False allegations and CRB checks.
Peter Crosland
done since the introduction of the scheme. This disclosed neither
convictions nor any other information. A false, and quite spurious,
complaint was recently made against him and as a result he was arrested, his
house was searched and his desktop computer was seized. At the same time his
wife's business laptop was also seized despite her being present and
pointing out that it had company identification on it. He was held in
custody and interrogated at length. Eventually he was released without
charge and with a profuse apology that the allegation was false. Whilst his
wife's laptop has been returned after intervention by her employer his
machine has not. A formal complaint has now been lodged with the IPCC. What
other action can, or should, they take? Their solicitor advises they drop
the matter but they feel that the person who made the allegation should be
prosecuted for wasting police time or possibly cautioned for the same
offence. It occurs to me that any future CRB check will disclose the arrest
etc. but may not provide the full facts and thus prejudice his future
voluntary activities.
Helpful comments or suggestions, as to what they should do would be welcome
as this is an actual case and is anything but hypothetical.
--
Peter Crosland
John Briggs
>
> It occurs to me that any future CRB check will disclose the arrest
> etc. but may not provide the full facts and thus prejudice his future
> voluntary activities.
Which was, of course, the entire point of making the false allegation in
the first place. And providing 'the full facts' won't make a blind bit
of difference.
--
John Briggs
Steve Walker
It seems odd that the Police should be giving "profuse apologies" for
carrying out their duty to investigate an allegation of serious crime. It
seems even odder that if they now agree that X has been a victim of a
terrible wrong, they are refusing to return his computer. Something doesn't
quite add up here.
To recover his computer he should make an application to the local
Magistrates Court for a s1 Police (Property) Act 1897 hearing to be listed.
His solicitor could deal with this, but sounds too spineless to be useful.
At the PPA hearing, the Police must justify their continued retention of the
computer, to the satisfaction of the Magistrates and in open court. He'll
likely get the PC back before the date of the hearing, if they know there is
no good reason to keep it.
Seems to me that he then needs a written undertaking from the Chief
Constable that the incident will not be reported in any future CRB check, or
that it will be appended by a clear statement that the allegation was found
to be false (not unproven, not unsubstantiated, but specifically false).
They will not be keen to give that hostage to fortune, and X may find that
the "profuse apologies" were not worth the paper they were not written upon.
Finally, there is no prospect of criminal proceedings against the person who
made the allegation unless it can realistically be proven that they did this
maliciously or dishonestly. Reporting a suspected crime in good faith
enjoys a high level of protection from 'backlash' for obvious public
interest reasons.
Zapp Brannigan
I manage staff in a CRB environment, including recruitment, and this is not
the case in my organisation or any other reputable one. False complaints
are very common in some professional fields - secondary teachers, working
with mental health service users, and child protection work, for example.
If you disqualified every applicant who had received such an allegation, you
wouldn't be able to run your school/whatever.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
Does the extended CRB information give any indication as to whether any
particular unproven allegation was malicious? If not, how can you tell?
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Species8472
My thoughts too. Except that I am not sure that they are "refusing" to
return it but just being a tad slow in doing so. Could it be that the
laptop may never have been examined and was sat in the local evidence
store, whereas the desktop has to be returned from Lord knows where?
>
> To recover his computer he should make an application to the local
> Magistrates Court for a s1 Police (Property) Act 1897 hearing to be listed.
> His solicitor could deal with this, but sounds too spineless to be useful.
> At the PPA hearing, the Police must justify their continued retention of the
> computer, to the satisfaction of the Magistrates and in open court. He'll
> likely get the PC back before the date of the hearing, if they know there is
> no good reason to keep it.
Could "good reason" be, "Some of it is encrypted and we haven't
succeeded in getting the keys from the owner?"
>
> Seems to me that he then needs a written undertaking from the Chief
> Constable that the incident will not be reported in any future CRB check, or
> that it will be appended by a clear statement that the allegation was found
> to be false (not unproven, not unsubstantiated, but specifically false).
