to go for these jobs and go through this system would put the government on the wrong side of personal freedom. The law needs to be scrapped   

 

Limit the time Cautions & Minor Offences remain on an individual’s Criminal Record

A reasonable limit should be put on the amount of time Cautions or Warnings remain on a persons criminal record. Once this time has expired, given that the person has not committed any more offences, then their police profile or Criminal Record should be cleared of items that represent minor offences.

Cautions are routinely given out, quite often for actions that have not caused any harm to society and for actions that were not serious enough to warrant any form of judicial prosecution. With this in mind it seems unbalanced that the person will go on to suffer a lifetime of stigma and restricted opportunities from employment. This is particularly relevant to the blanket use of CRB checks in the modern recruitment process.

The current system of holding such information for life (as introduced by John Major's Tory government) goes against principles of rehabilitation and is leading to the exclusion of an increasing number of people from social & economic activity.

Why is this idea important?

A reasonable limit should be put on the amount of time Cautions or Warnings remain on a persons criminal record. Once this time has expired, given that the person has not committed any more offences, then their police profile or Criminal Record should be cleared of items that represent minor offences.

Cautions are routinely given out, quite often for actions that have not caused any harm to society and for actions that were not serious enough to warrant any form of judicial prosecution. With this in mind it seems unbalanced that the person will go on to suffer a lifetime of stigma and restricted opportunities from employment. This is particularly relevant to the blanket use of CRB checks in the modern recruitment process.

The current system of holding such information for life (as introduced by John Major's Tory government) goes against principles of rehabilitation and is leading to the exclusion of an increasing number of people from social & economic activity.

be more sensible about so called offensive weapons

I recently read that a 65 year old genleman on a cavavan camping trip was convicted of having a offensive weapon and now has a criminal record. It transpired that the "weapon" was a swiss army knife that was in his glove compartment and was used as a general purpose tool.

Why is this idea important?

I recently read that a 65 year old genleman on a cavavan camping trip was convicted of having a offensive weapon and now has a criminal record. It transpired that the "weapon" was a swiss army knife that was in his glove compartment and was used as a general purpose tool.

Criminal record for small amounts of drugs

I think that we should stop criminalising people for the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal consumption and concentrate our efforts on tackling drug dealers and importers coupled with education to reduce the problem.

Giving people criminal records in their teens and early twenties does not act as a deterrent and simply makes it harder to get a job in the future making them more likely to feel hopeless and, guess what, take more drugs!

Maybe being sent for enforcable "rehab" but with no criminal record would be a good approach for people caught with small amounts?

Why is this idea important?

I think that we should stop criminalising people for the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal consumption and concentrate our efforts on tackling drug dealers and importers coupled with education to reduce the problem.

Giving people criminal records in their teens and early twenties does not act as a deterrent and simply makes it harder to get a job in the future making them more likely to feel hopeless and, guess what, take more drugs!

Maybe being sent for enforcable "rehab" but with no criminal record would be a good approach for people caught with small amounts?