Judges rule CRB checks 'incompatible' with Human Rights Act...

Yet again, our illustrious judiciary show what knobs they are.

Quite frankly m'lud, you're a tool and should shut the fook up.
 
I believe the case arose from a 21 yr old lad who applied for a job, he had an interview etc but when his VRB came back it showed a conviction he had at the age of 11 which he had not disclosed.

I do think that some common sense needs to be applied and i also feel that for many minor offences that after x amount of time they should never appear on a persons criminal checks and their slate should be wiped clean.

Is it right that so many women for instance have criminal records because they were fined and many jailed for not paying the Jimmy Saville Fees also known as the TV Licence for the BBC to waste funds on whatever they want? and then for them to be overlooked in job applications because of this?

We need a radical overhall of the judiciary and criminal law in this country.

If someone does serious crimes we should stamp down severely on them, but the way the system has evolved, we stamp down the hardest on people who make minor mistakes and seam to ignore persistant offenders and those who cause serious crme.
 
If someone does serious crimes we should stamp down severely on them, but the way the system has evolved, we stamp down the hardest on people who make minor mistakes and seam to ignore persistant offenders and those who cause serious crme.

Very true.
 
Blanket criminal records checks are not "compatible" with a key part of the Human Rights Act, the Court of Appeal has concluded.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with that statement and see absolutely nothing wrong with this decision. The case was only brought because successive governments have been ignoring something that should have been fixed yonks ago.

What the heck is it relevant that at the age of 11 some kid received a caution?
 
rhea said:
Couldn't agree more with that statement and see absolutely nothing wrong with this decision. The case was only brought because successive governments have been ignoring something that should have been fixed yonks ago.

What the heck is it relevant that at the age of 11 some kid received a caution?
Click to expand...
and you'll probably find that the person denying them the job fiddles their taxes, "acquires" stuff from work, speeds, drives whilst over the limit and has exaggerated an insurance claim or two. Yet they will condemn someone else often just for getting arrested or for some ancient caution.

What seems rather mad is that an enhanced CRB can include anything on police files, even intelligence that you might not even be aware of, and yet a prospective employer can find out about it. Also, it is the employer that decides whether a job requires an enhanced CRB, not the police.
 
littlewoman said:
and you'll probably find that the person denying them the job fiddles their taxes, "acquires" stuff from work, speeds, drives whilst over the limit and has exaggerated an insurance claim or two. Yet they will condemn someone else often just for getting arrested or for some ancient caution.
Click to expand...
Wow....I bet you get the Daily Mail delivered every morning as well:)

littlewoman said:
What seems rather mad is that an enhanced CRB can include anything on police files, even intelligence that you might not even be aware of, and yet a prospective employer can find out about it. Also, it is the employer that decides whether a job requires an enhanced CRB, not the police.
Click to expand...
Yes but the Police decide what information if any to pass on to the employer.
 
rhea said:
Wow....I bet you get the Daily Mail delivered every morning as well:)

Yes but the Police decide what information if any to pass on to the employer.
Click to expand...
I have never bought the Daily Mail or similar rag. I may be exaggerating but it is the sort of attitudes I've seen from employers that I've worked for.
Whilst the police decide what info to hand over, but I have been told by police that the is a tendency for arse covering. ie. they are concerned that if they don't disclose something then the person commits an offence they will get the blame. So they play on the safe side towards disclosure rather than privacy. It should be simple, no caution or conviction then nothing gets disclosed. Its ludicrous that someone might be prevented from getting a job due to malicious allegations that can't be proven either way.
 
I think background checks are important but that being said what happended in the past as perhaps a "silly mistake" made in your youth, shouldnt hold you back in later life. Its where the balance is struck that is floundering, some people see a "mistake" from years back as a permanant black mark and they hold it against you. There needs to be a sensible attitude towards disclosure of previous offences. But at the same time the Human Rights of those coming into contact with ex offenders has also to be considered!
Hey what do I know? if I knew the answer i'd probably have a much better job etc etc but thats just my opinion
 
Back
Top