Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
I was also under the impression accountants were exempt (from RoOA) due to risk of fraud and embezzellment?
CRB checks ruled to be against Human Rights
- Thread starter belboid
- Start date
Fez909
toilet expert
Not just accountants, either. I think anyone whose job is regulated by the FSA (or whatever they've morphed into) was exempt.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
no acutally you didn't you said very specifically which is why I quoted it....
. 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.
so you fuck off and drop your bullshit hyperbole... or at least admit when you've been called on your bollocks...
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
The exemptions are "for the general protection of the public" and that's my point, really, that these exemptions don't always necessitate a CRB check.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
that doesnt include the word 'standard,' does it? You seem to be interpretting it in a way it obviously wasnt intended, and you are the only person to interpret it that way. I suspect you just arent grown up enough to admit your error. But who cares?
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
how else is one to interpret "Employers WILL overlook..." but that this is the standard action they will take...
really wriggler stop it it's actually painfully embarrassing now... you might try and win this on a semantic argument but you've stated what employers will do categorically, you're now claiming you've said something else entirely and wriggling around the intent of your original hyperbole...
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
I questioned the need to for CRB checks and how their net had widened on another board years ago and was virtually accused of wanting children and vulnerable people to be abused on the job.
CRBs checks are pretty much cited as one of the main reasosn that people won't volunteer
CRBs checks are pretty much cited as one of the main reasosn that people won't volunteer
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
I think that organisations that rely on volunteers need to be a clearer about what will exclude people.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
No what he said was that employers will do such and such if they are inclined to. The current CRB helps them in this; it doesn't demand that they do it. It may be common practice (I don't have the evidence one way or the other); but belboid certainly hasn't claimed it's standard...that's a misreading of yours.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
It would help is this was the case for any job or role that was CRB checked . I think some of this is in the ruling made?
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
I don't think there is any ruling as far as I'm aware.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
The last time I looked into volunteering (for my students), there was a huge waiting list of applicants. However, getting people into the actual roles was hugely delayed by the CRB checks that had to be done on all of them.
Some agencies do seem to want to CRB check everyone who signs up with them. It's easy to justify if the person's signing up for temp work and some of that work might be in a school, hospital, or anywhere handling sensitive data.
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
That's not proposed, some forces have actually done it. And gotten the DNA. There's a BBC article about it somewhere...
Here it is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21018850
And here's the apology issued two days later: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21045327
It's to do with this, except being bracketed with rapists for 30 year old offences that are no longer crimes is beyond ridiculous:
Aye's it is only further on I realised I didn't have it quite right, see my Pink News link
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Should never have happened in the first place, there should be at least one person with common sense in the Manchester force, surely?Aye's it is only further on I realised I didn't have it quite right, see my Pink News link
miktheword
Well-Known Member
Got a few things on my CRB, including a brief 'shit and a shave' custodial. I applied for full time contract education jobs that asked you to declare on the form. Strangely enough, I never got an interview when I just ticked the box (despite it saying this information will only be considered should you get the job and it is deemed to be relevant bla bla bla).
When I began forgetting to tick the box, got interviews and was lucky enough to mostly get offered the position.
It was then that I produced my typed statement of 'my version of events' that led to the info on the CRB. That way, they couldn't later pull you up and dismiss for dishonesty.
Went back to agency four years ago, and have nearly always been in work. Only once did a place agree to having me for a six month placement with the HT then hearing about it and overruling. Time passes and CRB gets more irrelevant, and your refereces and clean record since, gets more relevant. Two years back, the admin dept at a school kept screwing up the CRB application for a new, un CRB'd teacher. Ironically, I with a slightly decorated CRB, had to be in every lesson over-seeing him till it arrived. Took them 3 months before he was cleared, by which time they gave me a contract for a year.