> They will not be keen to give that hostage to fortune, and X may find that
> the "profuse apologies" were not worth the paper they were not written upon.
Do they *ever* give such an undertaking? I thought that it was always
couched in terms of "no present intention.." Clearly laws can change and
there is always a future possibility of it being included, as long as it
remains in the files.
>
> Finally, there is no prospect of criminal proceedings against the person who
> made the allegation unless it can realistically be proven that they did this
> maliciously or dishonestly. Reporting a suspected crime in good faith
> enjoys a high level of protection from 'backlash' for obvious public
> interest reasons.
>
Except that this record too will remain on the files and will be taken
into account if they make future allegations against anyone.
Zapp Brannigan
It contains whatever the Chief Constable's designated decision-maker
believes it should contain. The Pinnington case is a well-known example -
para's 17-21 in particular -
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1870.html
Peter Crosland
news:8sppin...@mid.individual.net...
Thanks for that and the Pennington reference. It just demonstrates how
flawed the whole system is inasmuch as once an allegation is made there
seems no effective means of getting and allegation removed from the record.
This seems to go completely counter to my understanding of what natural
justice should allow. It means that the decision can rest with someone who
quite possibly is not qualified to make it, and in any case they may not
even be have knowledge of the full facts to make an informed and unbiased
manner anyway.
I have passed the comments on and will be interested to here the reponse
from the plice and the IPCC.
Peter Crosland
Ian Jackson
Zapp Brannigan <zbr...@doop.com> wrote:
>www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1870.html
Urgh. In that case the social worker was sacked for failing to prove
their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Big Les Wade
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> Does the extended CRB information give any indication as to whether any
>> particular unproven allegation was malicious? If not, how can you tell?
>
>It contains whatever the Chief Constable's designated decision-maker
>believes it should contain. The Pinnington case is a well-known example -
>para's 17-21 in particular -
>www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1870.html
Pinnington para 21 is an example of what the Chief Constable writes
*after* the damaged party has warned him that he intends to go to the
High Court to challenge the CC's original much less detailed comments on
the CRB check.
Note that the CC's original comments listed "three separate allegations
of sexual abuse", without noting that the third allegation was made by
the brother of the person who made the first allegation, and without any
mention of the highly controversial technique of "facilitated
communication". Enough to prove the point, I think.
--
Les
Jethro
The problem is maintaining the integrity of the system. In financial
systems, for example, mistakes are *never* "erased". Instead a
correction is entered, which reverses the mistake. This means that at
every step of the way, there is a valid audit point.
Think about it, how would you feel, if the system allowed changes to
be removed without trace ?
The problem here, is that the state has cunning abrogated it's
responsibility, by leaving the onus on the employer. So rather than a
state official, reading the appropriate records, and answering "yes"
or "no" to the question "is X a fit and proper person to work with
vulnerable people", the records are passed to the employer in a "you
decide" manner.
The irony in all this is, as another poster has stated, as the records
grow less clean, then people pay less attention to them ... bringing
us back to square one.
It's like speeding points. When they were rare, it was possible to
take them into account. Now they're pretty common, they count for
less. If everyone had them, they would count for nothing.
Peter Crosland
"Jethro" <krazy...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:3d243100-4a4d-480b...@n18g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It might be possible to make a case for the details to be kept though I have
considerable reservations about that. What seems to be totally unacceptable
is the rumours and false, or uncorroborated, "facts" should be perpetuated
by disclosing them to employers to the detriment of the subject. That cannot
be considered fair or reasonable in any system of justice because it
complexly undermines the concept of innocence unless proved guilty. In the
case I am interested in there is a single allegation of a much less serious
nature than Pennington and it was subsequently withdrawn without
reservation. What seems to have happened is that someone in the Police made
an ill-considered decision without making any credible attempt to check the
facts. Whilst I understand the Police are put in a very difficult position
in such cases the consquences for the accused are so serious that I believe
it is essential that urgent steps are taken to minmise mistakes. IMHO if the
case is not proved it should never be disclosed to employers.
