Enhanced Disclosure

brians_daughter

I did a work from home job as well as my f/t job a while ago and applied for a standard disclosure myself. ok, it doesnt include all the info but gives a lot of it, anyone worried about their past may benefit from it?? Below is a link to what is included on what, you can apply as an individual for basic and standard disclosures. Otherwise you need to apply via a registered body, or umbrella body


http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/what-is-disclosure/

link above shows what is and isnt included

poet123

junkmayle wrote: »

Terra Ferma - This is from the CRB website

"Occasionally the Chief Police Officer may, if thought necessary in the interests of the prevention or detection of crime, release ‘additional’ information to the Countersignatory only, in the form of a separate letter.
Where the police issue a separate letter, the Countersignatory’s copy of the Enhanced Disclosure will contain the following words ‘Please refer to letter sent under separate cover’, printed under the ‘date of issue’ on the Disclosure.
Please note, the applicant’s copy of the Disclosure will not refer to this information. Please do not share this information with the applicant"

http://www.crb.gov.uk/guidance/rb_guidance/handling_police_force_info.aspx

Poet123 - Do try to research a topic before you post inaccuracies, otherwise you tend to loose credibility.

It may be true in exceptional circumstances but I have never seen one, and I have seen a considerable number of CRB's over the years. Far more than you have I would assume. Nor do I have an axe to grind with the CRB system as you appear to have, for your own reasons. So putting that snippet of information out and implying that it was a regular thing for such addendums to occur by using the word "often" was incorrect. I did not say it never happened, but was refuting your use of the word "often".

Your credibility is not strengthened by the fact that you resent the CRB checks for your own reasons. I have no agenda except presenting an accurate picture.

junkmayle

Poet123 - It is indeed well known I have issues with the CRB check as it currently stands and I dont think I try to hide that fact. Issuing a terse four word statement without qualifying what you were referring to, then trying to bluster a reponse to cover your ambiguity speaks volumes. According to the CRB website, 3,853,684 checks were issued in 2008/09 of which 3,457,410 were enhanced checks. Exactly how many CRB checks were you privy to during the same period that enables you to state the frequency that these secret disclosures take place? Considering that its a criminal offence to reveal the contents, I cant see how any accurate figures can be obtained.

poet123

junkmayle wrote: »

Poet123 - It is indeed well known I have issues with the CRB check as it currently stands and I dont think I try to hide that fact. Issuing a terse four word statement without qualifying what you were referring to, then trying to bluster a reponse to cover your ambiguity speaks volumes. According to the CRB website, 3,853,684 checks were issued in 2008/09 of which 3,457,410 were enhanced checks. Exactly how many CRB checks were you privy to during the same period that enables you to state the frequency that these secret disclosures take place? Considering that its a criminal offence to reveal the contents, I cant see how any accurate figures can be obtained.

junkmayle wrote: »

Please note that any "Other relevant information disclosed at the chief police officers discretion" is often NOT declared to you but IS declared to your potential employer.

It is not correct to say that this happens often, which is why I said that your statement was incorrect. I had no need to qualify the statement, your post was not factually correct. The opening word of your own quote also backs up that pov "occasionally", does not mean often or even regularly.

Are you privy to the sight of any disclosures? if not then I would suggest that I am more qualified than you to judge with accuracy the frequency of any addendums, and also to agree with the actual wording of the quote you posted. That this may happen "occasionally".

FYI I have seen a significant number of CRB forms over the years, in various capacities......so I feel pretty safe in agreeing with your quote that any additional letters are only occasionally issued.

junkmayle

Poet123 - According to you, only ONE WORD is wrong so yes, you did need to qualify because those four words implied the whole sentence was wrong. I am privy to precisely zero disclosures. You have felt the need to tell everyone twice that you 'have seen a significant number of CRB forms over the years'. So, assuming that you deal with 10 EVERY DAY of the year (very unlikely), you would have been privy to 0.1% of the checks issued 2008/09. Once again, exactly how many CRB checks were you privy to during the same period that enables you to state the frequency that these secret disclosures take place?

poet123

So, if you are not privy to any disclosures why would you imply that the issue of such letters happens "often"? How can you know? why would you not accept the wording of your own quote, that this is an occasional thing?

