The CRB checks were a classic example of petrified politicians being seen to do “something” because of one horrible crime – even if that something was particularly useless and even detrimental to natural justice. And so the CRB checks have consistently proved, with mistaken identities denying people jobs because they came up with a criminal record that wasn’t theirs and not least because the CRB system does not identify a potential risk who has not been caught and convicted.
This dreadful system is now facing a challenge.
The government is to seek leave to appeal against a court ruling that the law which requires people to disclose all previous convictions to certain employers is a breach of human rights.
The Court of Appeal ruling could mean job applicants in England and Wales do not have to disclose all criminal records when applying for certain jobs.
Despite the obvious common sense of the Appeal Court’s ruling, the government is determined to press ahead with this system. A system that ignores the basic principles of the rehabilitation of offenders and a system that means a minor indiscretion committed in youth hangs over a person’ head for the rest of their lives and it is this aspect that led to the ruling.
I mean, just how, exactly does a caution for the theft of a couple of bicycles when aged 11 mean that the individual is a threat to children several years later?
I can give a personal example of this injustice. Some years ago I was involved with coaching trainee driving instructors. This was at the time when the CRB check was being introduced for that profession. One candidate was rejected because he was apparently a sex offender. In reality, what had happened was this: On his eighteenth birthday he went out to celebrate with his mates. Well lubricated, he then flashed at a WPC. He was arrested and charged, subsequently accepting a police caution. So an offence that could and should have been dealt with by a night in the cells was treated as a heinous crime and one that will haunt him for the rest of his life. A minor incident that he thought was now long past him, nearly two decades later prevented him from pursuing his chosen career and indeed any career that involves contact with children or vulnerable adults.
That this system is evil, is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense.
Mike Pemberton, the solicitor who represented T, told BBC Radio 5 Live: “This is a case where human rights equals common sense.”
“You can’t argue that something you did when you were 11 years old will blight you for the rest of your life.”
Quite so (although our wicked government will do just that) and especially when that caution had absolutely nothing to do with children (apart from the offender being one at the time) or that there is any indication that he was, is or will be a risk to children.
But a government spokesman said: “The protection of children and vulnerable groups must not be compromised. We are disappointed by this judgement and are seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Fucking idiot.
The citadel really fell when they made the tea-ladies at cricket matches submit to CRB checking. Just how crazy can you get?
“I mean, just how, exactly does a caution for the theft of a couple of bicycles when aged 11 mean that the individual is a threat to children several years later?”
I’m not sure that arguing about the details helps, any more than demanding that
certain identity groups should be exempted.
If a policy is illiberal, that’s it – full stop. That’s what should be argued. Saying ‘Oh, in this case it’s clearly wrong’ gives them room to tinker, when what’s needed is to cut the whole thing up.
Oh, I disagree. Civil libertarians will argue that a policy is illiberal and be met with such facile platitudes as “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” or “if it saves only one life…”
An example such as this demonstrates even to the hard of thinking why it is illiberal. Bear in mind that I am not arguing for any exemptions – I want the whole thing demolished in its entirely. This case is a chink in the armour, so is a good thing.
Then the thing to do is to show why those are facile platitudes. Not to allow for salami-slicing and dickering over definitions.
I agree. And this case does just that. Perfectly, in my opinion as it gives context to the problem. The more cases of long spent petty crime committed as a juvenile result in a failed CRB check, the more grist to the mill for us.
“if it saves only one life…”
Next time someone tries to fob you off with that line, point out that banning all road vehicles and closing all level crossings would save thousands of lives every single year. Guaranteed. No “ifs”, no “buts”.
It’s amazing how blind we are to some sources of death, while open to far lesser “issues”. CRB checks are a sledgehammer being used to crack a few, very tiny, nuts.
Security checks aren’t new: try working for a military contractor sometime and see how far you get without a security clearance. If a particular business or industry requires checks for *specific* types of crime, I have no problem with this, as long as it’s the business doing the checking, not the government *imposing* such checks, regardless of actual need.
Baboom tish! Precisely.
Longrider: h, I disagree. Civil libertarians will argue that a policy is illiberal and be met with such facile platitudes as “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” or “if it saves only one life…”
Ah, but what about in particularly specific circumstances – so we’re not talking about, say, being a supermarket cashier, helping out with the tea at the cricket club or instances where people don’t have contact in private areas with children or vulnerable adults – such as people working in retirement homes, or with disabled children, and so on? There does, I think, need to be some sort of checking system so the nasties don’t end up being able to offend again.
The CRB thing is nought but a money making racket brought in by the last Labour govt. I’m involved with the ATC (air cadets) where we have the ludicrous situation of having to have cadets CRB checked just before their 18th birthday. If they fail to fill the form in or return it on time we have to suspend the cadet from squadron until his/her CRB clearance comes through. These are kids who have been with us since age 13 so I think we’d know whether or not they’re bad ‘uns by the time they get to 18. Oh, and it costs the MOD £64 per application.
Henry Crun’s comment exposes even more of the absurdity of CRB checks claiming to Protect Children. Presumably at 17 years, 364 days cadets needs to be protected. At 18 years, 0 days Children need to be protected from them. A paedophile who has never been caught because they have successfully tyrannised their child victim(s) – most likely a family member – into silence will never be touched by this. But that would be involve too much hard thinking for our lazy, ignorant ruling classes to resolve.
Ha, that’s not the best bit.
Assume two Air Cadets are going steady, possibly even shagging each other (let’s assume they are over 16 so we don’t complicate things …) They are not precisely the same age. On the eldest’s 18th birthday, assuming they stay and become a Staff Cadet, they are now bound by the usual paranoid rules about “adults” having relationships with “children”.
CRB – a most vital arm in the PTB’s weaponry against the ordinary citizen.
I mean, just how, exactly does a caution for the theft of a couple of bicycles when aged 11 mean that the individual is a threat to children several years later?
Can’t answer that since I’m not seeing that claimed anywhere in the original article.
“You can’t argue that something you did when you were 11 years old will blight you for the rest of your life.”
Not seeing anywhere in that article where it states “Mr T” was refused employment on those grounds, either.
It’s also not clear whether that information was revealed ONLY as a result of an enhanced CRB check or lesser scrutiny would have sufficed. Regardless I’ll hazard a guess this challenge stems from the fact that he was just plain embarrassed and didn’t particularly want anyone to know which is a LONG way from the obviously justifiable exposure of a paedophile, rapist or murderer.
A Criminal Record is just that, a recording of facts. Someone, somewhere decided that you broke The Law, got caught and (OMG) you were actually dealt with. Whether YOU think you did anything wrong… or even deserve the “punishment”… is besides the point.
I think it right that records are kept and revealed on request then it’s down to an employer to decide for themselves whether THEY think it was wrong and what effect it will have, if any , on their employees ability to do the job they’re being paid for. It’s not as if stealing a bike as a kid is something The Omnipresent State has decreed is a total and utter bar to any and all employment. Only that an employer has a right to know about it.
It’s all moot anyway. On her Civil Service CV my sister can claim a brief stint in the CRB and the fact that many employers (especially councils) are wilfully ignoring the information that checks reveal…sometimes utterly regardless of the danger to the public… and that was a major deciding factor in her leaving.
The system is broken but imho that’s not good enough reason to abolish it altogether. Fix it. 😐
Er, yes, it is. An enhanced check was required because T might have had to work with children.
A decade old caution over stolen bicycles is not an indication of a risk in this regard.
Er, that’s precisely what happened. Believing the cautions to be spent, he didn’t disclose them and was refused the job. A decade old caution was revived following an enhanced check because he might come into contact with children. Not only were his cautions irrelevant, it makes a mockery of the rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which deems convictions as being spent following a given period of time without re-offending.
No one is saying otherwise, however, once spent, it should stay spent. To continue to punish someone for the rest of their lives, which this system does, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is disproportionate.
No, they don’t. An indiscretion as a child is irrelevant years or decades later. The following ten years mean nothing otherwise. Unless the offence is recent (i.e. not spent) and relevant, it is none of the employer’s bloody business – which is the decision the Court of Appeal rightly came to.
No. Abolish it. It serves no useful purpose and does more harm than good. It is deeply, utterly illiberal and typical of the repugnant politicians who dreamed it up.
How can we ‘fix it’? By it’s very nature it’s broken, in that it can’t do the job expected of it…
The job expected of it was to provide prospective employers with information they may deem necessary to know in relation to the job they are offering. Criminals may be considered a risky proposition to some employers so in that regard it makes sense.
That it’s remit was extended to “protecting children and the vulnerable”…whoever they are officially deemed to be…and with an assumed express guarantee that it definitely do so at all times is where it’s gone tits up.
The CRB could only ever even attempt to do so with full disclosure of ALL records and providing people acted appropriately with the information given. In Criminal matters we didn’t want half-measures so why expect them now ? I can’t see how it can be anything but All Or Nothing here.
The System didn’t fail, people did. Not least in that they’ve (apparently) depended on it and foregone Personal Responsibility.
“Not my fault, guv, it’s the system !”
The system is designed to fail. On the one hand, it will not do the job it was set up for; identify a risk to children and vulnerable adults as a kiddie fiddler who has never been caught won’t show up as we discovered recently with the school caretaker who was convicted a few weeks ago. On the other hand, it dredges up petty stuff that no one needs to know about because they are in the distant past and irrelevant to the employment being sought. And on the third, piss-poor data management has seen perfectly innocent people refused work because a CRB check wrongly identified criminal convictions that belonged to other people. It is deeply corrupt both in practice and principle.
And it discriminates against our citizens and gives unearned privileges to foreigners, who might well be prolific criminals or (have severe suspicions raised about them) in their own country but, ah, of course, that won’t show up on the records because many EU immigrants would laugh at the idea of a similar CRB system in their own countries.
LR – Hang on a mo…just to sum up the various bits up to your last post so I don’t get lost…
LR: I mean, just how, exactly does a caution for the theft of a couple of bicycles when aged 11 mean that the individual is a threat to children several years later?
Tatty: Can’t answer that since I’m not seeing that claimed anywhere in the original article.
LR: Er, yes, it is.
No, it isn’t and I’ve looked twice now, honest. Nowhere in that BBC article is it stated that “MR T” did not get the job…for any reason whatsoever. For all I know he could have got the job and he’s just pissed off his employers found out something he didn’t want them to know. I’m really not seeing the cruel, unusual and disproportionate punishment angle here, at all.
What IS stated is that an enhanced check was required and the information it revealed and conclusions on all sides are being drawn from that.
Chuck in that Rent-A-Right organisation Liberty with the HRA clutched in their hot little sweaty hands… on the grounds an employer shouldn’t have even been looking… and they’ve cobbled together a pretty nasty squabble that will affect us all. Not “could” or “may” but “will” such is the UK’s slavish devotion to all rulings EU.
Call me picky but I’d like to be sure of exactly what the problem is before anyone goes dismantling anything. If the problem is, as you say, LR: A decade old caution over stolen bicycles is not an indication of a risk in this regard (meaning: to children). then yes, I’d agree that is a problem but one that can and should fairly easily be fixed.
As for whether such a caution is relevant….I don’t suppose it even occurred to anyone in the midst of this squabble that employers don’t want to employ thieves. I mean, who knew ? Does anyone have the right to force them to without…at the very least…knowing a prospective employee has stolen in the past? Why is the paid employment of such a person not their decision alone to make ? Is that not “illiberal” ? Maybe I just don’t get the concept when it only works one way.
Thing is, IF we are truly to believe that Mr T was refused the job…and purely on the grounds he stole a bicycle when he was a kid…and perhaps even maybe because he did not disclose that himself…. then clearly it’s not The System that punishes people.
No, it’s how people act on the information disclosed by the system. Which, I’m assuming, just might be a bit harder to legislate for… from a liberal point of view.
Then you ain’t reading it properly:
That quote is claiming precisely what I said it is; that a minor offence committed a decade previously is preventing him from working with children and vulnerable adults – because he is showing up on a CRB check. Not only did he not get the part time job with the football club, the problem cropped up later when he applied for a university course for sports studies. It took the intervention of his solicitor to allow him to proceed with the course, but the same reasons were cited; he may be a risk to children because he had shown up on an enhanced CRB check and sports studies means that at some point he may be teaching children or vulnerable adults. A caution for stealing bikes has fuck all to do with being a risk to children, yet this man’s life is being blighted by it. The second case considered by the court involved a woman who was convicted of shoplifting. Again, a petty crime around a decade previously that had nothing to do with the planned work she was applying for, but a CRB check threw it up anyway and she didn’t get the job. From the judgement:
I’m sorry!?! When did nicking a packet of false fingernails become a risk to children or vulnerable adults?
It is the system that is at fault here, because the system should not be picking minor, irrelevant, spent convictions.
As for employing thieves – people can and do reform. That’s the whole point of the rehabilitation of offenders. T was a thief at eleven years old. At 21, there is no more evidence of him being a thief than there is for you or I. JB was convicted of the theft of a packet of false fingernails ten years previously with no recurrence. The convictions should have been spent. At one time, that would have been the case. These days, it regurgitates every time these people try for a job in their chosen area of work. This is clearly unjust and it is continuing to punish them multiple times over for these crimes. They are not allowed to leave them behind. Damned right it is cruel and unusual punishment. Slinging ad homs at Liberty doesn’t change that. Liberty is right.
Of course potential employers will assume the worst and behave accordingly. This is entirely foreseeable and many of us saw this coming when the system was first proposed. All we are seeing now is an inevitable outcome. People’s lives blighted by foolish behaviour conducted at a time when they were not expected to consider the long term consequences. The system is wrong. The system is immoral. The system needs to go. That is the best way of legislating for a liberal outcome.
LR – Then you ain’t reading it properly:
Yep, I bloody well am, you cheeky sod ! (Note the exclamation mark denoting a playful ad hominem…) Please, do copy and paste verbatim any text that definitively states “Mr T was refused the job on the sole grounds that stealing a bike when he was a kid means he is a threat to children”.
Despite it’s repetition…”Requesting an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC) because he might be required to work with children”…evidently doesn’t.
I’ll grant that the BBC article’s style of fragmented, disjointed and re-cobbled reporting style implies, infers, suggests and would like you very much to believe it was but I just don’t and so that’s where you and I part company.
Liberty taking this particular issue, running with it and stretching it to the extent that they want to stop employers even looking at such recorded details… and utterly regardless of what they do or don’t do about it…assumes facts not in evidence and is wrong. My remark concerning them is therefore not ad hominem and I am most definitely critisizing their arguement whilst respectfully disagreeing with yours.
At the very least the CRB is the “official” and “legally regulated” record and can be called into question, challenged in court, countered or explained. I consider that a plus even if this challenge is as half-arsed as the system itself.
Just updating ‘cos I missed this bit sorry…To continue to punish someone for the rest of their lives, which this system does, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is disproportionate.
Depending on a reasonable definition of “punishment” then yeah but only IF they actually are being punished. Someone else finding out… especially if no action is taken as a direct result… isn’t quite the same thing.
I’ll concede it is an easy assumption to make that action was taken…as in not getting the job because of it… but I’d still like it proven before anything official rains down on us all.
The quoted text clearly stated why he was refused employment – he had two police cautions for stealing bicycles when he was eleven years old.
Yes, it does. It says precisely that. The killer phrase is “work with children”. Nicking a couple of bikes ten years ago has bugger all to do with working with children. The job he was applying for was with a football club and the reason he was refused was because of his cautions. The caution was entirely unrelated to the type of work he was applying for. I realise that the BBC article isn’t as well worded as it could be, but the salient facts are all there. What isn’t there, but is in the linked judgement, is that he was initially refused acceptance on a university course due to the same cautions and for the same reasons; risk to children, and only intervention from his solicitor caused them to rethink. Now, you might not want to believe the BBC, but I certainly believe the court’s version of events as stated in the judgement. The facts are very, very clear here.
There is no need to define punishment. A caution is punishment in law. To be denied employment years later is another punishment for the same crime. T has now had this happen to him on two occasions – that is repeated punishment. He has paid his debt and that should be an end to the matter. That is the whole point of rehabilitation of offenders – you know, giving them the opportunity to become useful members of society. They can’t do that if old, spent convictions follow them about like a bad smell. Liberty is absolutely correct, it is an infringement on the right to a private life. They should be entitled to keep it to themselves. The only time an employer should be entitled to look at convictions is if they are relevant and unspent.
LR – That single quoted statement states ONLY what is written. I take it to mean precisely what it actually says, no more and no less. What it means or might mean is something else entirely and clearly a matter of opinion.
“Nicking a couple of bikes ten years ago has bugger all to do with working with children.
True but that wasn’t the reason the check was performed and couldn’t have been known until after the event and since you state…
“The job he was applying for was with a football club and the reason he was refused was because of his cautions.”
….then it wasn’t the reason he didn’t get the job, either.
The matter of receiving a caution, what it was for and whether that is reason to deny employment is actually three seperate issues. Even if one does lead to a belief in the other and lend a plausible conclusion… that nicking a bike when he was a kid is the only reason he didn’t get the job….it just doesn’t make it so. I honestly believe that it is essential to make a very clear distinction between them, not to is at best plain lazy in a court of Law of all places and that it will probably prove very important to do so at some point down the line. Even if it isn’t particularly considered to be important right now and in this case.
“you might not want to believe the BBC” Well, no, since they aren’t actually stating much at all and are instead implying lots.
“but I certainly believe the court’s version of events as stated in the judgement.”
Then for the love of the gods please link me to it that I might even begin to see where you’re coming from.
Right now I don’t and to be honest I’m a little perplexed myself as to precisely why that is.
I’m not sure why this is proving so difficult, given that it is very straightforward as is what I have said. I’ll give it one more go.
I quoted that phrase repeatedly because that is the lynch-pin to the appeal and the reason it was successful. If it wasn’t for this whole “risk to children” nonsense, the cautions would have been undisclosed in accordance with the rehabilitation of offenders act.
There were three appellants, T, JB and AW. AW’s appeal was rejected because the court decided that some offences could not be deemed to be spent due to their serious nature. T and JB were upheld. They were upheld because the CRB checks are an exemption to the rehabilitation of offenders act and therefore undermine it. Both T and JB experienced difficulty obtaining work (and a University place) because they were deemed to be a risk, having criminal convictions. If they weren’t deemed to be a risk, there wouldn’t have been a problem and no judicial review.
You said at one point that it is people not the system at fault here and you have a point up to a point. Employers are people and come with all the associated baggage; they can be prejudiced, risk averse and ill-informed. I suggest you read Unity’s article on this one for more insight into how employers react to the information.
Any system should be designed to overcome the obvious and foreseeable consequences of ignorance, stupidity, prejudice, bigotry and risk averseness. It didn’t. They were told this but went ahead anyway in order to produce a system that was supposed to protect children and vulnerable adults but does nothing of the sort. A classic case of being seen to do something, anything as a consequence of one horrible crime. A classic case of one case making bad law.
The court of appeal recognised this and judged accordingly – that unrelated, spent convictions should not be disclosed as they will adversely affect the applicant when applying for work in this particular area. They used the term “disproportionate” They are right to do so.
As for Liberty, thank goodness we have organisations that are able to help the small guy take on the might of the state. Liberty are on the side of the angels. The Human Rights Act may be flawed and I would rather it wasn’t on the statute book, but its underpinning principles are correct. We do have inalienable rights and the right to privacy is one of them.
As for providing links; I linked to the BBC article. It contains a link to the judgement. I simply followed it and read the judgement, just as I used a search engine to see what other news agencies were saying in order to get a more rounded picture of what went on.
Anyway, I can’t say it any differently, so I’m calling it a day now. If you are still not satisfied, we will have to agree to disagree.
LR – “I’m not sure why this is proving so difficult,
Wellll…perhaps not least because you had more information in mind and to hand when you wrote this post than the BBC article you referenced and that just didn’t “speak” to me the same way it did to you.
I’ll give it one more go.
This is purely debate for me and I’m glad you’re not taking my borderline autism on this subject as some kind of belligerent trolling. Thanks for the indulgence.
Apologies but busy busy busy with two flu-riddled offspring to tend to whilst slowly succumbing to it myself so I’ve to grab internet time as and when I can. I promise so I’ll get reading and digesting on more info that might re-educate me and get back to you later…ta-ra fer now 🙂
Okay, that’s fine – but keep the flu to yourself, please :twisted:.
Ohhhh LR…I tried…I really did…but the court judgement is a blurry mess of if’s but’s maybe’s, assumptions and inconsistencies with few and far between absolutes or facts. I attribute that to both a) such is The Law and b) me developing full blown ‘flu with accompanying bricks in the head.
I’m just not physically capable of going any further than I already have with my reservations on this and ultimately a bit of disagreement ‘twixt me and thee isn’t going to rock the world.
It was never about which of us is wrong or right and so I’m happy to shake (clean !) hands and leave it there. 🙂
XX nearly two decades later prevented him from pursuing his chosen career and indeed any career that involves contact with children or vulnerable adults.XX
What the FUCK has a driving instructor to do with bastards and “vulnerable adults” any way???!!!
Neither of them should be allowed any where NEAR a driving seat.
The DSA made a decision. The DSA operates in mysterious ways, their wonders to behold. Of course driving instructors should not be subject to CRB checks. Indeed, there are very few jobs where such an intrusive process could be arguably necessary. By vulnerable adults, of course, they mean seventeen year-olds and they assume that driving instructors can’t be trusted to keep their hands to themselves. While this might be true on the odd occasion, the vast majority are highly professional and a CRB check on all of them just in case is a gross insult.
Agree about the proffessional bearing of instructors. Same goes for most people in all jobs.
But where did this “17” come into it, all of a sudden?
SIXTEEN is the “legal age”. Anything after that is pure Sexual assault.
This age creep seems to be all over the place.
As an example, supermarkets wanting evidence that a person buying beer or spirits is over 21, when the legal age for buying drink is, as far as I understood it, STILL 18!
Good question, but I’m not sure I can give you an answer as, as you say, it’s all over the place. However, the DSA regard young learners of 17 to be “vulnerable”. In my current role as a motorcycle instructor, I deal with sixteen year-olds and am not subject to a CRB. Not that I want to be tempting fate…
Actually, supermarkets check people who look under 25, such is the absurdity of the paranoia we face.
XX Actually, supermarkets check people who look under 25, XX
A perfect example. Last I saw a report of such, about 2 years ago, it was 21.
As I said “age creep”.
I have chosen to post as anonymous because I have worked with the PNC (and thus the CRB) and I am not supposed to make public anything to do with those systems.
In order to be free of the vicissitudes of the CRB check all you have to do is change your name by deed poll. Use the deed to obtain a new driver’s licence and passport. The DVLA and the Home Office passport issuing office are not connected in any way to the PNC or to the CRB system. The National Insurance system, the HMRC system and the NHS system are in no way cross-referenced to the PNC or the CRB systems either. As the one unchangeable personal identifier is not (yet) required to be given, our unjoined-up Government computer systems give some major cracks to slip through.
No publicity whatsoever has ever been given to the many cases where this and similar loopholes have allowed known CRB record holders to evade the system.
Change your name and you are a ‘New You’, officially you cannot be related to the ‘Old You’.
Those government departments may not be connected (yet) to the PNC / CRB databases, but they are busy trying to connect the dots. I need to renew my photocard driving licence, which you can now do online if you have a recently issued passport. I renewed my passport last year, so I qualify. However, on the site, it says:
“If you apply online you’ll be agreeing that DVLA can check your personal data, including your National Insurance number.
DVLA will confirm your details with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). If DVLA can’t fully verify your identity, you’ll be told what to do at the end of the application.”
Which I found rather intrusive. I can understand the link between the passport office and the DVLA, but the rest seems unnecessary. Rather chillingly I thought, at the top of the page was the statement:
“Apply using your Government Gateway ID. If you don’t have one or need to re-register, you’ll get an ID as part of your application.” (My emphasis.)
Government Gateway ID? Is this ID cards by stealth, with the bits of plastic “for your convenience” to follow once people get used to the idea of a “Gateway ID”?
Although it will be inconvenient for me, my inclination is to apply by post with a new photo rather than have them create a “Government Gateway ID” for me. Sounds like the classic “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” bullshit to me, and I really want no part of it.
I’ve got one of those gateway things for logging onto the self assessment website. It’s just a card with a password on it. I lost the first one and had to get another one when I was doing my self-assessment a couple of years back.
If it is ID cards by stealth, it isn’t very good.
O.K here.
16 for beer, and 18 for spirits. Simple, and effective.
As far as I know (!) there is no political “move” to change that.
“Sexual concent” is a bit more difficult.
16 is legal. (COULD be 14 WHEN they are both the same age.)
16 with 20 “geht einfach nicht!” (Is “Verbotten”)
A kind of “Percentage of age” rule.
It makes it VERY difficult for the Police and the courts to decide what is “underage” and what not.
When BOTH partys are over 21, then “normally” that is O.K.
Younger than that (One party or the other), then you are into the “Philedelphia Lawyer” spectrum.
No-one has yet touched on the devastating effect the whole onerous and expensive CRB legislation has had on the voluntary sector.
Whereas in the past many guys used to give up their Saturday mornings to coach the local under-11 football team (for instance), now they don’t. Dads of the kids involved would take it in turns to ferry the kids to and fro. Now they can’t. When I was at primary school, we had football, rugby and cricket teams, and we’d play other local schools. It was understood that if your kid was in the team, you would be expected (if you had a car – we’re talking the 50s here) to do the occasional taxiing job. Now, all those people who would do those things must have a CRB check, with all it entails.
I used to do lots of ferrying of kids when mine were at school, but I certainly wouldn’t have done if I’d had to subject myself to that kind of expensive intrusion. Anyway, they would have discovered that I got busted for dope in 1969 and told me that I was a danger to kids probably. 😈
Stupid system with almost nothing to recommend it. Scrap it.
Frankly, if it required having a CRB check, I’d walk sooner than submit. Certainly I wouldn’t get involved in any form of voluntary activity that insisted on it. As you say, a stupid system with nothing going for it.
About 5 years ago, my son, then 21, applied for a job with an agency. The job was to process the opening of business accounts for a major bank.
He had a CRB check.
I wonder what would have happened if he’d asked why such a check was being made, as the job had absolutely nothing to do with vulnerable adults or children …………….
It was because it involved money. Any banking job will involve background checks. Usually, though, not as much as a CRB check as this is usually going to be over the top. I applied for similar work some years back and the agency did their own checks – mostly it was a credit check.
Banks are allowed to request standard CRB checks but not, except for roles which actually require contact with kids or vulnerable adults, enhanced. This is basically to ensure that what you put on the obligatory “have you any unspent convictions” box on the application form isn’t complete bollocks. ‘Cause a convicted fraudster trying to get work with a bank isn’t going to put the truth.
I have an idea of a way to ensure that the CRB fiasco is shut down promptly and completely – get the law changed to make it obligatory that all council (especially senior positions), civil servants and MPs require one (after all, in supposingly assisting we plebs in our daily difficulties which we’re too stupid to manage, they are dealing with ‘vulnerable’ persons, are they not?)
A few councillors, civil servants and MPs removed because of unspent convictions/cautions (as well as their being made public and they’ll swiftly act to get rid of it.). Automatic disbarment for an expense induced caution should be the way to go at least.
Hmm, this would work on so many other laws too. Instead of excluding themselves from the consequences of legislation they should be require to be held to exactly the same standards as the rest of us (smoking and drinking in the HOC bar, anyone?)
Dear Mr Longrider
“But a government spokesman said: “The protection of children and vulnerable groups must not be compromised.”
Wherever government is involved, we are all vulnerable.
What’s the difference between government and organised crime?
DP
Er, can I get back to you on that one? 😈
“What’s the difference between government and organised crime?”
[A] Organised criminals actually get things done.
[B] There’s more honour among thieves than among politicians.
[C] It’s possible to arrest and convict an actual criminal.
[D] Criminals aren’t so hypocritical as to demand they be referred to as “Right Honourable” despite being neither.
[E] “Organised crime” is not an oxymoron.
[F] All of the above.
One is illegal …
DP
… but neither is lawful.
DP
There is one shop in Blackpool that checks anyone under 30.