Peter Crosland
Zapp Brannigan
It's a very sad case - either a serial rapist has escaped unpunished because
of incompetent interview and investigation techniques, or else the career
and reputation of a kind and decent man has been wrongly trampled in the
dirt.
Zapp Brannigan
> In the case I am interested in there is a single
> allegation of a much less serious nature than Pennington and it was
> subsequently withdrawn without reservation. What seems to have happened
> is that someone in the Police made an ill-considered decision without
> making any credible attempt to check the facts. Whilst I understand the
> Police are put in a very difficult position in such cases the
> consquences for the accused are so serious that I believe it is
> essential that urgent steps are taken to minmise mistakes. IMHO if the
> case is not proved it should never be disclosed to employers.
I disagree. There are cases where a very persuasive level of proof has
been established against a subject, but they are not convicted. It would be
utterly indefensible to put them in charge of the local creche as if nothing
had happened.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>It's like speeding points. When they were rare, it was possible to
>take them into account. Now they're pretty common, they count for
>less. If everyone had them, they would count for nothing.
In the same way that insurers now routinely disregard speeding offences,
because so many people have them that they are not longer a useful
indicator of risk, I suspect that many employers in the area of child
protection, social work, etc, are going to be increasingly likely to
disregard isolated and unconfirmed allegations of abuse against prospective
staff members. Which means, of course, that when one of these staff members
goes on to perpetrate confirmed abuse (because, of course, some of these
allegations will be genuine), the tabloid media will be up in arms because
the CRB report seemingly wasn't acted on.
Peter Crosland
Which is the essence of the problem. It is a very well established principle
of English Law that nobody should be punished without a case being proved
against them using the criteria of beyond reasonable doubt. In these cases
the required standard of proof has not been reached but the "defendant" is
nevertheless effectively being punished. That cannot be considered fair or
reasonable.
Peter Crosland
Zapp Brannigan
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 16:15:03 +0000, Jethro put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>
>> It's like speeding points. When they were rare, it was possible to
>> take them into account. Now they're pretty common, they count for
>> less. If everyone had them, they would count for nothing.
>
> In the same way that insurers now routinely disregard speeding
> offences, because so many people have them that they are not longer a
> useful indicator of risk, I suspect that many employers in the area
> of child protection, social work, etc, are going to be increasingly
> likely to disregard isolated and unconfirmed allegations of abuse
> against prospective staff members.
A significant number (within my experience) already do pay little concern to
isolated allegations.
Species8472
<snip>
> IMHO if the
> case is not proved it should never be disclosed to employers.
>
But what of the risk to vulnerable people from those that are more than
probably guilty of a long string of offences, but there has been
insufficient evidence to prove one of them brd?
It must be incredibly difficult prosecuting those who very carefully
select victims that would not make good witnesses. The handicapped.
Someone with a published record of making "false" allegations. Indeed,
there may be some on a jury that would consider that some victims had
only got their just desserts, no matter how compelling the evidence.
No, there are many careers and professions that don't require enhanced
CRB checks. Many individuals have to take up a second career through no
fault of their own. Shop owners who find a supermarket appear opposite
them. The gunshop owners that lost their home and business at the strole
of a pen. Guest house owners whose house no longer qualifies for coastal
protection. Home inspectors. Domestic Energy Assessors. Door to door
insurance salesmen. Newspaper editors. They all need to face the fact
that s**t happens and move on.
Zapp Brannigan
Your analogy is faulty - having your application for a job declined is not a
criminal punishment. If you wish to draw comparisons, then it would be
better to look at family law or property law, where the Balance of
Probability is sufficient to take a man's house or children away
permanently. Rightly or wrongly, not everything is protected by the
highest standard of proof (Beyond Reasonable Doubt).