I have no idea how many forms I have seen, but clearly more than you, and I accept the wording of your quote is correct. The clear implication of your post was that the recipient cannot trust that no additional info has been passed to an employer because this happens regularly. You intended to sow a seed of doubt, to interpret for your own reasons that quote as meaning soemthing it does not mean.

Having seen many forms, ( the need to disclose this for a 3d time is obvious given the subject matter:rolleyes:)and never having seen one with the info on you describe I can say that I believe that is it a rare thing, and I can say this from a position of strength because I have the knowledge/personal experience to back it up.

You gave a quote which does not back up your personal comment, and, by your own admission, have neither the knowledge or experience to make such a statement with any certainty, or with any basis in fact. You also have an agenda.

I will leave it to other posters to decide who is best placed/most likely to have any idea of where the truth lies.

junkmayle

poet123 - That sounds a bit like someone who looks out of thier front window, sees a few parked cars but no red ones, then states that red cars are very rare. You must know roughly how many checks you deal with every day but still cant or wont put a number to it. Nah, youve been shown to be wrong and you are trying to deflect attention from that by saying you were referring to a certain word only, when any reasonable person would say you were referring to my whole statement. Anyhow, if 'occasionally' means just 1 in 100, thats still 34,574 titbits of gossip passed in secret to potential employers, jobs lost, lives potentailly ruined which I believe is wrong. If plod has evidence of crime, charge the culprit. If not, they should get off thier lazy backsides and gather it, or let the matter drop. Yes, I have an agenda. So has David Cameron. Just because you dont agree with it doesnt make it wrong.

poet123

junkmayle wrote: »

poet123 - That sounds a bit like someone who looks out of thier front window, sees a few parked cars but no red ones, then states that red cars are very rare. You must know roughly how many checks you deal with every day but still cant or wont put a number to it. Nah, youve been shown to be wrong and you are trying to deflect attention from that by saying you were referring to a certain word only, when any reasonable person would say you were referring to my whole statement. Anyhow, if 'occasionally' means just 1 in 100, thats still 34,574 titbits of gossip passed in secret to potential employers, jobs lost, lives potentailly ruined which I believe is wrong. If plod has evidence of crime, charge the culprit. If not, they should get off thier lazy backsides and gather it, or let the matter drop. Yes, I have an agenda. So has David Cameron. Just because you dont agree with it doesnt make it wrong.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, similarly, just because you want to put a mythical figure on these "occasional" disclosures doesnt make it correct, or even in the correct ballpark.

Any reasonable person would be clear that if another person has experience of something they are likely to be in a better position to make an informed comment than someone who has not got that experience.

You showed yourself to be wrong by making a comment which contradicted your own quote.

But hey, if you want to believe you know better than me, despite the evidence to the contrary, go for it.

The precise number of CRB's I Have been privy to is immaterial, because it is a relatively high number, and whatever the number, is still more than your zero exposure.

junkmayle

Relative to what? At the absolute best, you have been privy to 0.1% of checks. What about the other 99.9%? In the scheme of things, you know diddly squat. You probably claim to be able to perform open heart surgery on the basis of slicing your Sunday roast. I have as much faith in your 0.1% subject knowledge as I do in the governments definition of 'occasionally'

poet123

junkmayle wrote: »

Relative to what? At the absolute best, you have been privy to 0.1% of checks. What about the other 99.9%? In the scheme of things, you know diddly squat. You probably claim to be able to perform open heart surgery on the basis of slicing your Sunday roast. I have as much faith in your 0.1% subject knowledge as I do in the governments definition of 'occasionally'

From your posts I suspect that would be your contention not mine. You do not have even a such tenuous connection as the example you have quoted above in relation to the CRB check, yet you consider yourself better informed than those who do imo that amounts to didly squat in the scheme of things:D

Pointless to debate the issue with one so blinkered, biased and plainly bitter.

The bottom line is you have no idea how often additional information is included on the CRB, nor have I. The difference between us is that I do have some personal experience to call on to draw conclusions from, and can believe the "occasional" reference on that basis, you dont, but draw conclusions anyway, and worse, try to represent those erroneous, ill informed conclusions to others as fact or knowledge based.

When in reality they are borne out of bitterness and a desire to persuade others that rampant paranoia is normal and justified.