By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21245308
And we're off.
The same old argument. Children will be affected by this ruling. But this is not about children, is it? The whole argument is not about children. It was about the unfair treatment of a 21 year old, T, who was discriminated against. You watch parents jump up and down now. One well known forum, with Mothers as the main contributors will be OUTRAGED at this latest announcement.
|
By BT - 3 Sep 12 10:08 PM
I would agree 100% with it if CRB checks were only done to ensure people who have committed certain crimes can't do certain jobs that relate to their offence. No one can really argue with that.
The problem is that CRB checks have gone mad in recent years with companies doing them more as a selling point than to prevent people who have committed certain offences from being given the opportunity to commit further ones.
I fully accept people who have committed a sexual offence should not be able to become licenced cab drivers, but when companies are rejecting people with minor cautions from being a shopping delivery driver it just lacks common sense & things like this must surely contribute to why the reoffending rates in certain crimes are so high?
|
By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM
Judgement here:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C5519A53-E11C-4201-B711-46CF286FAF23/0/rtchiefconstablemanchesterjudgment29012013.pdf
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
Why on earth would they seek to do so?! They commissioned a report into looking at changing this area, and now they are going to fight against change.
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
Because they can...
The current system in place is being abused. The ROA is still active, okay it doesn't help many of us here, but it is still active and does work. It's the mass hysteria, people thinking that monsters, thieves and violent criminals are allowed to work with the vulnerable/children. That's not the case. The ruling in this case, shows how a young man aged 21 was discriminated against because of a caution when he was 11 years old. That's the madness. He had the balls to do something about this discrimination and it only takes one to stand up for their rights and other people will follow. The second case of the woman in her 40's who walked out of a shop, with a packet of acrylic nails under her arm, is a bit of a moot point for me. There's a huge difference between an 11 year old stealing two bikes, and a woman in her 40's "forgetting" to pay for her plastic nails. So, we have to be realistic about what we are dealing with. She's been labelled a thief, he's a smart young man who decided to do something about discrimination.
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
There was a third case, which is being glossed over. AW had a sentence for manslaughter, at the age of 16. She was sentenced for five years. Therefore, on the current tariff, her sentence will never be spent.
81. There are various ways in which the ROA Order could be amended in order to achieve compatibility with article 8. As we have seen, these include identifying disposals as exempt from its scope by reference to the nature of the offence and/or the date when it was committed and/or the age of the offender at the date of the offence. The solution proposed by Mr Coppel would involve a major legislative change from the existing system. There is a fundamental difference between the current blanket scheme and one which leaves to employers and employees the difficult decision as to what article 8 requires on a case by case basis. Section 3 of the HRA does not require or permit the court to make legislative choices of this kind. In our view, the decision as to how theses difficult issues should be resolved should be made by Parliament. (Worryingly)
I just can't get my head around this one. Why should the ROA Order be amended? Should it not be the exceptions order that should be amended, as in tightening of the gaping flaws in the process? It's currently not difficult, the ROA, the exceptions' order is the one whereby most abuses happen. Or am I getting this wrong?
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
Moostrasse said...
There was a third case, which is being glossed over. AW had a sentence for manslaughter, at the age of 16. She was sentenced for five years. Therefore, on the current tariff, her sentence will never be spent.
81. There are various ways in which the ROA Order could be amended in order to achieve compatibility with article 8. As we have seen, these include identifying disposals as exempt from its scope by reference to the nature of the offence and/or the date when it was committed and/or the age of the offender at the date of the offence. The solution proposed by Mr Coppel would involve a major legislative change from the existing system. There is a fundamental difference between the current blanket scheme and one which leaves to employers and employees the difficult decision as to what article 8 requires on a case by case basis. Section 3 of the HRA does not require or permit the court to make legislative choices of this kind. In our view, the decision as to how theses difficult issues should be resolved should be made by Parliament. (Worryingly)
I just can't get my head around this one. Why should the ROA Order be amended? Should it not be the exceptions order that should be amended, as in tightening of the gaping flaws in the process? It's currently not difficult, the ROA, the exceptions' order is the one whereby most abuses happen. Or am I getting this wrong?
