crb and telling employer before they see the cert?

[joko]

i have to send a copy of my crb to an employer.

the only thing on it is the fact that in 2003 i was drunk and walking home from a party...i tripped over some binbags and they saw it and decided to gelp me home - i had done nothing wrong - i refused to let them inside my house to see me to me to bed so they decided i was a 'unsafe' to go up 3 flights of stairs alone and took me to the station for a few hours

this now appears (unfairly i think, as i was not arrested or accused of doing anything wrong, an i fell because of the binbags not because i was too drunk to walk...but anyway...) on my crb check as drunk on the highway

should i inform the person i am sending it to what is on it, or say nothing and let them see it for themselves?
should i explain the incident?
(i am trying to get it removed as i feel it is unfair and kind of implies i was drunk and acting like a maniac and causing trouble...at least i think some might assume that - and i dont want her to think i am a drinker)

the job will be working with children - but not caring for them or in charge - (facepainting)

thanks

[RATTER15]

Well that's crazy if its true, so what happens about a guy that attacks somebody since their last CRB, they can get around a CRB check by just producing an old one!

I cant really believe that is true, especially for someone who wants to work with children!

[joko]

*How long does a CRB check last?

A CRB disclosure is not valid for any specific timescale.

The decision as to if an employer wishes to re - check any employees disclosure is at the discretion of the employer.

Please note that once the Vetting & Barring Scheme is fully implemented, an individual who is placed on the scheme may not be required to undertake any further CRB check, however, this is again at the discretion of the employer.


taken from a crb website

[PipinHull]

Shame they scrapped the vetting and barring scheme, really.

[New Judge]

Yes, PipinHull. That would certainly have sorted out the lady flower arrangers of Gloucester! Incidentally, the vetting and barring scheme is still active and is due to be "scaled back to common sense levels" (just whose common sense is not entirely clear) in 2012.

The unfortunate experience of your cousin, ummmm, demonstrates my point entirely. The record of her dealings with the police may well need to be kept by them for whatever reason they deem fit. But there is absolutely no reason why anybody else needs to be told about it. That is one of my main objections to the CRB check process (and indeed the vetting and barring scheme).

[ummmm]

When she had to renew her CRB she nearly resigned from her job over it because she thought she'd be sacked. Luckily her manager just asked her to write her own statement for their files.

[PipinHull]

My understanding of V&B was that it would speed up process and allow CRBs to be done on an 'updating' basis rather than from scratch each time. It would also allow employers to find out from authorities that an employee had been accused of, say, rape rather than reading about it in papers. But there will always be the invasion of liberties argument. I do understand that, especially given that most abuse is perpetrated by family members etc.

[New Judge]

And your example is exactly where I part company from any checking scheme, PipinHull.

I have absolutely no problem with criminal convictions having to be disclosed (and in some cases I believe such information is not available widely enough). However, somebody who has been accused of rape but not convicted (or perhaps not even charged) should not have this information disclosed to third parties. As I said, the police may want to retain this information for their own purposes, but people who have not been convicted of a crime should not have (sometimes unsubstantiated) accusations or suspicions raised and possibly jeopardising their chances when applying for employment or when offering to do voluntary work.

We have in the UK a very clear dividing line between guilt and innocence (apart from in Scotland where they insist on retaining their ridiculous “Not Proven” alternative). If you are not guilty you are not guilty. If there was insufficient or inadequate evidence to convict you, then that’s that. There’s no “slightly guilty” or “probably at it but we couldn’t prove it” alternatives and such suspicions should not be a matter of public record.