Car Won't Start, But Rac Can't Find...
Motoring1 min ago
Guilty Although Judged Not Guilty
Guilty although judged Not Guilty - still a criminal although the Court cleared him.
Does this mean Sir Cliff still has guilty on his CRB check. He should SUE.
https:/
Does this mean Sir Cliff still has guilty on his CRB check. He should SUE.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
thanks for this -- canary
I saw a bit on the info-bar
I dont find it a surprise - the PNC as you should well know contains details of non-criminals, and god knows what.
20% of the DNA samples are from non-crimz
Dear naomi expressed approval when she was told that there would be a "characteristic" in the computer file, about a gun licence on her car. She said how pleased she was that Big Sista had all sorts of gen on her that she didnt know about and how it was all in her best interests.
[official explanation is that if they gonna stop the car they needa know if da driver is gonna go blamma blamma blamma.]
oh A10 complaints - - were recorded. I dont suppose they have stopped that
so failed convictions - no surprise there
I only pray they get some of it right ....
(esp gunny bit - I mean "police blamma blamma blamma! Oh oops it was a woman pushing a push-chair - I thought it was an RPG...." I mean that would never happen, would it?)
I saw a bit on the info-bar
I dont find it a surprise - the PNC as you should well know contains details of non-criminals, and god knows what.
20% of the DNA samples are from non-crimz
Dear naomi expressed approval when she was told that there would be a "characteristic" in the computer file, about a gun licence on her car. She said how pleased she was that Big Sista had all sorts of gen on her that she didnt know about and how it was all in her best interests.
[official explanation is that if they gonna stop the car they needa know if da driver is gonna go blamma blamma blamma.]
oh A10 complaints - - were recorded. I dont suppose they have stopped that
so failed convictions - no surprise there
I only pray they get some of it right ....
(esp gunny bit - I mean "police blamma blamma blamma! Oh oops it was a woman pushing a push-chair - I thought it was an RPG...." I mean that would never happen, would it?)
the judgement is here
https:/
not read it yet
it is gonna be on public policy
got up to the bits that none of the sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 is engaged - golly that should make YMF and 3T happy - " 'ooman rights crip and all that - foo!" was their mantra
https:/
not read it yet
it is gonna be on public policy
got up to the bits that none of the sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 is engaged - golly that should make YMF and 3T happy - " 'ooman rights crip and all that - foo!" was their mantra
There are three types of DBS checks:
1. Standard. This shows details of cautions and convictions (including "spent").
2. Enhanced. This is as the Standard but also includes "...any information held locally by Police forces that it is reasonably considered might be relevant to the post applied for"
3. Enhanced with DBS Barred checklist. his is a more in-depth disclosure which is only available for those employing people in positions involving children or vulnerable adults, adoption agencies.
This is not about guilt or innocence. It is about ensuring that employers and organisations engaging individuals in certain posts have the information they need to assess whether or not to employ somebody. The retention of this additional information is at the discretion of Chief Police Officers. They have to show that it is justified, reasonable and proportional. That's what the Supreme Court was asked to consider.
1. Standard. This shows details of cautions and convictions (including "spent").
2. Enhanced. This is as the Standard but also includes "...any information held locally by Police forces that it is reasonably considered might be relevant to the post applied for"
3. Enhanced with DBS Barred checklist. his is a more in-depth disclosure which is only available for those employing people in positions involving children or vulnerable adults, adoption agencies.
This is not about guilt or innocence. It is about ensuring that employers and organisations engaging individuals in certain posts have the information they need to assess whether or not to employ somebody. The retention of this additional information is at the discretion of Chief Police Officers. They have to show that it is justified, reasonable and proportional. That's what the Supreme Court was asked to consider.