They mean the exceptions order. Right at the beginning, point 1, they say that when they say "ROA Order" they mean the Exceptions Order (as opposed to "the ROA" 
Need information/advice?
1. Visit our online Information Hub, including Frequently Asked Questions, Publications, and Links at www.unlock.org.uk
2. Ask the community at forum.unlock.org.uk
3. Contact our Helpline
Use our online form: www.unlock.org.uk/staticpage.aspx?pid=160
Email us: advice@unlock.org.uk
Call us: 01634 247350 (Tuesdays & Thursdays, 9am to 5pm)
Write to us: IAS, Unlock, 35a High Street, Snodland, Kent, ME6 5AG
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
Thank you Chris, I thought I was seeing things there. Now I am clear.
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
Hi BT
The money making issue, rather like the credit reference agencies, has come about from the amount of umbrella companies out there which companies outsource to, to perform the checks. There are oodles of those around vying for business. Credit Reference Agencies, such as Experian offer free trials and then a further £14.99 a month, and many people sign up for this, looking at data which companies hold on you. It will come in, whereby we can all apply for our CRB data, but the old fashioned way, such as an SAR is still in force and is probably the best way to have an idea of what the PNC has on you. Just like the old fashioned way of gaining your credit file, which still costs £2.00 if you do it the old fashioned way. https://www.criminalrecordchecks.co.uk/ These are the ones who are out there, scaremongering and advertising services to letting agents and other organisations that we may well come into contact with on a daily basis.
BT said...
I would agree 100% with it if CRB checks were only done to ensure people who have committed certain crimes can't do certain jobs that relate to their offence. No one can really argue with that.
The problem is that CRB checks have gone mad in recent years with companies doing them more as a selling point than to prevent people who have committed certain offences from being given the opportunity to commit further ones.
I fully accept people who have committed a sexual offence should not be able to become licenced cab drivers, but when companies are rejecting people with minor cautions from being a shopping delivery driver it just lacks common sense & things like this must surely contribute to why the reoffending rates in certain crimes are so high? |
By forever changes - 7 May 09 7:06 PM
BT said...
I fully accept people who have committed a sexual offence should not be able to become licenced cab drivers Post Edited By Moderator (Moderator) : 30/01/2013 14:19:11 GMT
|
By xl - 13 Feb 10 8:45 AM
It's interesting how the step down process was in place; then following a court of appeal hearing the step down process was stopped. Now another court of appeal hearing states that there should be something like the step down process. Perhaps if the original court of appeal hearing took more of a realistic approach and weighed up the consequences of their initial descision then all of this could have been solved a long time ago.
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
Barmy, xl, I quite agree. What is it? Four years ago when step down was ruled out?
|
By UniKorn - 2 Oct 12 4:57 PM
Does anyone know precisely when the 28 day appeal period begins from; is it from 21 December 2012 when the ruling was first given, from the preliminary announcement, or the official publication of the judgement. I'm confused.
|
By xl - 13 Feb 10 8:45 AM
I think it's because the original hearing didn't want the police to be in control of who's records were disclosed and it should be a govermental role; I can't see why they couldn't put the step down process itself into legislation. Its also interesting that the police have said that they only "suspended" the step down process; not scrapped it - who knows
|
By Aspire - 15 May 11 2:23 PM
Liberty: Author: Corinna Ferguson, Legal Officer
Yesterday’s Court of Appeal ruling on CRB checks was widely regarded as a triumph for human rights and common sense. The current system of automatic disclosure – regardless of relevance to the job at hand – is clearly disproportionate. That’s why the Court recognised that it’s incompatible with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to private life.
Regrettably some of our most popular newspapers saw things differently. Apparently preoccupied with their blind hatred of the Human Rights Act, they decided that the judgment was an outrage. And their news stories and leading articles were so full of myths and spin that readers could easily jump to the wrong conclusions.
