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?
People's lives are being devastated by the inclusion of such information. The result: an increased cost to the state. Why?
CRB checks provide employers with the ability to discriminate and most people will end up claiming unemployment benefit.
The depression brought about from not being able to get a job but mainly through having to relive harrowing events each time the person applies for a job (not all cautions relate to trivial matters or events) requires medical treatment – a drain on the NHS
The inability to get better because all the persons hopes, aspirations, dreams of providing for oneself and living a life means many are on long-term incapacity benefit
If the person is unable to support themselves, potentially crime too.
If you take away a person's abiltiy to provide for him/herself, you are denying that person a life and you have stripped them of all dignity. People who are educated, qualified professionals or experts in their field are now social outcasts and labelled 'Benefit Scum' because of this disgusting blight on their civil liberty. They are innocent, they were not found guilty in a court of law so why should they be branded criminals by all and sundry by the revelation of unproven allegations and 'misdemeanours'.
Give people back their lives, this is an utter travesty.