CRB checks ruled to be against Human Rights

[belboid]

blanket CRB checks, detailing even the pettiest of convictions, anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jan/29/criminal-record-checks-human-rights

About time too. While there is a definite value to them, having to use them so widely and indiscriminately makes a mockery of their purpose, and of the notion of rehabilitation.

 

[Deareg]

I hope they are scrapped as I have largely given up even applying for jobs especially through agencies.

 

[belboid]

I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I'm sittin' here on the bench, I mean I'm sittin here on the Group W bench
'cause you want to know if I'm moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein' a litterbug.

 

[Firky]

Yet they propose to take the DNA of gay men with previous offences that are no longer crimes.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

I'll be interested to see how it's changed...obviously there needs to be some system, so how will they decide what gets put in and left out.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

I hope they are scrapped as I have largely given up even applying for jobs especially through agencies.

For agency jobs I just lie.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Now we just need to find a way to stop a bad credit history from following you around and ruining your life.

 

[belboid]

I hope they are scrapped as I have largely given up even applying for jobs especially through agencies.

which is exactly what's wrong with them. It is a legal excuse to discriminate, employers will overlook whatever is written if they decide they want the person whatever, or they'll use whatever is written to exclude someone they just dont like the look of. Agencies are even worse, as they'll nearly always just go 'sod off' as they wont want to take any 'risks' with client placements, especially at the moment.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

which is exactly what's wrong with them. It is a legal excuse to discriminate, employers will overlook whatever is written if they decide they want the person whatever, or they'll use whatever is written to exclude someone they just dont like the look of. Agencies are even worse, as they'll nearly always just go 'sod off' as they wont want to take any 'risks' with client placements, especially at the moment.

actually this is just plain old bollocks...

as per...

 

[UnderOpenSky]

How would people change a CRB? We do need some sort of system for people working with the vulnerable, but it does seem unfair to hold cautions against years after they happened.

I thought getting another caution a few years ago would be the end of working with young people. It has made for some tricky interviews, but hasn't totally stopped me getting jobs (although when you don't hear back I do wonder if it was that).

 

[SpookyFrank]

actually this is just plain old bollocks...

as per...

How so? It all sounds pretty familliar to me. Or maybe you think anyone with a criminal record should be turned away from all jobs for the rest of their days, as this is the best way to help them to rejoin society and avoid returning to the bad ways of the past?

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Yet they propose to take the DNA of gay men with previous offences that are no longer crimes.

that's fucking scandalous!

 

[SpookyFrank]

that's fucking scandalous!

Yes indeed, but so far there have been no indications that anyone is going to stop the police from doing this or apologise to those who have been thus persecuted. The only official statements I've encountered so far are along the lines of, 'it's unpleasant but we have to do it because it says so in the rules we wrote in the first place'.

 

[Thora]

How would people change a CRB? We do need some sort of system for people working with the vulnerable, but it does seem unfair to hold cautions against years after they happened.

I thought getting another caution a few years ago would be the end of working with young people. It has made for some tricky interviews, but hasn't totally stopped me getting jobs (although when you don't hear back I do wonder if it was that).

Some kind of list of people convicted of sex crimes, crimes against children/vulnerable people - and then if you are employing someone to do a job with children/vulnerable people you can check if their name is on this list. An employer doesn't need to know your entire history, just whether you have done something that makes you a risk to children.

 

[Firky]

that's fucking scandalous!

It is and it is amazingly under-reported, this explains it in a bit more detail.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/2...response-over-police-dna-sampling-of-gay-men/

The men who contacted me after being DNA sampled were convicted of consensual gross indecency with other men, in many cases dating back to the 1980s under a homophobic law that no longer exists.

This is Britain in 2013.

 

[Firky]

which is exactly what's wrong with them. It is a legal excuse to discriminate, employers will overlook whatever is written if they decide they want the person whatever, or they'll use whatever is written to exclude someone they just dont like the look of. Agencies are even worse, as they'll nearly always just go 'sod off' as they wont want to take any 'risks' with client placements, especially at the moment.