So let’s set the record straight, shall we?
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/2013/crb-setting-the-record-straight.php
I also read today that if this does get to the Supreme Court after the Govt has challenged - it will be a year before anything is done.... so please don't get your hopes up peeps. It's a step in the right direction...
Aspire
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
Old frosty face, TM, who doesn't know what 24 hours means, will challenge it, that then takes it up to 2014. Whoever gets in next will inherit the problem. You never know, what goes around comes around and Labour could end up with this right back in their Gucci laps.
Now, call me an old cynic....
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
Does anyone know if the government have actually appealed yet? I know they have said they will. And the judgement was given on the 21/12/2012 havent the 28 days already expired if they haven't?
|
By Goodguy - 31 Jan 13 10:23 PM
I've not heard anything on it. I am also very concerned about this filtering approach, whilst it sounds good I feel it will discriminate certain convictions over others (based on Sunita Mason's report). I was convicted of drink driving 3 years ago (a silly mistake where I was drawn in from peer pressure to have a few after celebrating my graduation). I was slightly over the legal limit and caused no damage to anyone nor property. It states on her report recommendation that drink driving is not a minor crime so in her example it would still be disclosed if filtering came in indefinitely. How on earth would that be fair and more importantly how can they gauge which offence is minor over another.. (other than the obvious such as manslaughter etc)?
Are they claiming that after 10 or even 15 years have lapsed without any blemish on my record following that I am still not deemed rehabilitated and that the fact that I drove 2 miles slightly over the legal limit I am a serious criminal and threat to the public. I think the filtering should just be based on the existing ROA, in that the current spent time period could be applied to all existing convictions and once spent they would be part of the filter. In essence the definition of 'spent' would mean 'a filter is now applied going forward'. It really does not require as much complexity as the Home office thinks as the ROA is already there as the baseline.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
I have seen a few newspapers/websites mention that they might not filter the convictions/cautions and will simply make it illegal for companies to not consider the applications human rights when making a choice. However in the court judgement Lord Dyson states something along the lines 'when faced with two identical applications one with a minor conviction and one without the employer will always air on the side of caution'. This makes it clear to me a filtering process would be the only way to implement what the judge has said.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
"Mr Coppel relies strongly on the point that disclosure does not automatically lead to
the barring of an applicant from employment. Parliament has left it to the employer to
assess the relevance of a conviction or caution. He submits that the employer can be
trusted to take into account matters such as the seriousness of the offence, the age of
the offender at the time, the lapse of time since it was committed and so on. He says
that it was within the margin of Parliament’s discretionary judgment to decide that
this was a sensible and proportionate way of balancing the interests of children and
vulnerable adults on the one hand and those of applicants for employment on the
other.
45. We cannot accept this argument essentially for the reasons given by Mr Southey QC.
Mrs Mason put the point well in her initial report at page 20:
“In my opinion, with the current system, it is unfair to place the
onus on the employer to decipher all of the information
presented to them on a CRB check. PNC extracts can be
difficult to interpret and employers do not always have the
resources and training to fully weigh up and understand what is
being presented to them. Evidence suggests that employers do
not always handle and interpret the information correctly and
fairly. For example, an employer faced with a clean disclosure
and one containing an extract from the PNC may err on the side
of caution and employ the individual with the clean disclosure
regardless of the nature of the PNC extract.” "
|
By Aspire - 15 May 11 2:23 PM
Hi Charh777, I totally agree with your points. I have worked in senior HR roles over the years and even the best organisations in the world do not have the skills, knowledge and experience to make a reasoned judgement. They have clauses impacting their reputational risk, bringing the organisation into disrepute etc etc. Also, who wants to be the social experiment and be laballed ex-offender (which I hate) and monitored more closely for performance, time keeping etc?
