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

poet123

vaporate wrote: »

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.

That is very simplistic and not accurate, many cases never see the light of day because of the circs.

vaporate

poet123 wrote: »

That is very simplistic and not accurate, many cases never see the light of day because of the circs.

Simplistic indeed.

Oldernotwiser

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 as the OP's case.

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

How do you know? The daughter might have been dragged in to shoplifting by a friend or she might have been the friend doing the dragging - there's no way of knowing on the information given.

Oldernotwiser

vaporate wrote: »

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

Passion and rational thought are often unhappy bedfellows.

Savvy_Sue

mumps wrote: »

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.

We work with vulnerable adults, and we don't get to see the CRB for those on student placements: we rely on the college having carried out the check and ensured this is a suitable person to work with us. We do, naturally, interview anyone who wants to do their placement with us to make sure they know what they're letting themselves in for!

poet123 wrote: »

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.

But the copy the student has may not have all the information on - would it have cautions or would they only be on the college / employer copy? I don't know, but I DO know that there may be more on the copy sent to the organisation requesting the check than on the copy sent to the applicant. As I understand it, you cannot rely on the applicant's copy.

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.

Except that you only get to plead mitigation if it goes to court and you're found guilty. If you accept the caution because the police tell you that will be end of it and you can then go home, there is no mitigation. Too many youngsters accept what they're told, and it's often very bad advice, because it's a long way from committing a minor offence to the CPS deciding to prosecute and you being found guilty!

Savvy_Sue

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.

Or the police were trying to get the cells cleared, and - in a different scenario - didn't fancy trying to get to the bottom of whether he hit her, or she hit him, since they were clearly both the worse for drink, so offered them both a caution as a way of getting it all to go away.

poet123

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Or the police were trying to get the cells cleared, and - in a different scenario - didn't fancy trying to get to the bottom of whether he hit her, or she hit him, since they were clearly both the worse for drink, so offered them both a caution as a way of getting it all to go away.

Perhaps, but you cannot expect every nuance of every offence to be recorded on the CRB. They are far from perfect but it is the system that we have so we have to work within it.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

We work with vulnerable adults, and we don't get to see the CRB for those on student placements: we rely on the college having carried out the check and ensured this is a suitable person to work with us. We do, naturally, interview anyone who wants to do their placement with us to make sure they know what they're letting themselves in for!

But the copy the student has may not have all the information on - would it have cautions or would they only be on the college / employer copy? I don't know, but I DO know that there may be more on the copy sent to the organisation requesting the check than on the copy sent to the applicant. As I understand it, you cannot rely on the applicant's copy.

Except that you only get to plead mitigation if it goes to court and you're found guilty. If you accept the caution because the police tell you that will be end of it and you can then go home, there is no mitigation. Too many youngsters accept what they're told, and it's often very bad advice, because it's a long way from committing a minor offence to the CPS deciding to prosecute and you being found guilty!

Which is why the college has to be sure they can give that assurance and that there are no comebacks. The student copy would have the cautions on it but not necessarily all the info.

When I said mittigating circs I meant those the police take account of when deciding what disposal method to use, not those used in a court.

I very much agree though that the acceptance of a caution (simple or conditional) needs much more thought than many people currently realise given the long lasting effects that could result.

eamon

Poet123
One of the weaknesses of the CRB checks is the absence of context and in the case of the enhanced CRB check this is even more apparent. As I have already said and others as well it is a flawed piece of regulation. There are numerous examples of people that have had their careers ruined and or stalled by false, inaccurate, mistaken, vexatious and malicious allegations that for some weird and crazy reason may show up on an enhanced CRB check. You miss the point in that there is no mechanism currently for getting this rubbish of your file.
Finally why should a 14 yo have her future career ambition ruined by a caution for shoplifting? What punishment wouldn't be too severe or over the top? Perhaps to satisfy the righteous maybe the state should have her sterilised now and prevent her ever having children of her own? A life long ban preventing her having contact with younger siblings, cousins, friends? No? Perhaps a better idea would be execute her immediately and be done with any risk of her ever offending in the future!

There, I enjoyed this rant!

poet123

eamon wrote: »

Poet123
One of the weaknesses of the CRB checks is the absence of context and in the case of the enhanced CRB check this is even more apparent. As I have already said and others as well it is a flawed piece of regulation. There are numerous examples of people that have had their careers ruined and or stalled by false, inaccurate, mistaken, vexatious and malicious allegations that for some weird and crazy reason may show up on an enhanced CRB check. You miss the point in that there is no mechanism currently for getting this rubbish of your file.
Finally why should a 14 yo have her future career ambition ruined by a caution for shoplifting? What punishment wouldn't be too severe or over the top? Perhaps to satisfy the righteous maybe the state should have her sterilised now and prevent her ever having children of her own? A life long ban preventing her having contact with younger siblings, cousins, friends? No? Perhaps a better idea would be execute her immediately and be done with any risk of her ever offending in the future!

There, I enjoyed this rant!

To be fair no one is obliged to accept a caution, and actually afaiaa cautions apply to those over 17 only (aside from a pilot scheme currently being rolled out in a few forces) so it may be that it was not a "caution" as we are familiar with the term.

Savvy_Sue

poet123 wrote: »

To be fair no one is obliged to accept a caution,

No, but I think there's a serious lack of understanding of the consequences of doing so! I've made sure the boys know that SHOULD the situation arise, they are NOT to accept a caution before taking proper legal advice!