CRB Disclosure

[bluebottle]

Re: CRB Disclosure

Some really good points have been made and in my view, very open minded. I cannot go to deep into this as still on going and more information coming out all the time. What has really got to me, is the misuse of the rehabilitation act. When an offence that has no bearing on the safeguarding of children is used to imply that a person is unsuitable to work with children, this to me is totally wrong. I fully agree that disclosure of an offence is the best course but I also believe that you should only be forthcoming when asked directly. At the interview, the subject was never asked and in all honesty, the last thing on my mind as so long past, did not see the relevance after. When I ticked the yes box, I told the secretary as already stated, when asked about it then, told her details as nothing to hide. Over the coming months spoke to all senior members of staff about it and a number of staff who asked. Added to this, that a number already knew before I started work, as they were family friends. The reason given for the dismissal was a long time coming and it stated that the offence was different from what I had stated. This then raises questions as to who is telling the truth. If I did not disclose it, how could I then tell them something different? The answer lies in another added offence that did not appear on the CRB. As I stated in an earlier post, people like to listen to stories of prison life but don't really listen to details of the offence. I told numerous staff the full details but I doubt anyone fully understood anything of what I was telling them. All I know is that I was excellent at my job and made a big difference, my offence had no bearing on my position or my work. I am a self litigant who has started to fight for my rights and others and can honestly say its been an eye opener and rewarding so far.

You are aware that Capita runs the Criminal Records Bureau on behalf of the Home Office? With Capita's reputation for cocking things up, they have made grave errors in the past that have wrecked people's lives and then refused to accept responsibility, even though they have been clearly shown to be at fault. Do not rule-out Capita having made errors. Check.

[labman]

Re: CRB Disclosure

You are aware that Capita runs the Criminal Records Bureau on behalf of the Home Office? With Capita's reputation for cocking things up, they have made grave errors in the past that have wrecked people's lives and then refused to accept responsibility, even though they have been clearly shown to be at fault. Do not rule-out Capita having made errors. Check.

Such as this small error?

http://www.computerweekly.com/featur...sential-system

[basa48]

Re: CRB Disclosure

The reason most employers ask for a Criminal Disclosure is so as to determine "is this a person I would be happy to employ and have access to my companies workplace and resources". It doesn't necessarily have to do with suitability to work with children and vulnerable people. The fact this was employment in a school would automatically attract an Enhanced Disclosure.

The second thing is that prior to a 2 year period of employment there is no protection against 'unfair' dismissal. Assuming there was a 'probation' period (even if they didn't tell you there was one) I would expect they could dismiss you without a second thought on the grounds you weren't suitable for whatever reason they could think of.

[smileyculture]

Re: CRB Disclosure

You have hit the nail on the head and that it what I am fighting for. I was more than happy for an enhanced CRB as I had nothing to hide, the offence was the only one and a long while ago, it was behind me. I had paid the price in more ways than one. But it is far to easy now for employers to sack someone at will, but I believe everyone has rights. In my case, the people that employed me were more than happy and even fought after the dismissal. It was a faceless person who only looked at the CRB and had never met me or knew me. The same authority are now coming apart at the seams as more of its senior management are being caught out and exposed for what they really are. They are committing crimes and can resign and never be charged or take a nice pay off with a pension. Not everyone who has committed a crime and paid the price, should be tarnished for the rest of their life.

[bluebottle]

Re: CRB Disclosure

Such as this small error?

http://www.computerweekly.com/featur...sential-system

The grave errors that Capita made was alleging that five men were paedophiles. When an investigation was carried out, it was found they had not conducted proper checks or double-checked details. Capita's response when challenged about their mistakes? "We were almost right." Yeah. Try telling that to the five men who lives they totally wrecked, resulting in the loss of their homes, jobs, families and reputations, and refused to pay them any compensation or correct the grave errors they made.

Screening would have been better carried out by the Criminal Records Office (CRO) which is staffed by publicly-accountable civil servants, not outsourced to a private-sector company with a history of incompetence.

[smileyculture]

Re: CRB Disclosure

I am afraid bluebottle is to close for comfort on just what can happen, I was rumoured to be the same as above, because they went about the dismissal the totally wrong way and let gossip run wild. There is nothing worse than being branded something you are a million miles away from. For those that are weak, it can have grave consequence's, in extreme cases. I have a letter where it states, I was accompanied whist in the company of children for safeguarding issues. It made my blood run cold, this was just prior to being dismissed.

