College says people without a 100% clean enhanced CRB will NOT get a job in a nursery

Oldernotwiser

eamon wrote: »

Its the unfairness of the whole process given that currently there is no right to get the record expunged/corrected/amended..

Why should anyone have the right to have their record expunged? (I don't really see how corrected comes into it.)

What would be really unfair is if the college let this girl spend two years of her life on a course which might not lead to employment at the end of it. I'm also a bit confused as to why someone who wants to work in a nursery wants to do a Health and Social Care course as it's not the normal route in to this area of employment.

mumps

I recruit people to work with vulnerable adults. I have always understood, and this was confirmed during inspection by CRB, that employers/educational establishments shouldn't use a blanket rule like this. I have a number of staff with convictions, teenagers shoplifting or getting drunk is fairly common. I would always consider what the conviction was for and when it happened, obviously anything of a violent nature would normally rule someone out but I have employed someone with a conviction for violence. The circumstances (obviously I can't go into too much detail) involved a woman who had been in an abusive relationship. I considered the circumstances and took her on.

I think it is sad that this teenager is being denied access to this course and I hope it can be resolved.

Just as an afterthought do employers normally get to see CRB's for people on work experience? I don't. When we first had placements I contacted CQC, well it wasn't CQC then but you get the drift, and was told that if student was from a recognised academic institution I just needed confirmation from the college/school/university that the CRB checks had been done and nothing was recorded that would prevent them working. If this is generally accepted then surely it wouldn't stop this girl getting work experience. Perhaps the rules are different for work with children.

poet123

mumps wrote: »

I recruit people to work with vulnerable adults. I have always understood, and this was confirmed during inspection by CRB, that employers/educational establishments shouldn't use a blanket rule like this. I have a number of staff with convictions, teenagers shoplifting or getting drunk is fairly common. I would always consider what the conviction was for and when it happened, obviously anything of a violent nature would normally rule someone out but I have employed someone with a conviction for violence. The circumstances (obviously I can't go into too much detail) involved a woman who had been in an abusive relationship. I considered the circumstances and took her on.

I think it is sad that this teenager is being denied access to this course and I hope it can be resolved.

Just as an afterthought do employers normally get to see CRB's for people on work experience? I don't. When we first had placements I contacted CQC, well it wasn't CQC then but you get the drift, and was told that if student was from a recognised academic institution I just needed confirmation from the college/school/university that the CRB checks had been done and nothing was recorded that would prevent them working. If this is generally accepted then surely it wouldn't stop this girl getting work experience. Perhaps the rules are different for work with children.

They do generally ask to see them on the first day they start work placement, and if they didnt, as an educational institution you would have to disclose when asked or be liable for anything which happened.

vaporate

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Why should anyone have the right to have their record expunged? (I don't really see how corrected comes into it.)

What would be really unfair is if the college let this girl spend two years of her life on a course which might not lead to employment at the end of it. I'm also a bit confused as to why someone who wants to work in a nursery wants to do a Health and Social Care course as it's not the normal route in to this area of employment.

1000's of reasons.

How about WHY the person committed an offence in the first place.

e.g someone was physically attacked by a group of youths.

Victim, in a fit of rage, physically beat up the attacker later on his own.

Does the CRB state that...not its 'gbh' or whatever.

That's just a basic simple example but its not as black and white as simpletons think.

Would be better if CRB stated why not just listed the proposed offence. Let's not give the police some real work though...

poet123

vaporate wrote: »

1000's of reasons.

How about WHY the person committed an offence in the first place.

e.g someone was physically attacked by a group of youths.

Victim, in a fit of rage, physically beat up the attacker later on his own.

Does the CRB state that...not its 'gbh' or whatever.

That's just a basic simple example but its not as black and white as simpletons think.

Would be better if CRB stated why not just listed the proposed offence. Let's not give the police some real work though...

Those issues would have been covered in mittigation at the time, and are irrlevant to the notation on the CRB which records the outcome not the surrounding issues.

vaporate

poet123 wrote: »

Those issues would have been covered in mittigation at the time, and are irrlevant to the notation on the CRB which records the outcome not the surrounding issues.[/QUOTE]

Which is the problem.

Shouldn't this info be given on CRB, albeit brief. Such as the OP's case.

It's not as simple as committing a offence, theres always a motivating factor, whether for good or bad.

poet123

vaporate wrote: »

poet123 wrote: »

Those issues would have been covered in mittigation at the time, and are irrlevant to the notation on the CRB which records the outcome not the surrounding issues.[/QUOTE]

Which is the problem.

Shouldn't this info be given on CRB, albeit brief. Such s the OP's case.

Not in my opinion, the document should be a factual account of the outcome.

vaporate

poet123 wrote: »

vaporate wrote: »

Not in my opinion, the document should be a factual account of the outcome.

Yes I agree, no distortion of the facts, but with reasons why the act was taken. Whether justification why or not.

Not all offences are 'evil', as demonstrated by my simple example.;)

poet123

Presumbly if the mittigating circs were sufficient then no "offence" would have been recorded, so by dint of it being recorded it presupposes the circs were not overwhelmingly in favour of negating the offence.

vaporate

poet123 wrote: »

Presumbly if the mittigating circs were sufficient then no "offence" would have been recorded, so by dint of it being recorded it presupposes the circs were not overwhelmingly in favour of negating the offence.

In the eyes of the law, in a black and white view, no matter why the person did what they did, is recorded as a 'criminal offence'.

Which I find laughable in 'some' circumstances.

In some countries, the OP would be too young to be judged to know right/wrong.

Is it 10 years old in UK law? LOL

This subject, criminology, is something I have passion for, hence my interest.