Goodguy make a valid point with having the ROA as a baseline, but if the new shorter rehabilitation periods come Spring, then there will be public riots if people with a fine given for assault were then able to go work with vulnerable adults and children as they were spent. I think we should keep ALL data for enhanced checks for roles that ONLY work with those groups. Standard checks should be binned in my view. They are the most abused. This will only happen if the exemption list is scaled back to common sense levell. Life would be so much easier for all - employers and employees. I work as a teacher, nurse, Dr..... etc and I need a enhanced check. Otherwise, I have reformed and I need a Basic check that I have fulfilled the requirements of the Courts and am Spent. Simples.
Magic wand.....
|
By xl - 13 Feb 10 8:45 AM
Not really so simple; and pretty much Aspire you describe the system that is in place. You shouldnt be able to prevent someone from being a teacher, a doctor etc if they commited a crime 15-20 years ago; in many countries you can apply to seal your record after and pursue those careers A far more sensible approach is to have an independent panel who can assess who is/is not elgiible to work in certain professions. Once they give the green light no criminal record checks should be needed. The employer shouldnt be in a position where they can decide. How can a proportionate system be in place when the employer will feel an increased element of responsibility if they employ someone with a record.
Ultimately however there will always be a line that has to be drawn with a filtering approach; which isn't correct. Each person and their circumstances when they commited a crime and the level they are rehabillitated are different. A flexible approach is required and alos an approach that gives people hope and a chance.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
the government said to the court they cant impose a filtering process mainly because there is no definition of a minor offence. But cautions by definition are only given for minor offences and so should be automatically filtered after a couple of years.
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
In most European countries most convictions are deleted after a few years we should have the same system except for serious and violent crimes.
|
By xl - 13 Feb 10 8:45 AM
I agree charh; the police abused the caution system; now they may say that cautions shouldnt be deleted as people with violent / sexual offences have cautions. But they also would have stated when issuing the caution that "its just a caution " you cant have it both ways
|
By charh777 - 22 Apr 12 10:52 AM
yes they cant have it both ways. the police already had a filtering system the 'stepping down process' the only problem was that it wasn't supported by law so the government simply removed it after the ian huntley scandal.
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
Good point Charh. In many European countries, the disclosure of criminal records is handled by the police. I have lived in one. Police issued my driving licence, you went to the police station and paid 15E for your details and it came back three days later. Problem with the UK is, it is all back-handers and the elitists helping the elitists. They don't have this problem on the continent, they are much more relaxed about crime. They don't have the paranoia we have here. They have less crime and they are more into rehabilitation than we are.
charh777 said...
In most European countries most convictions are deleted after a few years we should have the same system except for serious and violent crimes. |
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
It's all to do with money. Mrs Mason's report was very balanced and I do agree employers should not bear the sole responsibility of making the decisions based on what they read. The UK has made life very hard for themselves in the quest to gain more money. Employers are not capable of making balanced and levelled judgements on what they read on a CRB check and I agree with Aspire, the standard procedure is the one which is abused the most. It is up to us with convictions to know the guidelines of who is allowed to apply for ECRB. There are guidelines for them to adhere to, which seem to be overlooked on many occasions and companies are not allowed to apply for any CRB check without permission. They could lose their registration. Our rights are buried under those of the legal aspects. But we do have some.
|
By Aspire - 15 May 11 2:23 PM
All valid points and I agree with you xl, someone with a 20 year crime should not automatically be denied the opportunity to work with vulnerable groups and children. I do know of someone who is a teacher with a DUI offence from 10 years ago and a nurse who was cautioned for shop lifting when they were 18 (30 years ago). Both are in work and seem to do a great job! A consistent approach is obviously not evident though from the threads on here.