Secondly, you are not addressing the equally precious rights of the service
users. If you were about to have a serious operation, would you wish to
know that the surgeon had recently escaped being struck off by a narrow
margin, and was widely considered to be a mentally-unstable alcoholic? If
you had children at the local school, would you be happy knowing that there
was a high likelihood that the PE teacher was an active and violent child
molester?
it is unrealistic to argue that an individual's "right to work" is absolute,
and cannot be balanced against the rights and needs of others. I
absolutely agree that it's all gone too far now, and we've become very
risk-adverse and blaming in our collective approach, but nonetheless there
must be a balancing.
S
Would you be happy if the operation you have been waiting for for
month were cancelled because your surgeon has been suspended due to
unsubstantiated allegations by a rival or a jilted lover? (At least
alcoholism is something you can test for objectively.) Even if you
are not directly affected, you are paying for public sector employees
to be suspended on full pay sometimes for years.
Has anyone objectively measured the benefits of the CRB compared to
the costs? Has it been proven to be the best way of protecting
children and vulnerable people?
Capita are certainly doing well out of it.
Peter Crosland
The lack of balance it the problem. In the Pennington example there were
three allegations. However, in many cases there is only one baseless
allegation. How can it possibly be considered fair that someone who, for
example, has worked for thirty years with an unblemished record is suddenly
deprived of their livelihood, pension and reputation on the basis of a
single scurrilous rumour? Effectively the person has been convicted of a
criminal offence without the necessary standard of proof. What is needed is
to achieve a balance whereas at present the odds are outrageously skewed
against those accused. It is very clear that at present the right to a fair
trial under the EHCR is breached and I am astonished that no cases have
pursued this course.
Peter Crosland
Percy Picacity
news:neA*h9...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
> In article <8spra6...@mid.individual.net>,
> Zapp Brannigan <zbr...@doop.com> wrote:
>>www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1870.html
>
> Urgh. In that case the social worker was sacked for failing to prove
> their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
>
I think it is worse than that. He was sacked for having had the
allegation made against him and recorded on a CRB certificate. He need
not have had a previous opportunity to disprove it (he need not have
been told of it), and the new employer sacked him without asking for
his comments. He could have been sacked without even being told the
nature of the allegations. There is guidance (I don't know if it has
been tested in court) that says he could be sacked without being told
that a disclosure (other than the one shared with him) had even been
made, especially if the police certify that he should not be told for
certain administrative reasons.
--
Percy Picacity
Jethro
> "Jethro" <krazyka...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
I'm not sure where the drivers come from, but IMHO the process is
designed to absolve the state of any responsibility. They throw open
the files, and then it's up to the employer to sort it out. The
scenario you posit - while logical, and just - would do the opposite.
An employer would not hear about a rumour, the employee would commit
an assault, and the state would get the blame for not disclosing the
rumour. (Although sometimes I wonder if the state really cares about
doling out compensation).
The answer really, lies in public education, and demolishing this myth
that there are predators under every kerbstone, and in every bush.
After all the vast majority of child abuse goes on *in the home* by
someone *known to the family*. As an article I read a while ago
pithily pointed out, if you wanted to keep your kids safe, you'd send
them to play in the park.
Big Les Wade
>No, there are many careers and professions that don't require enhanced
>CRB checks. Many individuals have to take up a second career through no
>fault of their own. Shop owners who find a supermarket appear opposite
>them. The gunshop owners that lost their home and business at the
>strole of a pen. Guest house owners whose house no longer qualifies for
>coastal protection. Home inspectors. Domestic Energy Assessors. Door to
>that s**t happens and move on.
This seems to say "Many people are the victims of other injustices
and/or bad luck, therefore we do not need to worry about this particular
injustice." If we applied that logic consistently then we would never
try to remedy any injustices at all, so it cannot be a useful way of
thinking about the problem.
--
Les
Alex Heney
It isn't "especially if..." and nor is it "administrative reasons".
It is "only if", since he WILL be given a copy of the disclosure ("the
certificate in the legislation).
