Police Caution sending letters

Emmzi

there are so many "what ifs" here I think this is an interesting debate for the mneysavers but am struggling to see a real point to the thread.

if maybe I did a thing that I haven't done yet, and I was a member of a body that I won't disclose, and the police sent a caution letter that may or may not be accurate...

..then how many men does it take to dig a hole twice the size in half the time?

we're good at specifics on this board, not so good on woolly questions.

superscaper

Emmzi wrote: »

there are so many "what ifs" here I think this is an interesting debate for the mneysavers but am struggling to see a real point to the thread.

if maybe I did a thing that I haven't done yet, and I was a member of a body that I won't disclose, and the police sent a caution letter that may or may not be accurate...

..then how many men does it take to dig a hole twice the size in half the time?

we're good at specifics on this board, not so good on woolly questions.

I gave an example of a specific offence. My question was what were the limits the police had in sending that info to people such as membership organisations. Can't get more specific than a real world example of a specific crime and caution and an example of a specific body. Besides the example body this is an actual real life situation and I just wanted to understand what police procedure was in it. I'm obviously not going to give details of the actual person.

Although intriguing you decide to post on a thread you see no point in.

Emmzi

a) "let's say" shoplifting does not mean "it is shoplifting"
b) "it's not the IET specifically"

So, are you planning on shoplifting? Are you a memmber of the IET? If not, theoretical discussion. Every crime is different, every governing body has slightly different rules. No reply here can encompass all eventualties.

The police clearly do not have the resources to send cautions to every professional body. Some bodies do crb checks.

See here
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/
and for an example here
http://www.tsg.org/criminal-record-checks.html

A caution is a matter of fact. They can tell whoever they like about it. And if someone has been a wind up toerag and they know it'll hurt, I wouldn't blame them at all. I'd especially expect them to watch solicitors. But that is my opinion.

I suggested moneysavers arms was the place for threads with theoretical debate which, until you get the chief constable here, this will continue to be.

Also, how is this money saving? (unless we are suggesting shoplifting as a way of saving money). It's a money saving forum, in board terms, moneysaving = thread with a point.

superscaper

Emmzi wrote: »

a) "let's say" shoplifting does not mean "it is shoplifting"
b) "it's not the IET specifically"

So, are you planning on shoplifting? Are you a memmber of the IET? If not, theoretical discussion. Every crime is different, every governing body has slightly different rules. No reply here can encompass all eventualties.

The police clearly do not have the resources to send cautions to every professional body. Some bodies do crb checks.

See here
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/
and for an example here
http://www.tsg.org/criminal-record-checks.html

A caution is a matter of fact. They can tell whoever they like about it. And if someone has been a wind up toerag and they know it'll hurt, I wouldn't blame them at all. I'd especially expect them to watch solicitors. But that is my opinion.

I suggested moneysavers arms was the place for threads with theoretical debate which, until you get the chief constable here, this will continue to be.

Also, how is this money saving? (unless we are suggesting shoplifting as a way of saving money). It's a money saving forum, in board terms, moneysaving = thread with a point.

I did try to clarify but I guess you've already pre judged me to dislike this whole thread.

a) "The actual caution was for getting refund on items at a shop after the time allowed (i.e. using newer receipts for items bought older than the return period, e.g. 14 days)"
"classed as fraud"

b) "it's not the IET specifically. I was just using the nearest equivalent if it was me personally" Doesn't that mean that I am a member of the IET? What's so ambiguous about that?

As for "money saving", I think you miss the point of there being different boards. "Theoretical debates" (which this isn't really as it's about a real case and I just wanted to understand how the police operate in such matters, if there are specific guidelines or it's purely a unique case by case basis) are used throughout the forum when they're related to the board topics. I thought professional bodies most closely were related to Employment, Jobseeking and Training and certainly all the ones I'm a member of are closely tied in with CPD. I've obviously been far too vague and ambiguous and made no sense to you and for that I apologise. I don't understand though if you truly think that why you haven't already reported the thread and requested it moved?

MrsManda

I think the simple answer to the OP's question is Yes, under certain circumstances the police can report a caution to professional bodies/employers. Though in the example given of IET, unless the perpertrator is in a position of responsibility, especially financial, it is unlikely that the offence would fall under the circumstances which the police can inform the IET.
Have a read of the Home Office Circular under sharing of information.
The link is for a circular from 2006 so things may have changed.

superscaper

MrsManda wrote: »

I think the simple answer to the OP's question is Yes, under certain circumstances the police can report a caution to professional bodies/employers. Though in the example given of IET, unless the perpertrator is in a position of responsibility, especially financial, it is unlikely that the offence would fall under the circumstances which the police can inform the IET.
Have a read of the Home Office Circular under sharing of information.
The link is for a circular from 2006 so things may have changed.

Do you know if there's a specific procedure/recourse to follow if the information sent by the police is false/inaccurate?

Bennifred

Apparently, there are certain professions where the police are OBLIGED to inform the professional body (not just the employer) of any cautions etc, regardless of the fine details. Interesting!

superscaper

Bennifred wrote: »

Apparently, there are certain professions where the police are OBLIGED to inform the professional body (not just the employer) of any cautions etc, regardless of the fine details. Interesting!

Well there's not really a national ID database (yet), so do the police have people searching all professional bodies based on your occupation? I.e. how would they know what you're a member of otherwise. Or would they send letters out to all related professional bodies in case you're a member of them?

Bennifred

I think it's a case of the professional bodies which you have to be registered with in order to practise being informed eg if you are a teacher the GTC would be informed.

superscaper

Bennifred wrote: »

I think it's a case of the professional bodies which you have to be registered with in order to practise being informed eg if you are a teacher the GTC would be informed.

Ah well in this case it's definitely gone beyond that scope.

Just like the example I gave it'd be like informing the IET, yet I definitely don't need to be a member of the IET to "practise" engineering. It's not a "regulated" profession.