I have always thought that there is no way the Govt will get rid of the barred lists, and I agree with this to some extent. Maybe the way forward is that we just have Basic Disclosures and different barring lists for children, vulnerable adults, FSA and after certain amount of time people can apply to be removed? As happens now? This would be a type of filtering? There are real downsides to this as it would probably mean a blanket ban for all people on the lists if employers did not feel they had to exercise judgement. But at least there would be consistency and people would know where they stand? As I am typing this I can see so many issues with this approach. Maybe it would be up to the Courts to state when sentencing to make recommendations about who would be seem to pose a risk and the reasons why? At least this would take the power away from the police.... I will reserve comment on that.... and to some extent this is happening.
Moo, C777, I have lived and worked in a few European cities too and can honestly say that there is nothing Great about Great Britain anymore in comparison, we are such a nanny state. I nearly threw my banana at the TV last night when I heard that the Govt are thinking of collecting information for a national database from our medical records of how much we weigh and how much we drink!! Whatever next.... no don't answer that.... the though just makes my blood boil.
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
Well, the recent ruling means a judge saw sense. Which gives us hope... However, I can't still help but feel we just will not get it here. With the public and media jumping up and down about the safety of children, I have little faith. It's a money making scheme and brings in a lot of revenue. Umbrella companies are everywhere and I'd certainly be interested in their criteria for registration which enables them to make the checks.
The checks that are available for protection of children and vulnerable adults is a separate issue, as Liberty point out, they and I fail to see what Ian Huntley has to do with this ruling. Nothing whatsoever. Just media and government scaremongering. Judging by the comments on many forums discussing this recent ruling, the amount of people who don't understand it, is immense. The country is obsessed with lists and people on them.
For me, the answers are simple:
1. People with convictions to know their rights.
2. Guidelines for screening. I.e. Full explaination of the position being exempt from the ROA, and detailing the regulated activity with children/vulnerable adults list.
3. Tightening up of the exception's order.
4. Employers to clearly state on their application form they are non-exempt from the ROA.
5. Two reasons for CRB checks. One for positions exempt from the ROA, the enhanced check. Basic check for positions under the terms of the ROA.
It is so complicated currently for people and it is illegal for some companies to ask for ECRB. We should remember this.
I have said this before. I have just completed website content for a recruitment company, specialising in childcare, teaching and construction. The owner of the company had no idea of what checks were in place, he simply had on application forms "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence" And there are many more companies out there who are not aware of them. Another friend who has her own HR consultancy, she has no idea at all and she's an employment lawyer by profession. It's ridiculous. Here we have powerful and classified information being released in shaky hands and not many people know how to handle this. Bizarrely named a "certificate" and expires the day it is printed.
The country has gone mad.
Post Edited (Moostrasse) : 02/02/2013 21:38:02 GMT
|
By MMS_guru - 29 Jan 13 11:52 AM
Does anybody know when we'll hear about the appeal? I read somewhere that it might be rejected.
|
By simon - 20 Feb 12 8:52 PM
where did you read that?
|
By MMS_guru - 29 Jan 13 11:52 AM
"But experts warned that there was no guarantee any appeal would be granted, given the judgement was handed down by Lord Dyson, who is the second most senior judge in England and Wales."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9835218/Theresa-May-to-defy-Court-of-Appeal-over-ruling-which-threatens-to-plunge-CRB-system-into-chaos.html
|
By Eustace - 1 Feb 12 2:03 AM
Somebody said...
Well, the recent ruling means a judge saw sense. Which gives us hope... However, I can't still help but feel we just will not get it here. With the public and media jumping up and down about the safety of children, I have little faith. It's a money making scheme and brings in a lot of revenue. Umbrella companies are everywhere and I'd certainly be interested in their criteria for registration which enables them to make the checks.
The checks that are available for protection of children and vulnerable adults is a separate issue, as Liberty point out, they and I fail to see what Ian Huntley has to do with this ruling. Nothing whatsoever. Just media and government scaremongering. Judging by the comments on many forums discussing this recent ruling, the amount of people who don't understand it, is immense. The country is obsessed with lists and people on them.
For me, the answers are simple:
1. People with convictions to know their rights.
2. Guidelines for screening. I.e. Full explaination of the position being exempt from the ROA, and detailing the regulated activity with children/vulnerable adults list.
