I think I agree with just about everything on this thread, although that's not unusual. I agree with banning the box, but in some cases it just moves the discrimination to the end of the recruitment process rather than the middle, but still allows employers to look socially progressive. Corporate social responsibility is allegedly important these days, although more so to us than to companies. I've always maintained that something needs to be done about rehabilitation periods and basic DBS checks. Lord Ramsbotham tried twice to get something done, but his bill ran out of time twice, thanks to the Government not wanting to do anything about it. I personally wasn't so worked up about enhanced DBS checks, until I saw this article
in the Guardian. In any case, it's all very well having statutory guidelines about what and when to disclose, but it's still down to personal interpretation and varies between the different police forces. Is that down to chief police officers or policing and crime commissioners?
Regarding foreign travel, the problem is that other countries want to know if you have ever been arrested/cautioned/convicted and aren't subject to ROA. If the Government/police were seen as being complicit in hiding information, then they could be seen under foreign countries' laws as being involved in immigration fraud, so there is no way they are going to change that system, unfortunately.
In terms of changing employers' attitudes to disclosure certificates, they will always think that if the information is there, the government must want them to take it into account. Meanwhile, the government just hides behind their own rules and says that it is up to the employers to decide what they take into account. Let's hope the Supreme Court judgement is helpful....
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)