Enhanced Disclosure

junkmayle

Still doesnt alter the fact that you were wrong and shown to be so, unless you can clearly highlight which one of the four words you wrote referred to the word OFTEN.

poet123

I am glad that you are not disputing my contention that you dont know what you are talking about, and that being the case means it negates any other comment you make on this subject, including the one above. My post was accurate, your statement was incorrect.

junkmayle

Negate what you want in your own mind poet123, it doesnt make it go away in the real world. I do hope your psychiatrist is prescribing the relevant medication. Anyway, according to FOI request 11040 to the CRB, out of 751,179 checks on social workers in that year, 55 had additional info disclosed. Thats 55 more than you have seen in your vast (claimed) experience. Are you going to negate these too? What this ultimately boils down to is the definition of 'occasionally', 'often' and 'exceptional' which I cant be bothered doing. Anyhow, you will probably claim to be an authority on those too, based on the fact that you have said them more times in your life that I have.

ElkyElky

Yeah so... back to the topic in hand.

How am I able to see absolutely every piece of information the Police hold on me? Including cautions/warnings/DNA/finger prints.. everything.

I'd have thought the subject access report I requested from the Police would show me every single thing that the Police themselves can see about me.

Aren't I entitled, under the data protection act, to see what they see?

junkmayle

ElkyElky - No you are not. You can apply via a subject access request to see cautions and convictions but you CANT see any allegations, rumours or other 'soft intelligence'. Potential employers CAN though. Totally unfair and yet the system has many supporters as you have seen. I can understand the police wanting to keep potential evidence they may have a secret. What I dont understand is that it can happily be disclosed to anyone else that asks via a CRB. Office break-ins happen, people have loose lips. You may as well hang it up in the local high street.

poet123

junkmayle wrote: »

Negate what you want in your own mind poet123, it doesnt make it go away in the real world. I do hope your psychiatrist is prescribing the relevant medication. Anyway, according to FOI request 11040 to the CRB, out of 751,179 checks on social workers in that year, 55 had additional info disclosed. Thats 55 more than you have seen in your vast (claimed) experience. Are you going to negate these too? What this ultimately boils down to is the definition of 'occasionally', 'often' and 'exceptional' which I cant be bothered doing. Anyhow, you will probably claim to be an authority on those too, based on the fact that you have said them more times in your life that I have.

I don't deal with CRB's relating to social workers, so cannot comment on that issue except to say that for that line of work more issues could be considered relevant, or could be seen as problems than for other occupations, so that may account for the addendums.

Even so, 55 out of 751,000 does not seem more than occasional to me, so again would seem to conform with the quote you gave. Perhaps next time you should try to quote something which actually backs up your theories rather than something which appears to be reasonably accurate to a reasonable person. Perhaps it is the defintion of "reasonable person" we should be discussing?;)

I don't claim to be an authority, I leave that to you, despite your having had no experiences to qualify you for the job.....but isn't that usually how it goes with armchair critics, and with those with too much unfilled time on their hands?

I am not going to enter further into this discussion with you, as it now seems apparent from your blythe mention of psychiatry that you most probably avail yourself of their services for rampant paranoia, and if not you should.

Apologies to the OP for this digression.

So let others move this back on topic......:T