Forum Topic

More stupidity from Curran & co.

I see a report in the Chronicle says that the council are going to start compulsory criminal checks for councillors, unless I have misunderstood something I believe that DBS (formerly CRB) checks were brought in for people who were going to work with children or other vulnerable groups. Apart from the fact that these actually aren't worth the paper they are written on, far too many employers and others are using these checks as an excuse to poke their noses into things that are not of their concern, and in the process, totally gumming up the whole process for people who have to have these checks for their employment. On of my sons waited for months for a DBS checks losing a job in the process, and the other had been waiting for ages for his after the DBS service messed the first check up. I'd be a damned sight more impressed if they carried out MRI scans to make sure councillors - or potential candidates had operational brains first - because judging by the decision making in Isleworth that is open to debate!

Vanessa Smith ● 3712d7 Comments

Good point!

Vanessa Smith ● 3711d

"checks were brought in for people who were going to work with children or other vulnerable groups"Surely people who keep voting Labour no matter what height the local Labour party craps on them from count as a vulnerable group.

Ian Fillingham ● 3711d

Forgive me if I would rather rely on personal experience rather than a load of high sounding worthless words. The DBS system was a knee-jerk reaction to the awful events in Soham, what it hasn't done judging by the appalling events in Rochdale, Oxford etc. is really offer any real protection to vulnerable sections of the community. That's not even to mention the dreadful abuse suffered in some residential care homes. The problem now is that the whole process has to go around the houses and takes forever, the Met. Police in particular don't put themselves out to do their bit and regularly breach their service level agreement. The fact is if you have never been caught doing something untoward nothing shows up, if you've used another name in the past - ditto, the certificate in reality is like an M.O.T. only fit on the actual day, after that it proves nothing. Once you get embroiled in this maze of bureaucracy you find it is just one big buck passing exercise with no-one prepared to take any responsibility if anything goes pear-shaped.Since the scheme was taken over by Tata it has simply got worse, with delays of months being quite common, and it is the case many employers ask for them without any justification whatsoever. Someone, somewhere is making a hell of a lot of money, whether or not the degree of protection offered to those who need it has been improved is quite another matter.

Vanessa Smith ● 3712d

Vanessa, I'm disappointed in your observations. Your families frustrations and the perceived ineffectiveness of the scheme you allude to are narrow and naive. The contemporary and historical CSE issues come to mind as an example of the publics concerns.The decision was made at Council. Some Councillors including me work closely with  young children including those in care. We are invited in to homes and other restricted places as community representatives.Mention is made by another respondent of the DNS  response breaching the objectives of the rehabilitation of offences act regarding what's described as spent convictions/cautions. This is not always the case with minor convictions or one caution. Clear criteria applies as I've set out belowMinor convictions cautions exempt from inclusion in the DBS disclosurePlease see the current rules inhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-filtering-guidance/dbs-filtering-guideAn extractFiltering is the term we use to describe the process which will identify and remove protected convictions and cautions so that they are no longer disclosed on a DBS certificate (DBS check).In addition, employers will not be able to take old and minor cautions and convictions into account when making recruitment decisions. All cautions and convictions for specified serious violent and sexual offences, and other specified offences of relevance for posts concerned with safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, will remain subject to disclosure on a DBS check. All convictions resulting in a custodial sentence, whether or not suspended, will remain subject to disclosure, as will all convictions where more than one conviction is recorded. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) suggest you should use the following question as a template for your own recruitment processes:Do you have any convictions, cautions, reprimands or final warnings that are not “protected” as defined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (as amended in 2013)Job application forms relating to positions that request a DBS check will need to reflect the filtering changes so that: employers ask the right questions and employees give the right (legally accurate) answerYou are encouraged to include the paragraph below in your standard application forms:The amendments to the Exceptions Order 1975 (2013) provide that certain spent convictions and cautions are ‘protected’ and are not subject to disclosure to employers , and cannot be taken into account.I apologise for the length of my post.John

John Todd ● 3712d

As one of my bosses once said."We employed her for her brilliant criminal mind - and brilliant criminals never get caught"And no, she never got caught but stitched up anyone who got close to rumbling her methods. A complete bully and schemer.

Raymond Havelock ● 3712d

I don't think you have to declare anything when you join a political party, but most parties would ask if you have any skeletons in your cupboard likely to cause embarrassment if you were elected to public office.

Vanessa Smith ● 3712d

So much for the rehabilitation of offenders. Surely anyone who joins a political party has to declare their offences if they have any when they apply to join?

Keith Iddon ● 3712d