Enhanced CRB check - concerned

[postggj]

no matter how much you look at this to many employers are using an enhanced CRB check, when all that's needed is a basic one which would exclude things like spent convictions

 

an enhanced CRB should only be used where their employment prospect requires it, not routine

 

the whole idea of the rehabilitation of offenders act was to deal with issues of a minor transgression in ones youth having a severe impact on future opportunities.

 

why even now have the rehabilitation of offenders act at all now as its been made all but redundant, along with those who it was suppose to protect

[SNALF]

It's actually unlawful to apply a CRB as an employment check to a job that doesn't warrant it. There is a list on the CRB website for jobs which are exempt from the law and all other requests should be challenged. The exception is agencies if they could post a candidate to an assignment which comes into the exemption category so they can apply as a 'just in case'. Other employers cannot.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This is getting out of all propotion I thing the possibility of the matters the OP has mentioned would not warrant an entry on the CRB., no offnces were reported.

[SNALF]

Yes absolutely right Brigadier, I think the thread has diverted into the general vagaries of the checking system itself rather than the specific enquiry.

[feelinglow]

Sorry for asking I know the thread is a few months old but 'East7.. Did you get the job !!!!! lol

 

Regards

[East7]

Sorry for asking I know the thread is a few months old but 'East7.. Did you get the job !!!!! lol

 

Regards

 

Yes I did and my CRB came back clear

[transient]

Yes I did and my CRB came back clear

Are you sure?

[feelinglow]

Good good congrats

[CRblogger]

Yes I did and my CRB came back clear

 

Well done. As did mine - last time, but it only takes a single allegation and in some forces you might acquire a criminal record for enhanced disclosure even though you're never even interviewed. A ticking time bomb.

 

They changed the system 17 June, got rid of SOME of the procedural abuses, but the content problem remains - 5 million false or misleading records according to the Home Office's own statistics. Read it and weep: futureintelligence web site, do a search on fcrb evidence.

[citizenB]

This is the link to future Intellegence website: http://www.futureintelligence.co.uk/

 

 

and as this is to do with CRB this PDF - Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks (previously CRB checks), a guide from GOV.UK for info:

 

 

Here you go..

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46303[/ATTACH]

Edited September 8, 2013 by citizenB

[CRblogger]

(can't open - is that me or you?)

[citizenB]

try the link now, I have reinstated the link - it might have broken when I copied it over.

[CRblogger]

try the link now, I have reinstated the link - it might have broken when I copied it over.

 

Indeed. Two interesting bits:

"You can’t do a criminal records check on yourself."

 

That seems wrong as the DPA ought to have displaced anything they can rely on in Police Act 1997 via the doctrine of implied repeal (unless they rely on something later). In any event Police Act 1997 is incompatible with article 8 (and maybe article 6 in respect of enhanced disclosure if anyone runs it). Unless CRB/DBS is now a source of English law overriding Parliament and the Convention. (unless they rely on that other source of law, that private club ACPO)

 

"As above - plus any additional information held locally by

police forces that’s reasonably considered relevant to the

post applied for"

 

This seems (more or less) paraphrased from he relevant bit of Police Act 1997 as amended. See BazzaS' post above. No point using the "Independent Monitor". Four parties involved in that little discussion, so opacity rules, plus that would mean a good 1-2 years' unemployment... litigation is faster.

 

The essential bit surely is "reasonably" (which is taken from the statute). Which could be fun. Hypothesis: all you have to do is engage them in litigation pleading "reasonably" as a live issue, and they can't make further disclosures until judgment, because what is "reasonable" in law is what a Court considers to be reasonable as a fact, and the Secretary of State cannot ever be a tribunal of fact. So they're immediately placed in an untenable position (caveat: I don't know if this general position on reasonability has been tested yet but if nobody researches the point by the end of the week I will).

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

You can send SAR to any police force, larger police stations (Divisional/district station have a leaflet to explain the process).