[bluebottle]

Re: CRB Disclosure

I am afraid bluebottle is to close for comfort on just what can happen, I was rumoured to be the same as above, because they went about the dismissal the totally wrong way and let gossip run wild. There is nothing worse than being branded something you are a million miles away from. For those that are weak, it can have grave consequence's, in extreme cases. I have a letter where it states, I was accompanied whist in the company of children for safeguarding issues. It made my blood run cold, this was just prior to being dismissed.

In the case of those five men, it did happen and I have no doubt errors have been made in other cases. All it does is add weight to the case and argument to keep the private-sector out of public services. As stated in an earlier post, the legislation that set up the CRB has been abused, misused and "misinterpreted" by employers. Unless there is a genuine need to know if a person has a criminal record and it is essential to the job that person would be doing, then, IMHO, an employer should be denied access. As Labman quite rightly says, if a person will be working with children or vulnerable adults, including elders, then a check is essential, regardless of spent convictions.

[labman]

Re: CRB Disclosure

I remember being a Headteacher when they changed over the system. It was an absolute nightmare, as suddenly a whole new load of people had to be CRB checked (probably quite rightly to be fair), but the system couldn't cope with it, and we were faced with waits over over a whole school term to get results for new staff. It was then that they made a short term, temporary exception to state the staff could have access to the children as long as the Headteacher was happy. This was a ridiculous responsibility to put on Heads, though equally I've been known to ask a CRB'd supply teacher to leave after just one lesson because he gave myself and other staff the creeps. Several children from the class also felt uncomfortable with him. He may have been genuine, who knows? I knew I was not prepared to put them at any risk at all.

While I sympathise with the OP here, and I'm sure you've paid the price in more ways than one, the fact remains you committed a crime for which the sentence means it is never 'spent.' The sad fact of life is that once a rumour gets out about something, it very quickly gets twisted into something far from the truth. You don't have to have committed a crime to know that!

On a positive note, you've gone on and got qualifications in an area which means you should have no problem gaining employment and put the past behind you. You have to accept that due to the sentencing it will never be totally behind you, but there is no reason why it should plague you for the rest of your life, and I hope sincerely it doesn't.

[smileyculture]

Re: CRB Disclosure

I just have to add that I 100% agree that everyone should be have an enhanced CRB, when working in the education system, its how the results are used I have the biggest problem with. Thank you all for such free thinking posts.

[bluebottle]

Re: CRB Disclosure

I feel that Labman and Smileyculture have highlighted anomalies in the system that is currently in operation. As I stated previously, the legislation needs revisiting and revising.

[smileyculture]

Re: CRB Disclosure

Another question, the new Disclosure & Barring Service state, "it is a requirement that all registered bodies must treat DBS applicants who have a criminal record fairly and do not discriminate because of a conviction or other information revealed" So the question is, if they do discriminate, could you not take them to court for discrimination?

[labman]

Re: CRB Disclosure

You could, but you would have to prove your case. That might prove extremely difficult. That is NOT saying you have been treated fairly, but the fact is they could come up with a myriad of reasons for dismissing you which are nothing to do with your past.

Fair? No

Realistic? Yes. :beagle:

[charitynjw]

Re: CRB Disclosure

Another question, the new Disclosure & Barring Service state, "it is a requirement that all registered bodies must treat DBS applicants who have a criminal record fairly and do not discriminate because of a conviction or other information revealed" So the question is, if they do discriminate, could you not take them to court for discrimination?

Only if was due to discrimination as regards a 'protected characteristic'

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-yo...discrimination

1. Types of discrimination

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

• age
• being or becoming a transsexual person
• being married or in a civil partnership
• being pregnant or having a child
• disability
• race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
• religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

These are called ‘protected characteristics’.
You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

• at work
• in education
• as a consumer
• when using public services
• when buying or renting property
• as a member or guest of a private club or association

You are legally protected from discrimination by the Equality Act 2010.
You’re also protected from discrimination if:

• you’re associated with someone who has a protected characteristic, eg a family member or friend
• you’ve complained about discrimination or supported someone else’s claim

Action against discrimination

You can do something voluntarily to help people with a protected characteristic. This is called ‘positive action’.
Taking positive action is legal if people with a protected characteristic:

• are at a disadvantage
• have particular needs
• are under-represented in an activity or type of work

[smileyculture]

Re: CRB Disclosure

That is not how I see discrimination, the wording clearly does not include protected characters, it says, all registered bodies must treat DBS applicants who have a criminal record fairly and do not discriminate because of a conviction or other information revealed. Why does no one argue what discrimination really means?

[wales01man]

Re: CRB Disclosure

As I see it if an employer does not take someone on why do they have to give a reason if they were to say its because the person is Black,gay disabled etc that's discrimination no discrimination if they think someone else is more suited to the job whats the problem there?