CRB checks ruled to be against Human Rights

[cesare]

Aren't there middle-men?

Edit, ah, just saw this:

Yep, the umbrella providers I also mentioned earlier. Search for CRB & umbrella to see loads of em.

 

[Firky]

CRB is great in theory but fails on so many levels that it's worth is really questionable.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

CRB is great in theory but fails on so many levels that it's worth is really questionable.

Something to do with that Ian Huntley chap I think?

My old boss used to say a CRB check just bred smart paedophiles.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

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.

An employer using it in a manner it wasn't designed or ascribed for will be in breech of discrimination and rehab of offenders laws...

proving it is quite another thing.

Not saying that this doesn't happen, more that your implication that it's defacto used to exclude potential employees from a role.

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.

It's the being seen to be acting as well as acting issues isn't it.

if someone with a previously irrelevant conviction then commits an offence then the organisation and those bodies who certify will then be held up as being to 'blame' for 'allowing' it to happen.

so this function creep is as a by product of the entire system.

Plyus a whole heap of bollocky legislation which then forced a change in the way these were implemented (which was laborious slow and stupid prior to the changes but is now unwieldy, impossible and usually inefficient).

basically bad legislation begat bad legislation begat bad legislation. etc...

 

[Blagsta]

It's the Vetting and Barring Service now, btw. And employers often use an umbrella provider.

I know there was a plan for a vetting and barring service, i thought it was shelved by the Tories?

 

[Firky]

Something to do with that Ian Huntley chap I think?

My old boss used to say a CRB check just bred smart paedophiles.

Back when I organised home to school transport for special needs kids there was no checks done on school escorts or drivers. Anyone could apply for the job, they just needed a car and some kind of insurance. Then one day there came an allegation that a child was assaulted by one of the people employed by NCC to take them to school. That's when they realised that maybe they should put some kind of check in place. I left before it was implemented but the idea was that they'd submit their details to NCC and we'd refer them to Social Services who checked on a database.

This would have been about 98/99. Huntley was about 01 I think. No idea when CRB came into practice - anyone?

 

[Blagsta]

The RoA and CRB are two different things.

Yes i know. All jobs are covered by the RoA unless exempt, in which case they need a CRB check.

 

[cesare]

I know there was a plan for a vetting and barring service, i thought it was shelved by the Tories?

As belboid picked up (I keep doing it!) it's disclosure not vetting. But it's now in operation: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/agencies-public-bodies/dbs/

 

[Blagsta]

but its just a tick box, exssentially. If you say this person will have some contact, or relevant access to records, they'll check you out - just to be 'on the safe side.'

That must have changed significantly then since i was trained in all this.

 

[belboid]

Not saying that this doesn't happen, more that your implication that it's defacto used to exclude potential employees from a role.

So you actually agree with my post. Good. Now, fuck off.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Back when I organised home to school transport for special needs kids there was no checks done on school escorts or drivers. Anyone could apply for the job, they just needed a car and some kind of insurance. Then one day there came an allegation that a child was assaulted by one of the people employed by NCC to take them to school. That's when they realised that maybe they should put some kind of check in place. I left before it was implemented but the idea was that they'd submit their details to NCC and we'd refer them to Social Services who checked on a database.

This would have been about 98/99. Huntley was about 01 I think.

it worked then it worked up til around 2003 /2004 then it was taken over by OFSTED and they are incapable of maintaining it or indeed actioning it within a reasonable (8 months) timescale.

The current problem means that usually schools, afterschool clubs playgroups etc have to take it on faith and have that staff member supervised until the checks are completed...

What's worse is that a CRB for teaching cannot be used for play work those for play work aren't valid for vulnerable young adults etc so you need several if you do several different jobs working with those in vulnerable positions.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

So you actually agree with my post. Good. Now, fuck off.

no I'm saying you claim that it's the standard for excluding someone for a role isn't true... however much you attempt to wriggle.

 

[belboid]

That must have changed significantly then since i was trained in all this.

We get told the rules, and that we really shouldn't be applying for anyone who won't absolutely require one, but there are no checks. If I tick the box, I get a full, enhanced, CRB back.

 

[Blagsta]

As belboid picked up (I keep doing it!) it's disclosure not vetting. But it's now in operation: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/agencies-public-bodies/dbs/

Ahhh, ok, cos i know there was a mad plan to make people register and take their registration with them from job to job, but this was shelved.

It was still called CRB when i started my nursing course in 2011. When did it change?

 

[belboid]

no I'm saying you claim that it's the standard for excluding someone for a role isn't true... however much you attempt to wriggle.

that doesnt even make sense, wormy.

 

[Fez909]

So you actually agree with my post. Good. Now, fuck off.

 

[Blagsta]

We get told the rules, and that we really shouldn't be applying for anyone who won't absolutely require one, but there are no checks. If I tick the box, I get a full, enhanced, CRB back.

Right, that's bad and should be regulated.

 

[cesare]

Yes i know. All jobs are covered by the RoA unless exempt, in which case they need a CRB check.