There is also the issue of the 'brown envelope' that OB can give with the CRB which is not convictions but stuff they deem an employer should know...employee doesn't get to see that. HT's also do the same by putting people on the unofficial List 98
In my experience, the posher establishments use it to discriminate in the pre-selection process, whilst more progressive London Boroughs now don't even ask on the a form but say you will have to disclose if successful and then it will only hinder you if deemed relevant or of a serious enough nature (HT's discretion)
When I began forgetting to tick the box, got interviews and was lucky enough to mostly get offered the position.
It was then that I produced my typed statement of 'my version of events' that led to the info on the CRB. That way, they couldn't later pull you up and dismiss for dishonesty.
Went back to agency four years ago, and have nearly always been in work. Only once did a place agree to having me for a six month placement with the HT then hearing about it and overruling. Time passes and CRB gets more irrelevant, and your refereces and clean record since, gets more relevant. Two years back, the admin dept at a school kept screwing up the CRB application for a new, un CRB'd teacher. Ironically, I with a slightly decorated CRB, had to be in every lesson over-seeing him till it arrived. Took them 3 months before he was cleared, by which time they gave me a contract for a year.
There is also the issue of the 'brown envelope' that OB can give with the CRB which is not convictions but stuff they deem an employer should know...employee doesn't get to see that. HT's also do the same by putting people on the unofficial List 98
In my experience, the posher establishments use it to discriminate in the pre-selection process, whilst more progressive London Boroughs now don't even ask on the a form but say you will have to disclose if successful and then it will only hinder you if deemed relevant or of a serious enough nature (HT's discretion)
likesfish
You can't park here sir
The problem with the list 98 thing is huntely the soham murderer was never convicted of anything but should never have been allowed near kids.
Its a difficult one you might not be able to charge someone but you have intelligence thats hes a dangerous.
Thing is if they screw up and you cant see the informationyou cant put it right.
Its a difficult one you might not be able to charge someone but you have intelligence thats hes a dangerous.
Thing is if they screw up and you cant see the informationyou cant put it right.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
I have no doubt that's how it was intended to be read however WILL over look rather than IF they are inclined to, but then IF they are that type of employer then they will be licined to fuck about all over the shop in any case...
I mean if we're now going for hyperthetical evil employers then they might if inclined put babies on spikes too the evil bastards...
isn't this a think of the children type reasoning... because it might cause issues we should scream the sky is falling...
Sure anything which gives the corpporates another whip to flog workers with is a bad thing. But let's challenge and spend time worrying about realities rather than what ifs...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
that's not childlike, it's just stupid.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Other people on this thread have said that employers do behave in the way described. So given that 'evidence' it seems reasonable not to give them extra ammunition. Not 'childish' or stupid but sensible and proportionate.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Hollis
bloody furious
Yeah - but you still have to declare if you have any criminal convictions etc on many application forms - tick box usually. How much discrimination goes on at that stage.. That's one of the many problems with the current system
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Yeah, but if the job doesn't require a CRB check, they have no way of verifying one way or the other.
Hollis
bloody furious
Well, yes - if the job doesn't require a CRB check.
But for the many jobs that do, or which employers mistakenly think do, then the application form will often ask you to declare any convictions/cautions at that stage through a tick box. Assuming that you are honest, then you will tick the appropriate box. In the abscence of any guidance, is is possible that discrimination will occur at that stage, because a shortlister sees you have 'history' without having a clue what it is, or whether or not it is relevant to the job in question.
But for the many jobs that do, or which employers mistakenly think do, then the application form will often ask you to declare any convictions/cautions at that stage through a tick box. Assuming that you are honest, then you will tick the appropriate box. In the abscence of any guidance, is is possible that discrimination will occur at that stage, because a shortlister sees you have 'history' without having a clue what it is, or whether or not it is relevant to the job in question.
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
As I mentioned earlier in the thread I have to strategies...if they can't check, I lie. If they can I hope they are enlightened enough we can chat about it at interview.