*cricket clap*

May cost them (employer) £50 but it works out cheaper than court cases and paying them off.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Some kind of list of people convicted of sex crimes, crimes against children/vulnerable people - and then if you are employing someone to do a job with children/vulnerable people you can check if their name is on this list. An employer doesn't need to know your entire history, just whether you have done something that makes you a risk to children.

But with the whole thing about the DNA testing of gay men as linked to above, it's clearly very important that the phrase 'sex crime' has a clear (and above all sane) definition. It wasn't so long ago you could be convicted of a sex crime for completely consensual behaviour.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Some kind of list of people convicted of sex crimes, crimes against children/vulnerable people - and then if you are employing someone to do a job with children/vulnerable people you can check if their name is on this list. An employer doesn't need to know your entire history, just whether you have done something that makes you a risk to children.

How about offensives like assault and drug convictions?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

How so? It all sounds pretty familliar to me. Or maybe you think anyone with a criminal record should be turned away from all jobs for the rest of their days, as this is the best way to help them to rejoin society and avoid returning to the bad ways of the past?

can you point to where I've said anything of the sort spunky fuckwit?

But as per Bellies is doing the whole eyeore thing of saying they are just another tool of oppression which is used to keep people down and that the man doesn't give two fucks if the man decides otherwise.

Specifically within CRB's they're certain offenses (sex related usually) which prevent you from working with children. Sure in certain cases other offences such as violence, drink or drugs may be taken into account when decided in the appropriateness of a candidate for a role but someone with a shop lifting conviction won't be excluded from a child care role specifically because of it and so yes why would an employer not offer them a job knowing about this conviction. Or a drving ban or any other such type of conviction.

The aim of the CRB is as it always was to try to prevent those of a predatory sexual nature or a history of violence from having contact with children for obvious reasons...

 

[SpookyFrank]

How about offensives like assault and drug convictions?

I don't see why anyone needs to know about non-violent crimes after a sentence has been served. Maybe special cases like working in a hospital pharmacy would be unsuitable for recovering drug addicts, but generally I think the benefit of the doubt should go to the applicant, otherwise why are we even pretending to try to rehabilitate people?

 

[Deareg]

For agency jobs I just lie.

I do as well, but it seems that everyone now wants CRB and it is not possible to lie.

 

[belboid]

can you point to where I've said anything of the sort spunky fuckwit?

But as per Bellies is doing the whole eyeore thing of saying they are just another tool of oppression which is used to keep people down and that the man doesn't give two fucks if the man decides otherwise.

Specifically within CRB's they're certain offenses (sex related usually) which prevent you from working with children. Sure in certain cases other offences such as violence, drink or drugs may be taken into account when decided in the appropriateness of a candidate for a role but someone with a shop lifting conviction won't be excluded from a child care role specifically because of it and so yes why would an employer not offer them a job knowing about this conviction. Or a drving ban or any other such type of conviction.

The aim of the CRB is as it always was to try to prevent those of a predatory sexual nature or a history of violence from having contact with children for obvious reasons...

None of which contradicts the post you said was 'bollocks'. I am sure everyone on this thread knows the above, it is the usual rationale for introducing them - but it is very cleartly not a reason for using them as widely and indiscriminately as they are used today. The kind of cases you are referring to represent a small minority of actual CRB use. As was stated fairly explicitly in the OP, and in the given link.

 

[ddraig]

interesting!

 

[Deareg]

How would people change a CRB? We do need some sort of system for people working with the vulnerable, but it does seem unfair to hold cautions against years after they happened.

I thought getting another caution a few years ago would be the end of working with young people. It has made for some tricky interviews, but hasn't totally stopped me getting jobs (although when you don't hear back I do wonder if it was that).

When I applied for warehouse or other types of manual jobs my record goes against me but when I was going to train as a driving instructor it made no difference, work that one out.

 

[nino_savatte]

It is and it is amazingly under-reported, this explains it in a bit more detail.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/2...response-over-police-dna-sampling-of-gay-men/


This is Britain in 2013.