Maybe we're at cross purposes ... Exemption from RoA doesn't necessarily mean that they're required to get a CRB check, merely that they can't rely on offences being "spent" in order not to disclose them. And the list of exemptions is quite long: http://www.civilandcorporate.co.uk/legislation-detail-rehab.html But an exemption doesn't necessarily mean that a CRB check applies or is needed - it depends on the job.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Back when I organised home to school transport for special needs kids there was no checks done on school escorts or drivers. Anyone could apply for the job, they just needed a car and some kind of insurance. Then one day there came an allegation that a child was assaulted by one of the people employed by NCC to take them to school. That's when they realised that maybe they should put some kind of check in place. I left before it was implemented but the idea was that they'd submit their details to NCC and we'd refer them to Social Services who checked on a database.

This would have been about 98/99. Huntley was about 01 I think. No idea when CRB came into practice - anyone?

CRB came into effect in 2002 - just after I stopped organising school transport, I went on a few CRB training sessions.

Prior to that, checks were done through local police forces (and they had to get information from other forces where someone had moved areas)

The Soham murders happened in summer 2002, but Ian Huntley had been in the job since 2001, so would have been checked on pre CRB standards.

My old boss used to say a CRB check just bred smart paedophiles.

Dunno really.

CRB checking / clearance can give a false sense of security - anyone who becomes an offender will, at some point, have a clean record.

But it's hard to argue that you shouldn't at least check for past history when employing people to work with children / vulnerable adults.

It's one of those things where the 'general public' not to mention the tabloids will make a fuss either way. If someone who's "respectable and middle class" is asked to be checked, there will be an accusation of "PC nanny state gone mad", if someone with a slightly dodgy past (even if he's outwardly respectable and middle class) slips through the net and does anything dodgy, then "the system has failed"...

ETA -

What's worse is that a CRB for teaching cannot be used for play work those for play work aren't valid for vulnerable young adults etc so you need several if you do several different jobs working with those in vulnerable positions.

Again, that's because (broadly) CRB is not saying "yes" or "no" to employers, it's saying "here's the information, it's up to you to make a decision"

The potential difficulties in (say) Lambeth Council deciding, in all the circumstances, that person A with this record is OK to do job X, then that person going for job Y at Croydon Council - should Croydon accept the decision that Lambeth made? If something then goes wrong, it gets very muddy...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

We get told the rules, and that we really shouldn't be applying for anyone who won't absolutely require one, but there are no checks. If I tick the box, I get a full, enhanced, CRB back.

aside from the various agreements that only auhtorised people will have access to the data within the auspices of the companies role that is...

IE if you did do that and were found to be doing it you and the company you work for would be in big, big trouble...

This is the there's no one to stop the accountant skimming argument... IF you did it and IF it happen then it would be bad. but you haven't so it's irrelevant...

chicken licken...

 

[cesare]

Ahhh, ok, cos i know there was a mad plan to make people register and take their registration with them from job to job, but this was shelved.

It was still called CRB when i started my nursing course in 2011. When did it change?

It was only 1 December 2012, very recently

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

that doesnt even make sense, wormy.

you've claimed it's the standard for employers who don't need CRB's to make claims for them and for these to then be used to exclude potential employees.

That's not the case even your link doesn't say this so it's again you marching on with hyperbole and mental rhetoric who's still wriggling...

 

[Blagsta]

Maybe we're at cross purposes ... Exemption from RoA doesn't necessarily mean that they're required to get a CRB check, merely that they can't rely on offences being "spent" in order not to disclose them. And the list of exemptions is quite long: http://www.civilandcorporate.co.uk/legislation-detail-rehab.html But an exemption doesn't necessarily mean that a CRB check applies or is needed - it depends on the job.

My understanding was that if a role was exempt, then all offences had to be declared, not just ones that weren't spent. This is then checked with a CRB check.

 

[Blagsta]

It was only 1 December 2012, very recently

Ahhhh, cheers.

 

[belboid]

you've claimed it's the standard for employers who don't need CRB's to make claims for them and for these to then be used to exclude potential employees.

That's not the case even your link doesn't say this so it's again you marching on with hyperbole and mental rhetoric who's still wriggling...

attempting to struggle my way through that incoherent gibberish....

I actually said it was a common problem. You were the one who came up with ' standard' - it is a fiction of your own creation. So, fuck off.

 

[cesare]

My understanding was that if a role was exempt, then all offences had to be declared, not just ones that weren't spent. This is then checked with a CRB check.

Yes, if the employer declares in advance that the role is exempt, then the applicant has to disclose all offences. But there's nothing compelling employers (that I can recall) not to declare all *potentially* exempt roles in order to ensure disclosure, then not necessarily following up with a CRB check. If you see what I mean. It's open to abuse.

 

[Blagsta]

I was under the impression that exempt roles were legally defined?

 

[cesare]

I was under the impression that exempt roles were legally defined?

Yes, I linked to the list. But (for the sake of example) not every Chartered Accountant works with vulnerable adults.

 

[Firky]

My head hurts.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Yes, I linked to the list. But (for the sake of example) not every Chartered Accountant works with vulnerable adults.

I think the check on accountants is more to do with honesty related offences rather than (specifically) sexual offences.