This is seriously amusing

So, recent decades have seen an insistence that everyone must have CRBs. Not quite everyone, but damn near.

So, the answer is to expunge offences from records?

Criminals will have minor offences wiped from their records under plans being considered by Sajid Javid to stop them being denied jobs by “spent” convictions.

The Home Secretary is reviewing a rule where anyone with more than one conviction, no matter how minor, automatically has them disclosed to a prospective employer for the rest of their lives.

The new plan could mean minor assaults, thefts or drug possession would not automatically be disclosed to employers by the Government disclosure and barring service.

Why note reduce the demands for CRBs?

13 comments on “This is seriously amusing

  1. It’s only fair – why would a prospective employer want to know about multiple assaults, thefts or drug use in a candidate’s past? It just makes no sense.

  2. “more than one conviction, no matter how minor, ”

    What’s the most minor conviction. Anyone? Because I’m pretty sure that things like smoking some weed, maybe even low level dealing and shoplifting don’t result in convictions, generally. The enviroloons in London won’t be getting convictions. Thrown in cells for a few hours then released with a warning and I think most people who get into fights outside pubs on a Saturday night are the same.

  3. “…to stop them being denied jobs by “spent” convictions.”

    But they aren’t being ‘denied jobs’ because of spent convictions. They are being turned down for jobs because no employer wants to employ criminals if there’s lots of non-criminals about who can do the job just as well.

  4. Will this crap apply to “convictions” for speaking your mind? Convictions for having convictions that chromed domed Javid and the rest of BlueLabour etc don’t like.

  5. Every pupil from the age of 14 should have Newton’ s Laws of Motion explained to them, especially the third one. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, is also known as the Law of Unintended Consequences.
    For every crime committed, another door of opportunity closes. Which financial institute, or any firm which handles money or property, will employ a thief? Which firm which operates machinery will employ a drug user? And the list goes on.
    I wonder if Sajid would employ someone charged with computer offences to run his instagram or Tweet accounts?

  6. DBS these days – but people still seem to call them CRB. Wonder if the name will linger as long as “no DSS” has.

    Problem with toning down sheet gets released in a standard DBS is that it might just end up increasing demand from employers for the enhanced DBS version instead… Suspect lots of jobs you could make an argument about contact with vulnerable people or children and hence the need for enhanced checks.

  7. I know it runs counter to the sentiment on this board. But I support this. Of course it all hinges on what minor offences means. In this instance you’re all very happy to delegate the task of vetting to the state, whereas for everything else you’re dead against it.

  8. “anyone with more than one conviction, no matter how minor, automatically has them disclosed to a prospective employer for the rest of their lives”

    But that’s a lie. You are only allowed to ask for unspent convictions, unless the application is for a restricted position (teacher, taxi license holder, a few others). That’s the whole point of “spent”.

  9. “Wonder if the name will linger as long as “no DSS” has.”

    I’ve just received an election leaflet from one candidate complaining about the Community Charge going up. Community Charge was abolished in 1993.

  10. Why note (sic) reduce the demands for CRBs?

    That will never happen, a whole industry has sprung up around this and subject, nobody in Govt has the balls to take it on and risk there being some major crime in the future that could have been prevented by CRB checks.

    The same goes for wiping minor offences, either:

    1. Every proposed offence to be wiped with something like – “That’s brave, Home Secretary” and not be removed; or

    2. “HS, do you really want to risk someone who has a string of minor offences committing a serious abusive crime and the Daily Mail finding out about them?”

    If that doesn’t kill this proposal at berth you can be sure it will be in Parliament.

    Just to give you some idea about how far its gone, I’m doing safety boat cover for a major youth sailing championship over the next couple of days. I’ve received a 42 page document on “safeguarding” and a 12 page document on safety procedures.

  11. Why not reduce the demands for CRBs?

    Common sense and less bureaucracy from Gov’t?

    Not happening until we have a PM Trump/Farage type.

  12. I’m a cynic on this subject. I firmly believe that the cops don’t want ex-criminals ‘going straight’, but instead aim to force them back into a life of crime, in order to justify the existence of a bloated, corrupt (and over-mighty) police force.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.