I can encourage people to read the judgement
Clear enough to be depressing
18% employers HAD employed people wivvan adverse ECRB - and the judges accepted that a recorded acquittal would always be a bar to employment
[and they dont mention that GMC NMC, Teachers central control still hear cases which have been acquitted AND limit registration]
and then say it is clearly lawful to add statements to the CRB about an acquittal such as :
"me and the boys darn the nick and Mrs Mopp too, fink he always darn it."
Blimey, or right-o as 3T may say or foo! as someone else may say....
so much for the judges protectiing us from the insistent designs of Big Bruvva
Clear enough to be depressing
18% employers HAD employed people wivvan adverse ECRB - and the judges accepted that a recorded acquittal would always be a bar to employment
[and they dont mention that GMC NMC, Teachers central control still hear cases which have been acquitted AND limit registration]
and then say it is clearly lawful to add statements to the CRB about an acquittal such as :
"me and the boys darn the nick and Mrs Mopp too, fink he always darn it."
Blimey, or right-o as 3T may say or foo! as someone else may say....
so much for the judges protectiing us from the insistent designs of Big Bruvva
As I've said before when the "innocent until proven guilty" phrase is discussed, that is a legal convention, not a fact. You may have done something but not be found guilty. That does not mean you didn't do it.
In this gentleman's case the police clearly felt it necessary to keep the details of their dealings with him on file and believed it was also necessary for those dealings to be disclosed when a check was called for. Individuals do have the right to ask a court to decide if this was reasonable and that's what Mr. X did - right up to the Supreme Court. There is really little point in having DBS checks if they are only to provide details of convictions and so long as those protections are in place to prevent abuse I see nothing wrong with disclosure of the information that the police hold.
In this gentleman's case the police clearly felt it necessary to keep the details of their dealings with him on file and believed it was also necessary for those dealings to be disclosed when a check was called for. Individuals do have the right to ask a court to decide if this was reasonable and that's what Mr. X did - right up to the Supreme Court. There is really little point in having DBS checks if they are only to provide details of convictions and so long as those protections are in place to prevent abuse I see nothing wrong with disclosure of the information that the police hold.
Accused but found not guilty, surely.
(Cliff wasn't charged.)
One can understand an innocent person shouldn't be looking as if they have a stain on their character though, but who can say they weren't guilty but insufficient evidence ensured a not guilty verdict ?
Unsure how much relevance it has to a job search though. Not a simple situation.
(Cliff wasn't charged.)
One can understand an innocent person shouldn't be looking as if they have a stain on their character though, but who can say they weren't guilty but insufficient evidence ensured a not guilty verdict ?
Unsure how much relevance it has to a job search though. Not a simple situation.
"...they only HAVE to show all three if it is challenged"
Of course. However, any police force facing regular successful challenges is likely to have its policies scrutinised. The fact is, Peter, that you and I will not agree on matters such as this. I believe it is important for a robust system of checks to be in place (either that or no system at all so that we all know where we stand). It must be properly scrutinised by the courts if challenged (as in this case). You clearly do not believe that.
There is no doubt that many, many people who have committed crimes remain unconvicted either because they are never prosecuted or the prosecution fails. "Better that a hundred guilty men are freed rather than one innocent man convicted" etc. That's fine as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. The bar to a successful prosecution is necessarily set very high. But this is about protecting children and vulnerable adults and the bar is quite rightly very much lower.
Of course. However, any police force facing regular successful challenges is likely to have its policies scrutinised. The fact is, Peter, that you and I will not agree on matters such as this. I believe it is important for a robust system of checks to be in place (either that or no system at all so that we all know where we stand). It must be properly scrutinised by the courts if challenged (as in this case). You clearly do not believe that.
There is no doubt that many, many people who have committed crimes remain unconvicted either because they are never prosecuted or the prosecution fails. "Better that a hundred guilty men are freed rather than one innocent man convicted" etc. That's fine as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. The bar to a successful prosecution is necessarily set very high. But this is about protecting children and vulnerable adults and the bar is quite rightly very much lower.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.