FACT (Falsely Accused Carers and Teachers) calls for repealo of Section 115 Police Act

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

Allow Designated Smoking rooms in pubs and clubs

Allow smoking in enclosed separate rooms with air extraction fitted and efficient separation from the rest of the establishment. The majority fot he establishment must still be dedicated to non smoking areas.

Why is this idea important?

Allow smoking in enclosed separate rooms with air extraction fitted and efficient separation from the rest of the establishment. The majority fot he establishment must still be dedicated to non smoking areas.

Time to review the libel laws.

On the 16th July The Chartered Institute For Environmental Health issued the following press release. "Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped." This is patently untrue. Britain's 12 million smokers are not an adjunct to tobacco companies who are sycophantic, lick spittle lap dogs unable to express any opinion without reference to a third party.  Instead as a group deprived of the right of association, unable to enjoy a legal past time with the permission of the owner of private property, we exercised complete freewill and were only too pleased to contribute to the debate.
 

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820

Why is this idea important?

On the 16th July The Chartered Institute For Environmental Health issued the following press release. "Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped." This is patently untrue. Britain's 12 million smokers are not an adjunct to tobacco companies who are sycophantic, lick spittle lap dogs unable to express any opinion without reference to a third party.  Instead as a group deprived of the right of association, unable to enjoy a legal past time with the permission of the owner of private property, we exercised complete freewill and were only too pleased to contribute to the debate.
 

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820

Amend the Smoking Ban

If a group of people who are smokers wish to hire or use a licensed or unlicensed premises indoors for the purposes of recreation they should be allowed to do so. It is a basic human right of association.

I suggest that local authorities can have a quota of premises (dependant on the population of that local authority area) that can be granted conditional indoor smoking permits. Certain public houses that have met basic air quality conditions and are able to seperate non smokers from smokers (or be closed to non smokers) should be able to apply for such permits for certain advertised events organised by smokers.

I would recommend smokers had to pre-register and become members of such events to obtain admission to remove the risk that a non smoker inadvertantly entered such a venue or event.

Staff working at such a premises must sign a waiver wherein they confirm that they are either a smoker themselves or that they waive any right to protection under the public health act, much in the same way people can opt out of working time regulations designed to protect the health and wellbeing of workers at present.  

Why is this idea important?

If a group of people who are smokers wish to hire or use a licensed or unlicensed premises indoors for the purposes of recreation they should be allowed to do so. It is a basic human right of association.

I suggest that local authorities can have a quota of premises (dependant on the population of that local authority area) that can be granted conditional indoor smoking permits. Certain public houses that have met basic air quality conditions and are able to seperate non smokers from smokers (or be closed to non smokers) should be able to apply for such permits for certain advertised events organised by smokers.

I would recommend smokers had to pre-register and become members of such events to obtain admission to remove the risk that a non smoker inadvertantly entered such a venue or event.

Staff working at such a premises must sign a waiver wherein they confirm that they are either a smoker themselves or that they waive any right to protection under the public health act, much in the same way people can opt out of working time regulations designed to protect the health and wellbeing of workers at present.  

Repeal of anti-Catholic legislation

I propose that the Act of Settlement 1700 (c.2) is amended to remove the anti-Catholic elements of s.1, amendment of s.2 to remove the ban on Roman Catholics taking the throne (and corresponding amendments of the Coranation Oath to remove the need to uphold the Protestant line) and amendment of s.3 to remove the requirement for the monarch to be in communion with the Church of England.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that the Act of Settlement 1700 (c.2) is amended to remove the anti-Catholic elements of s.1, amendment of s.2 to remove the ban on Roman Catholics taking the throne (and corresponding amendments of the Coranation Oath to remove the need to uphold the Protestant line) and amendment of s.3 to remove the requirement for the monarch to be in communion with the Church of England.

LIFT SMOKING BAN IN PUBS & CLUBS at management’s discretion

Let publicans decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Let CIU Clubs decide whether to lift the ban in their establishments. Give Pubs & Clubs, Bingo Halls, Betting Shops and other adult establishments the power to decide whether they want to lift the ban in adult over 18 establishments. Get rid of Nanny State Politics. Let the people decide.

Why is this idea important?

Let publicans decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Let CIU Clubs decide whether to lift the ban in their establishments. Give Pubs & Clubs, Bingo Halls, Betting Shops and other adult establishments the power to decide whether they want to lift the ban in adult over 18 establishments. Get rid of Nanny State Politics. Let the people decide.