3. Tightening up of the exception's order.
4. Employers to clearly state on their application form they are non-exempt from the ROA.
5. Two reasons for CRB checks. One for positions exempt from the ROA, the enhanced check. Basic check for positions under the terms of the ROA.
It is so complicated currently for people and it is illegal for some companies to ask for ECRB. We should remember this.
I have said this before. I have just completed website content for a recruitment company, specialising in childcare, teaching and construction. The owner of the company had no idea of what checks were in place, he simply had on application forms "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence" And there are many more companies out there who are not aware of them. Another friend who has her own HR consultancy, she has no idea at all and she's an employment lawyer by profession. It's ridiculous. Here we have powerful and classified information being released in shaky hands and not many people know how to handle this. Bizarrely named a "certificate" and expires the day it is printed.
The country has gone mad.
I completely agree with this. I advise companies (from a law and business perspective) and have had broadly a similar experience in that:-
(a). most business owners are confused by the disclosure and barring regime (as it is now terminologically known) and do not know how or why they should access it;
(b). those who have an inclining about what to do tend to make use of CRB/DBS inappropriately (i.e. illegally and unlawfully);
(c). those who are a little more independent-minded tend to disregard and ignore it altogether (obviously this does not include those in 'sensitive' professions and occupations);
(d). most have a relatively unsophisticated understanding of how to judge 'risk' in this area, mainly because of the inherent crudity and limitations in the system itself.
I was talking to the owner of a small domestic cleaning company last week who told me she could, if she wished, insist on blanket DBS checks for all her cleaners, as many other cleaning companies do. I agreed she would probably get away with this, but she added that there was no point as the certificates that come back are immediately out-of-date (the same point as that made by Moostrasse above) and, to paraphrase the owner, a CRB/DBS check is of limited value when assessing risk and actually causes more problems than it solves. Now, I can see a slight flaw in her reasoning in that surely a criminal records check should form part of an overall assessment of risk, and even if it comes back unsatisfactory in some way, that need not preclude employment - in reality, it would depend on the nature of the convictions revealed, and time elapsed since commission of the offences, etc. I actually suspect the real reason for not using the checks is financial: they are very expensive and consequently most small businesses just won't bother with them. I myself once owned and ran a law firm and, though I did consider it, I decided against routine CRB-checking as it ain't worth the candle. I think it was more expensive then than now, but even at £26.00 a pop, it soon adds up and if margins are tight and you need to deploy staff quickly, most business people are honestly going to think: 'why bother?'
This kind of brings me to my own central objection to criminal record checking. It seems to me an unwarranted interference in what should be private decisions. It's fine where someone aspires to work in a financially-sensitive profession or occupation or if they are likely to come into contact with prepubescent children, let's say, but in all other respects it's just over-the-top nannying and actually quite insulting to the general public in that it implies we are not capable of making our own decisions without a certificate from the state. The apologists will say it's all about risk assessment and even an unsatisfactory DBS is not definitive and final as to employment decisions and other matters, and I actually agree with that argument to an extent, but let's not pretend here - in the real world, when I was an employer, if I knew a job applicant had a serious conviction, I would be concerned. Not out of bigotry. In fact, in my past life before I offended, I had very liberal views about criminal justice and penal matters and I always thought that ex-criminals and ex-prisoners should be given a fair go. The harm is in the disclosure, which if we're honest, shouldn't happen because it's none of my or anyone else's business.