Hollis
bloody furious
Yes - and my point is that you may not get a chance to chat about it, because you may not get a chance to chat about it, and if you've lied earlier in the process that will count against you. I think simply not ticking either box may be an option though...
But i think the broader point is that getting a criminal record may not make you unemployable, however it makes it alot more difficult to get certain jobs with certain employers through discrimination and badly thought out employment vetting practices.
But i think the broader point is that getting a criminal record may not make you unemployable, however it makes it alot more difficult to get certain jobs with certain employers through discrimination and badly thought out employment vetting practices.
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
I'm only going on my own experiences...generally organisations that have the tick box and can do a CRB are a little bit more enlightened.
They lying was only for shit agency jobs where they can't check and if at some point in the future they do find a way of finding out, I'm not that fussed as it was only for temp work.
Hollis
bloody furious
Good statement from Nacro
Nacro’s reaction to the Court of Appeal ruling on criminal record checks
30-01-2013
In response to the court ruling “T v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester”, Paul McDowell, Nacro’s chief executive, said:
‘For Nacro, this isn’t just about human rights, it’s about enabling people to make a positive contribution to society. We need to allow people who may have committed minor offences in the past, but have moved on from offending to be able to make a positive contribution to society.
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that the way the criminal records system operates is unlawful. Currently, when employers apply for Standard or Enhanced Disclosures, the entire criminal history of that candidate is disclosed to the employer. This frequently includes very minor offences that took place many years ago. As a result, employers often discriminate against these candidates and prevent them from accessing education and employment opportunities due to their minor and irrelevant criminal histories.
‘This ruling calls on the Government to develop a more sensible approach to disclosing criminal records to employers. Where a conviction is serious and relevant to a job, of course the employer should be notified and able to take the conviction into account, and in some cases the candidate may not be suitable for the role. However, what is not appropriate, and continues to present a disproportionate barrier to people who have committed minor offences, is the blanket disclosure of all offences to employers and the resulting discrimination against all candidates with a criminal history.
‘This ruling is a welcome step in the right direction for an issue Nacro has campaigned on for many years. Nacro’s Resettlement Advice Service receives thousands of calls each year from people who have been unfairly treated by employers and are subsequently prevented from moving on with their lives and leaving their past mistakes behind them.’
http://www.nacro.org.uk/in-the-news...uling-on-criminal-record-checks,1576,NAP.html
Nacro’s reaction to the Court of Appeal ruling on criminal record checks
30-01-2013
In response to the court ruling “T v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester”, Paul McDowell, Nacro’s chief executive, said:
‘For Nacro, this isn’t just about human rights, it’s about enabling people to make a positive contribution to society. We need to allow people who may have committed minor offences in the past, but have moved on from offending to be able to make a positive contribution to society.
‘The Court of Appeal has ruled that the way the criminal records system operates is unlawful. Currently, when employers apply for Standard or Enhanced Disclosures, the entire criminal history of that candidate is disclosed to the employer. This frequently includes very minor offences that took place many years ago. As a result, employers often discriminate against these candidates and prevent them from accessing education and employment opportunities due to their minor and irrelevant criminal histories.
‘This ruling calls on the Government to develop a more sensible approach to disclosing criminal records to employers. Where a conviction is serious and relevant to a job, of course the employer should be notified and able to take the conviction into account, and in some cases the candidate may not be suitable for the role. However, what is not appropriate, and continues to present a disproportionate barrier to people who have committed minor offences, is the blanket disclosure of all offences to employers and the resulting discrimination against all candidates with a criminal history.
‘This ruling is a welcome step in the right direction for an issue Nacro has campaigned on for many years. Nacro’s Resettlement Advice Service receives thousands of calls each year from people who have been unfairly treated by employers and are subsequently prevented from moving on with their lives and leaving their past mistakes behind them.’
http://www.nacro.org.uk/in-the-news...uling-on-criminal-record-checks,1576,NAP.html
Similar threads
