Thoughts?
I think the CoA is right - how can nicking a couple of bikes as an 11 year old be relevant at 21?
But as always, the devil is in the detail… It would be useful to see the whole written Judgment to see how the individual’s right to privacy is balanced against “safeguarding” principles, or whether the CoA have basically just written off the whole CRB process!
An interesting development…
As long as they don’t faff around with them until after I get my renewal through!
Well, the easy answer of course is “don’t steal bikes”… 
Being serious though…
Quite right. At face value it sounds as though it should be totally irrelevant.
The article doesn’t mention though whether he was turned down by the local football club as a result of his bike-stealing caution; merely that he’s miffed that it appeared on his form. Tough luck if you ask me.
The CRB are in no position to decide what’s a relevant record or not in each individual case. They’re simply a tool to report what’s on file. It’s up to the employer to decide what’s relevant.
If the club turned him down then I’d say he’d have good reason to ask them how they justify the relevence?
Equally of course, he could just have been an utter tool that they didn’t want…
I don’t see it as a problem in the CRB process itself.
What I do see is a problem with the European legal system. Or perhaphs more a problem with the UK.
I’m not a politician (wouldn’t want that job) but I continually fail to understand in situations such as these why we bother ‘appealing’ European court decision for internal matters at all. I’d just basically say “He lives in our country. It’s our law over here not yours. Go **** yourselves…”
…in fact, maybe I should be a politician. :dry:
It’s complicated… (and nothing to do with the EU before any UKIP supporters stand up…)
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=3719]
What I do see is a problem with the European legal system. Or perhaphs more a problem with the UK.
I’m not a politician (wouldn’t want that job) but I continually fail to understand in situations such as these why we bother ‘appealing’ European court decision for internal matters at all. I’d just basically say “He lives in our country. It’s our law over here not yours. Go **** yourselves…”
…in fact, maybe I should be a politician. :dry:[/quote]
Perry’s right it is complicated. But this is UK law being decided upon in a few ways. The Court of Appeal are interpreting the European Convention, which was written in 1950 as a standard set of human rights laws for Europe, similar to the UN Universal Declaration, but actually enforceable. The UK signed it when it was written, (In fact, it was largely written by British lawyers and pushed by Churchill) and it was then enforceable against the UK government, but oddly, not inside the UK. So if UK law breached the Convention, you had to go all the way through the whole appeals process, then appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Until 1998 when the Human Rights Act made the text of the European convention part of our internal law. So it can now be enforced internally.
But back on topic, great news. Another nail in the coffin of a useless system. Scotland has a much better system, where your employer signs up to criminal record updates. So you get an initial report like a CRB, then receive updates whenever the person commits a crime.
It makes you wonder if there is any point in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I am fully aware of the exemptions rule, but the ROA should be the absolute guide in terms of the offence and proportionality of the response in relation to that offence. In this case police warnings about bikes when he was 11 and nothing more in 10 years, the ‘employers’ response is completely disproportionate. I was told that a police warning was spent as soon as it has been administered. When you look at it even a custodial sentence has a “life” beyond which it becomes largely irrelevant to the person.
It does highlight how abused the CRB system has become, giving ignorant jumped types their ‘Andy Warhol’ and potentially ruining people’s lives into the bargain.
Whatever happened to the ‘Weeding rules’ where minor offences were wiped off your record after 10 years so long as you hadn’t re-offended?
I also thought that minor juvenile crime didn’t necessarily show up on an adult record?
GHE2 - my understanding is that only custodial sentences of less than 36 months became spent under the RoA 1974.
They never completely go from your record, but are classed as spent (differnt offences have different durations before being spent, some never, such as certain violent crimes, sexual offences etc).
So whilst spent, and not necessarily disclosable to your employer (should they ask) they’ll still show on a CRB disclosure.
Only if you apply for an enhanced CRB check. Under a standard one I don’t think warnings, cautions, spent convictions and the like count. Could be wrong though! Never understood why if you were getting a crb done you wouldn’t apply for an enhanced one anyway!
This is what I’ve always wondered, the times I’ve been asked to complete a CRB check is if the role will bring me in unsupervised contact with children, which of course means the CRB must be enhanced. I’ve never been asked to do a standard CRB check, nor have I seen any jobs advertised saying just a standard one will be required.
[quote=“Perry Mason” post=3734]They never completely go from your record, but are classed as spent (differnt offences have different durations before being spent, some never, such as certain violent crimes, sexual offences etc).
So whilst spent, and not necessarily disclosable to your employer (should they ask) they’ll still show on a CRB disclosure.[/quote]
The problem lies I think with those in personnel tasked with making a decision not having any experience or understanding and making a decision based on a few lines on a sheet of paper.
In the case of this young lad I reeckon they’ve seen police caution/warning and jumped to conclusions.
I was chatting to a recruiter and they said one of the problems they find is that since the mid-90s there has been a jump in cautions, warnings and prosecutions for really menial things, as police in his opinion are encouraged to chase easy wins, that blight some applications.
If a cadet attends a Squadron on the eve of his 18th birthday then he/she is allowed to fully participate in ACO life. Come midnight and then becomes 18 unless there is a crb in place that cadet cannot attend until the crb come back. what has changed in that short time? Also when is a cadet going to have unsupervised access to other cadets? 100% behind CRB for adult staff though!!!
The rider on Article 8 giving respect for private and family life says there shall be no interference except in accordance with the law…the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health and morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. (paraphrased) ([i]9th edition cases and Materials on Constitutional and Administrative Law page 417 by Allen and Thompson)
I can understand the stance taken against this young man but come on, The lads trying to put things behind him, he does something when he is a child and then leads a blameworthy life since! what is the problem? I think we all do things as a child that we wish we had not done due to either peer pressure, the need to be accepted etc, but everyone deserves a second chance. If he was an officer it would be put down to high spirits!
It is also entirely possible for a cadet aged 15 to have a criminal record and appear on various sex-offenders lists without the knowledge of any member of the squadron and this will not be discovered until a check is run at around 18.
While they are not going to be adults with respect to the various child-care acts or be seen as “probationary staff” they are likely at some point to be billeted with other children (perhaps even in a 2-man room, which is definitely “unsupervised access”). They may also hold rank and be trusted to be in a position of control over others too.
I am not saying that we should CRB check every cadet nor that we can be lax about checking our legal adults but it does make a bit of a farce of the requirement to suspend a cadet who is well known to the unit rather than simply applying direct supervision until the CRB is through.
My Wing’s policy is to not suspend cadet if their papers have been submitted. I though this was Corps wide now?
[quote=“the fixer” post=3775]My Wing’s policy is to not suspend cadet if their papers have been submitted. I though this was Corps wide now?[/quote]I think it has but it seems to flip-flop up here. Conflicts with the Scottish system can confuse some - occasionally me 
Thats certainly the practice here and should be elsewhere as far as I know.
Incubus has the “hitting 18” point right - they have (both legally and within the organisation) different responsibilities as an over 18 adult, than as a 17 year old. I see no problem the with the current system in general or the way it is applied within the ATC.
What I think is not right is that the sort of minor offence/warning/caution as highlighted in the original story, is reported on and can still affect someone’s employment.
Don’t worry, come 2014 you’ll be a different country and not our problem! :evil:
[quote=“Perry Mason” post=3781]Don’t worry, come 2014 you’ll be a different country and not our problem! :evil:[/quote]I wouldn’t worry about that 