 

[ddraig]

hasn't that be retracted? and they apologised to one of them

 

[SpookyFrank]

can you point to where I've said anything of the sort spunky fuckwit?

But as per Bellies is doing the whole eyeore thing of saying they are just another tool of oppression which is used to keep people down and that the man doesn't give two fucks if the man decides otherwise.

Specifically within CRB's they're certain offenses (sex related usually) which prevent you from working with children. Sure in certain cases other offences such as violence, drink or drugs may be taken into account when decided in the appropriateness of a candidate for a role but someone with a shop lifting conviction won't be excluded from a child care role specifically because of it and so yes why would an employer not offer them a job knowing about this conviction. Or a drving ban or any other such type of conviction.

The aim of the CRB is as it always was to try to prevent those of a predatory sexual nature or a history of violence from having contact with children for obvious reasons...

It doesn't seem like anyone's arguing for a complete removal of all CRB checks, just that something needs to be done to reverse the function creep that now allows employers to discriminate against applicants based on past offences even if these were minor, non-violent crimes. The only way to stop this discrimination is to deny employers access to information that is not relevant to a candidate's ability to do a particular job.

I might be wrong, but I doubt anyone here thinks that those convicted of offences agaist vulnerable people should be able to get jobs working with other vulnerable people in the future. Maybe this isn't fair on those who despite their past offences are no longer a danger to anyone, but it's not something we should be taking chances with.

 

[SpookyFrank]

hasn't that be retracted? and they apologised to one of them

When the story broke the police were pretty unapologetic. Haven't heard much since then.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Dunno really.

I'm not convinced that CRB is at fault for providing the info that's there (and under legislation dating from the 70s, some jobs are allowed to ask about spent convictions) - apart from people who have been placed on (whatever it's called these days) the list of people who are specifically barred from working with children and / or vulnerable adults, it is not the CRB's role to say "yes you may employ this person" / "no you may not employ this person" - all they do is provide information.

what's at fault is the way crap employers use / have used the info provided.

As far as a job working with children is concerned, a caution for shop-lifting 20 years ago is really neither here nor there and any sensible employer should regard it as such. If an employer is rejecting someone for a job working with children on that basis alone, they are doing it wrong. (certainly breaching guidelines if not the actual terms of the ROA Act)

Spent fraud convictions might however be relevant for someone applying to become an accountant.

I would also argue that employers should be allowed to use some discretion with "sex offences" - someone who, 30 years ago and when they were 16 and a bit, got done for having a consensual relationship with someone who was then 15 and a bit, is hardly a threat to children.

Until fairly recently, (potential) employers were allowed to use a degree of common sense about that sort of thing. Then there was a tabloid "OMG - there are SEX OFFENDERS working in schools" panic and the government panicked.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Dunno really.

I'm not convinced that CRB is at fault for providing the info that's there (and under legislation dating from the 70s, some jobs are allowed to ask about spent convictions) - apart from people who have been placed on (whatever it's called these days) the list of people who are specifically barred from working with children and / or vulnerable adults, it is not the CRB's role to say "yes you may employ this person" / "no you may not employ this person" - all they do is provide information.

what's at fault is the way crap employers use / have used the info provided.

As far as a job working with children is concerned, a caution for shop-lifting 20 years ago is really neither here nor there and any sensible employer should regard it as such. If an employer is rejecting someone for a job working with children on that basis alone, they are doing it wrong. (certainly breaching guidelines if not the actual terms of the ROA Act)

Spent fraud convictions might however be relevant for someone applying to become an accountant.

I would also argue that employers should be allowed to use some discretion with "sex offences" - someone who, 30 years ago and when they were 16 and a bit, got done for having a consensual relationship with someone who was then 15 and a bit, is hardly a threat to children.

Until fairly recently, (potential) employers were allowed to use a degree of common sense about that sort of thing. Then there was a tabloid "OMG - there are SEX OFFENDERS working in schools" panic and the government panicked.

Re. the bit in bold; couldn't agree more so take it out of the CRB check and then crap employers won't be able to use it.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice