criminal record- does this mean they cant work with children

kurjam

woody01 wrote: »

Too true.
It's a pity the OP cannot/will not read this.


A thief, a liar and someone with a criminal record that could (not saying would), use the property and information for financial gain.
You have already stolen and made money. Who is to say you wouldn't do it again. Only you............the 'only you' that has already been found guilty of such an act.

Wake up for god's sake.

I wouldn't want you responsible for my children whilst in nursery, and, if the truth be told, even your fan club here wouldn't given the choice.


How ironic.
A fraudster friends with someone in a security company.
If you are so sure she has 'gone straight' then you give her a job. :rotfl:

how can i give her a job, i am not the boss of the company and she did work at my employers for about 3 months, but she did not like the work, as we work in very hot security type settings.... my employer had a crb check done on her and was not worried, and we spend all day counting and banking money for very big organizations around the country... anyway she now as a job in a nursery, so no more advice is needed, thanks to those who supported her...

what would people rather she do sit at home and claim tax payers money on benefits.
she is nvq trained in childcare and is starting her nvq3 in september
at least she is doing something.... and she did pay back the money she claimed,(which does not stop her being a thief but at least she did something about it) which of some was the benfits office fault as she had written proof she had told them she was back with her boyfriend, so she is not the only one to blame.....

Savvy_Sue

_shel wrote: »

And from next year some people if working with some groups will need to be registered with these people http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/default.aspx

That's the ones I was thinking of: Independent Safeguarding Authority.

Not until next year, but from July everyone who wants to work with children / vulnerable adults will have to be registered with them, and from the autumn we'll have to check that they have done so.

However, my understanding is that at least people will only have to do the ISA thing once, rather than the multiple CRB checks required if you work / volunteer for more than one organisation.

junkmayle

Blimey Shel, you really dont seem to know what you believe. You attack me for daring to question the relevance and risk of a 13 year old fraud conviction, then you berate the English system for being far too draconian compared to the scottish way.

Anyway, glad to see you have done a little thinking and put forward some valid points. Firstly, as regard to the binmen, the jobs have disappeared from the websites so I cant post a link unfortunatley. Yes, you are right. It is against the law to ask for a CRB check where a job is not listed as requiring one. However, this law is rarely challenged. I cant remember the details but someone higher up that a job applicant challenged this and reference to CRB check was removed.

Secondly, you say that the unsubstantiated allegations can be challenged and removed. No they cannot. All you can do, if you know of thier existance, is be allowed to have your side of things lodged and disclosed. You cannot have them deleted or not disclosed. The case of John Pinnington, a carer for many years, sacked after unsubstantiated allegations were disclosed on an enhanced CRB is documented here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/legal-opinion-police-face-legal-challenge-over-criminal-records-checks-775627.html Mr Pinnington challenged this in the high court, which he lost. Full judgement here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1870.html Note the scary phrases - last sentence of paragraph 13, paragraph 27, paragraphs 39 and 40, and paragraph 59. Note that Mr Pinnington was never even charged with an offence, never mind convicted. His employers had known him for years but all that counted for nothing. I dont want to live in this kind of society and will continue to highlight its absurdities and total lack of worth. Those that do want to live like that, move to North Korea. Pray to God Woody01 that I never find out your name because I will make that allegation against you in an instant.

Shel, you state - 'Children and their families could be at risk of having their names, addresses, vulnerabilities, crimes, legal status released to the people perhaps a violent ex partner of the mother, an individual who had previously abused them, the press, other individuuals who could then use that information to to then access and abuse the child or pass that information on to others who could do the same. They or their family could also be at risk of their personal details being used in the applications of benefits, loans, credit for the 'employees' benfefit.'

Considering its a childrens club, which will have kids names, parents names and contacts details at most, where will the OP friend get all that info from? The kids wont know it, and the parents probably wouldnt tell her if she asked.

The CRB check is not there to protect the employer or every job would be subject to a check.

Woody01 - You state 'Far from refusing to answer you (as has happened many times), you are refusing to believe the truth that an employer does not want to employ a convicted criminal and thief.' I totally agree with you on that score. But are you aware that there are about 8 million (and growing every day) with some kind of caution or conviction? Do you seriously want all those people to never work and start paying into the pot ever again? Granted, there may be up to half of those who are career criminals but that still leaves 4 million who may have made a mistake up to 30 years ago or more that are still being beaten with it. In my case alone, you are paying me about £1000 a MONTH in benefits, rather than allowing me to forget my caution from 6 years ago and start working and paying taxes again. I am fortunate in that I can live off my JSA, house is rented, massive garden growing much of what we eat. If people like you, society in general, wishes to punish me forever more, then fine. Ive got another 25 years sat on my !!!! doing nowt productive for society. Im not angry for myself anymore. Just keep putting those hours in cos right now, Im sitting in the sunshine on my laptop writing this and you seem happy to keep paying me to do this forever.

woody01

and she did pay back the money she claimed,(which does not stop her being a thief but at least she did something about it)

Voluntarily?
Or because the judge ordered her to?

kurjam

she paid it back before the case got to court, it took 2 years for it to get to court....

kurjam

she has been in touch with the local police (she did not get a interviewed by the police etc, but knew details are on there and they have told her this)

In April 2006 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) introduced new guidelines for the retention of records on the Police National Computer (PNC): convictions, cautions, reprimands and warnings are recorded on the PNC. The guidelines apply to existing as well as newly recorded information on the PNC.
There are now three groups of offences (A, B and C); and retention periods, dependent on the age of the person when convicted, cautioned, reprimanded or warned, are considered alongside the sentence or other outcome.
Once information is stepped down non-police users of the Police National Computer, such as the Criminal Records Bureau, will no longer be able to see the content of the record. However the information will still be available for police users.

ThinkingOfLinking

junkmayle wrote: »

I would expect that an enhanced CRB will be carried out. This not only lists all actual cautions and convictions EVER (even twenty or thirty years ago in some cases), but will also list an unproven/unsubstantiated/ malicious allegations, heresay and anything else plod thinks or suspects and all with no recourse to correct it. Read the case of John Pinnington.

I'll read that case....I thought enhanced CRB was just for people working with the vulnerable, eg elderly, disabled, children, to prove you weren't a psycho/!!!!!phile, etc...? I never knew the rest....

[Deleted User]

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

That's the ones I was thinking of: Independent Safeguarding Authority.

Not until next year, but from July everyone who wants to work with children / vulnerable adults will have to be registered with them, and from the autumn we'll have to check that they have done so.

However, my understanding is that at least people will only have to do the ISA thing once, rather than the multiple CRB checks required if you work / volunteer for more than one organisation.

You will only need to do it once but it is much the same as being a registered social worker or doctor etc. Your employer, the public etc can report you and they can discipline or strike you off and you would never be able to register again. It would also be renewable again much the same as other current registrations mine is 3 yearly, not sure what info you would have to provide on each renewal.

junkmayle

Flickering Ember - Please do read it. It is very disturbing. Here is another story you might find interesting - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5818422/Mother-who-left-children-playing-in-park-is-branded-a-criminal.html In a nutshell, mother leaves kids playing in a park (eldest child 9), whilst visiting a local shop. Plod spots them, speaks to mother, no further action taken (and none needed in my opinion) but incident is logged on PNC and turns up on enhanced CRB!

I suppose Woody01 is happy for her to be branded forever. Are you happy to be funding her benefits forever too, like you do with me? Ive just worked out that if there are just 500,000 in my situation who cant get work cos the likes of Woody01 want us branded forever costs 6 BILLION pounds a year. Is it really worth wasting all that just to satisfy Woody01s rather medieval type of dogma?

[Deleted User]

junkmayle wrote: »

Blimey Shel, you really dont seem to know what you believe. You attack me for daring to question the relevance and risk of a 13 year old fraud conviction, then you berate the English system for being far too draconian compared to the scottish way.

I know what I belive thanks, I do believe a convictions fraudulant in nature including theft, of a sexual nature, assaults, arson etc etc should be disclosed and discussed regardless of the age of the offender and the length of time that has passed. They are serious offences and although in a minor could show immaturity, it could also show the start fo something / someone intent to decieve, hurt and destroy.
I do not feel a childs offence for theft from the sweet shop, assault by spitting, drunk and disorderly, school child malarchy etc etc should be wiped, but not the same for an adult.

Anyway, glad to see you have done a little thinking and put forward some valid points.

Done a little thinking! Dont assume you know me and what I think, feel and do from a few posts on a forum. You have some odd ideas which sound like they come straight from the daily mail about social workers am I not a person away from the job? I do spend my working days keeping children out of custody, that does not mean I dont respect and believe in the law including those laid down to protect children, it means I do not feel custody and harsh punishments should not be how we deal with most young offenders. Children have the ability to grow, learn and mature and benefit from Restorative Justice unlike many adults. They can be taught by taught there is a better way by someone else if their parents are not willing/able to do so and we need to give them that chance.

Firstly, as regard to the binmen, the jobs have disappeared from the websites so I cant post a link unfortunatley. Yes, you are right. It is against the law to ask for a CRB check where a job is not listed as requiring one. However, this law is rarely challenged. I cant remember the details but someone higher up that a job applicant challenged this and reference to CRB check was removed.

This can only be becuase people are not challanging and more should I would, how about you seeing as you are so passionate about it?

Secondly, you say that the unsubstantiated allegations can be challenged and removed. No they cannot. All you can do, if you know of thier existance, is be allowed to have your side of things lodged and disclosed. You cannot have them deleted or not disclosed. The case of John Pinnington, a carer for many years, sacked after unsubstantiated allegations were disclosed on an enhanced CRB is documented here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/legal-opinion-police-face-legal-challenge-over-criminal-records-checks-775627.html Mr Pinnington challenged this in the high court, which he lost. Full judgement here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1870.html Note the scary phrases - last sentence of paragraph 13, paragraph 27, paragraphs 39 and 40, and paragraph 59. Note that Mr Pinnington was never even charged with an offence, never mind convicted. His employers had known him for years but all that counted for nothing. I dont want to live in this kind of society and will continue to highlight its absurdities and total lack of worth. Those that do want to live like that, move to North Korea. Pray to God Woody01 that I never find out your name because I will make that allegation against you in an instant.

You talk about 1 case there which I already knew about, show me more.
I have been involved with someone I know having things removed from their CRB so I know it can be done. Not too much detail because I do not have permission but full trial in the Crown Court for a fraudulant type crime, found not guilty but still showing on CRB. With the assistance of an MP and a meeting with the chief of police for the area, long fight but it's now been removed.

Shel, you state - 'Children and their families could be at risk of having their names, addresses, vulnerabilities, crimes, legal status released to the people perhaps a violent ex partner of the mother, an individual who had previously abused them, the press, other individuuals who could then use that information to to then access and abuse the child or pass that information on to others who could do the same. They or their family could also be at risk of their personal details being used in the applications of benefits, loans, credit for the 'employees' benfefit.'

Considering its a childrens club, which will have kids names, parents names and contacts details at most, where will the OP friend get all that info from? The kids wont know it, and the parents probably wouldnt tell her if she asked.

The club will have reords either paper or electronic with every childs details available. Names, address, next of kin, allergies, discussions with parents re concerns, schooling, illness lots of information.
Many kids clubs pick up either from school, where teachers pass on info to give parents or the worker can ask or home and drop kids off at home at the end. Parents, nieghbours, siblings chit chat with them, worker being sociable does so back, easy access.

Got to think bigger than what you or anyone else would normally do. How would and what lenghts would someone who really wanted information or to get close to someone to abuse would go to.

The CRB check is not there to protect the employer or every job would be subject to a check.

No it's not there to protect the employer. It's there in a vain attempt to stop people who are already known to the system from geting close to children or vulnerable people to abuse. Limited I know as there are far more people out there who are not known trying to get close to children but how can we stop that? Bar having robots care for our kids and elderly it's limited what we can do to stop these unknown offenders.

Woody01 - You state 'Far from refusing to answer you (as has happened many times), you are refusing to believe the truth that an employer does not want to employ a convicted criminal and thief.' I totally agree with you on that score. But are you aware that there are about 8 million (and growing every day) with some kind of caution or conviction? Do you seriously want all those people to never work and start paying into the pot ever again? Granted, there may be up to half of those who are career criminals but that still leaves 4 million who may have made a mistake up to 30 years ago or more that are still being beaten with it. In my case alone, you are paying me about £1000 a MONTH in benefits, rather than allowing me to forget my caution from 6 years ago and start working and paying taxes again. I am fortunate in that I can live off my JSA, house is rented, massive garden growing much of what we eat. If people like you, society in general, wishes to punish me forever more, then fine. Ive got another 25 years sat on my !!!! doing nowt productive for society. Im not angry for myself anymore. Just keep putting those hours in cos right now, Im sitting in the sunshine on my laptop writing this and you seem happy to keep paying me to do this forever.

I dont know what your offence was nor do I know what job you can no longer do BUT I will continue to say criminal convictions ARE NOT a barrier to employment even with when needing an enhanced CRB. I am proof as I have already said, because yes years can change people and lots of employers know that and 1 in 4 people who apply for jobs with convictions get the job.