I had a real-life dilemma along these lines. about 4 years ago, when I was still considered 'respectable', I had to find a lawyer to fill a certain post for me and I interviewed several. I decided on the best candidate and I was going to offer him the job. Just by chance, I decided to google his name. Actually, it was pretty standard practice for me to do so. I used to check out on the web almost-everybody I encountered. Guess what came up? This guy had been arrested many years before for looking at mucky pictures on the internet. Not just any old muck, mind, but pictures of children. He had been convicted for possession and, if I recall rightly, handed a suspended prison sentence. I delved further and discovered that his practising certificate had been suspended by his professional body, though he was eventually allowed to work in law firms again (subject to the regulator's prior permission). I think you can guess the rest....The job offer went to somebody else. But what if I had considered this information in a different way? Could I have employed him? Post Edited (Eustace) : 09/02/2013 07:41:32 GMT
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
Hello Eustace
That's interesting about the owner of a cleaning company. I'll humanise the issue. People love getting the down and dirty on other people. The obsession with "certificates" is immense. Powerful information in te wrong hands. HR departments are not equipped to handle the sensitive data. My friend is looking to me, to give guidance on how she advises her clients. I am not an employment lawyer, she is and she's asking me for information about an area which should be explored and HR departments trained to deal with the data and how to handle it. Companies are not looking at this aspect and as in the case of T, look what happened? He stood up for himself and ended up in court with a Master of Rolls ruling in his favour.
Having read many papers on the DBS, (some of them very poorly written) there does have to be a system in place. With umbrella organisations popping up everywhere and companies unsure of what they're supposed to apply for, Houston, we have a bit of a problem. There are many areas of employment that are not allowed to apply for ECRB and standard disclosure, in my opinion, should be abolished. Jobs are one of two areas. Exempt from the ROA or non-exempt. The grey area is the standard CRB. But, the bottom line is, the money which is made from this, is immense. Multi-nationals running the country. Jobs for the boys. Hysteria follows and the masses are up in arms.
|
By Eustace - 1 Feb 12 2:03 AM
Moostrasse,
I agree that the 'line of least resistance' is the standard disclosure and if the ROA was tightened-up and access to DBS checking was made more restrictive, that would go a long way to help. However, there is a more fundamental problem that is highlighted by a comparison with similar systems in other EU Member States. We do need criminal records and we need some means of checking them, but disclosure ought only to be permitted in limited circumstances that are governed by risk, as is the case elsewhere. It is also important there is a means for society to 'forgive' even serious offences. Other EU Member States routinely expunge criminal records, even the most serious, so why don't we?
There are now 9 million people with criminal records in this country, and some 80,000 of our fellow citizens languishing in prisons. This is shocking. One area this impacts on is what politicians like to call our 'global competitiveness'. Our politicians like to wax lyrical about a 'global economy', whatever that is, but if competitiveness in a 'global environment' is so important then why are we disadvantaging our citizens with lifelong criminal records? Just to give one fairly trivial but important example, a British citizen with most types of criminal record cannot travel to the United States, or many other countries, without going through the rigmarole, cost and inconvenience of applying for a visa, and with no guarantee of success in either being granted the visa or subsequently gaining entry. Yet citizens of other comparable countries have their records expunged and rendered non-disclosable as a matter of routine. Who is running this country?Post Edited (Eustace) : 09/02/2013 21:28:32 GMT
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
The multi-nationals, Eustace. That's who's running the country. Absolutely, there needs to be a checking system in place. I don't think for a minute any person who is devoid of any intelligence would deny this is necessary. You're correct in your points and I find it hard to disagree with any of them. I don't know the nature of your crime, or what difficulties you are up against, for me, under the current system I can never work in my field again. However, given I am fluent in three languages, I have managed to find myself work and operate a business partnership. I got off my rear end and went and found work and worked damn hard to find it. I was going down the route of education, but then I think of my age, 45 almost. I am a qualified teacher and I have extensive training in marketing and sales. I have put my skills to good use and managed to form myself an income purely from networking. Having a criminal record has not prevented me in this. My clients are not interested in me, they are interested in the work I produce and that's what keeps the wolf from the door. I am done in the rat race, the line is too damn long.
The ROA is an act that doesn't need messing around with. I see nothing wrong with the act in its own entity. I do see the problem lies with employers who do not understand and this zipped up Britishness that we have about talking about our crimes when it comes to disclosing them. Bizarrely, the system has loop holes, just like our tax system, our welfare system and any other system we have in place. How can we claim to protect our children and vulnerable people, when companies like Provident allow any Tom Dick or Harry to collect money for loan repayments from some of the most vulnerable people in society? How can I have a fraud charge against me, not be allowed a bank account, yet have full control over my schizophrenic mother's financial affairs issued by the Office of Public Guardian? Yet until we are in the eye of the storm, we have no idea what is going on... It is up to us, to evercise our rights and when faced with them, furnish ourselves with the knowledge to know where we stand. We have to be our own activists and support our own cause.
The Brits? Well, look at history. While Kings were busy chasing skirt, armies were going around stoking the flag in other people's soils...
|
By Eustace - 1 Feb 12 2:03 AM
Moostrasse,
I completely agree with your central point. It is down to the initiative of the individual. At the end of the day, we could have all the liberalising measures in the world and all sorts of kind gestures made towards those of us convicted of crimes, but that just relies on other people doing things for us. It's down to each of us as individuals to make something of our lives, not to rely on things being done for us. I don't wish to be unkind to some people who visit this forum, but having read quite a few threads on here it's obvious that many people want to just rest on the obvious injustices of the ROA and the other personal consequences of their crimes without taking responsibility for their own lives. It's an attitude that is reflected to a degree in society-at-large among people who whine about this and that instead of taking control of their own lives. That sounds terribly reactionary, I know, but I do think it bears out from my observations. The ROA and the DBS are unfair and arbitrary in their effect and do need a radical overhaul, yes, but none of us are owed a living.
|
By Moostrasse - 29 Apr 12 12:44 PM
Well, there are some who will always blame others for their own mistakes. That's a mindset and many people are set in their ways. Reforming is about change as a person. We are all judged on our actions from others. But it is only each individual who really knows why they have done what they have. I was dishonest without a thought for who I would hurt and I certainly knew when the game was up. Pleading guilty was not my only option, but I was sick of lying and I knew that eventually the evidence would be there. I put myself where I am. It wasn't a false allegation. It was a very true one. That said, I haven't hidden away, nor have I flaunted my actions as easily written off.
The DBS needs some attention, I agree. I don't believe enough emphasis is placed on the ROA. It needs the same attention as other equality and diversity claims from companies. However, we know this is not going to happen. What should happen and what does happen? Never the twain shall meet. The reasons reach far deeper than protecting the vulnerable and children of our society, the DBS is a money maker. The ROA was set up almost 40 years ago, since then it has been over shadowed by the exceptions order which has clear guidelines, but people don't understand the guideline, they are not solid any longer and the act is almost defunct. The ROA needs highlighting, but it should still remain in place and have more people fight for that, rather than trying to change the system. Back in the 90s prior to me moving overseas, I went for a job in the UK and I remember it very clearly, the ROA was stated on the application form. It was my word that was good enough that I had no unspent convictions. We all know the Soham case brought about reforms, (can't remember the name of the guy who put together this report) and in essence, the ECRB is not the problem, it protects children. But, it does not help those who have reformed, who are leading law-abding lives, despite what they once have done. We have a duty as a society to care for our young and those who are vulnerable. But vulnerable is also an arbitrary term. My mother is classed as vulnerable, yet she is one of the most cunning and sly people I know. What is vulnerable?
The answer is glaringly obvious. ROA applies and the register for exempt positions should be made very clear. Old convictions should be archived when spent. They may not be expunged, but archived. Minor offences (and there's another areas that needs attention, what classifies a minor offence?) should not be raised again after spent and cautions which are spent as soon as they are issued, or should be, should never be used three decades later against people. And I can never see the point of standard checks. It appears employers are not clear on what their obligations are. They ask the question, they insist on checks and they have little idea of what they are asking or how to handle a marked cetificate.
Post Edited (Moostrasse) : 10/02/2013 10:02:49 GMT
|
|