And elements may only be redacted from his copy if , in the opinion of
the chief police officer, the information "ought not to be included in
the certificate, in the interests of the prevention or detection of
crime,"
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
<g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>The lack of balance it the problem. In the Pennington example there were
>three allegations. However, in many cases there is only one baseless
>allegation. How can it possibly be considered fair that someone who, for
>example, has worked for thirty years with an unblemished record is suddenly
>deprived of their livelihood, pension and reputation on the basis of a
>single scurrilous rumour? Effectively the person has been convicted of a
>criminal offence without the necessary standard of proof. What is needed is
>to achieve a balance whereas at present the odds are outrageously skewed
>against those accused. It is very clear that at present the right to a fair
>trial under the EHCR is breached and I am astonished that no cases have
>pursued this course.
>
While I agree with you about the lack of balance, it is not at all
clear that the right to a fair trial under the ECHR is breached.
Failing to be given a job (or even being sacked from an existing one)
is not a criminal sanction under the law, so that provision simply
doesn't apply.
It is arguable that it is sufficient "punishment" that morally it
*should* apply, but at present it is not the law.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
Steve Walker
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:15:02 +0000, "Peter Crosland"
> <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Effectively the person has been convicted of a criminal offence
>> without the necessary standard of proof. What is needed is to
>> achieve a balance whereas at present the odds are outrageously
>> skewed against those accused. It is very clear that at present the
>> right to a fair trial under the EHCR is breached and I am astonished
>> that no cases have pursued this course.
>>
>
> While I agree with you about the lack of balance, it is not at all
> clear that the right to a fair trial under the ECHR is breached.
>
> Failing to be given a job (or even being sacked from an existing one)
> is not a criminal sanction under the law, so that provision simply
> doesn't apply.
>
> It is arguable that it is sufficient "punishment" that morally it
> *should* apply, but at present it is not the law.
The law is moving in that direction though. In (G) v Governors of X School
(Secretary of State for Children and Schools and Families intervening)
[2010] it was held that disciplinary conduct proceedings against a teaching
staff member engaged the protection of ECHR Article 6 because his right to
practice his profession was under threat.
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1.html
It doesn't seem unreasonable to extend this principle to a CRB 'failure'
which has the result of preventing the subject from practicing his
profession, and in my view that would be right. There will be cases, like
Pinnington, where terribly hard decisions have to be made, but those
decisions should be accessible to review and challenge, not conducted by
secret appendices to the certificate.
Steve Walker
None of which changes Percy's point (that the present system has the
potential to be gravely unjust)
Percy Picacity
news:ii3jm6tiii4o8278n...@4ax.com:
Well is "the interests of the prevention and detection of crime"
some kind of quasi-holy mission or an administrative reason? If it
was the Chinese or Russian police the answer would be simpler: we
seem to be acquiring an almost American deference to LEAs in their
crusade against crime. And the CPO is allowed to recommend that the
very existence of any disclosure not on the certificate be
concealed.
--
Percy Picacity
Peter Crosland
news:8s3jm6dh0gcfeoulk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:15:02 +0000, "Peter Crosland"
> <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>The lack of balance it the problem. In the Pennington example there were
>>three allegations. However, in many cases there is only one baseless
>>allegation. How can it possibly be considered fair that someone who, for
>>example, has worked for thirty years with an unblemished record is
>>suddenly
>>deprived of their livelihood, pension and reputation on the basis of a
>>single scurrilous rumour? Effectively the person has been convicted of a
>>criminal offence without the necessary standard of proof. What is needed
>>is
>>to achieve a balance whereas at present the odds are outrageously skewed
>>against those accused. It is very clear that at present the right to a
>>fair
>>trial under the EHCR is breached and I am astonished that no cases have
>>pursued this course.
>>
>
> While I agree with you about the lack of balance, it is not at all
> clear that the right to a fair trial under the ECHR is breached.
>
> Failing to be given a job (or even being sacked from an existing one)
> is not a criminal sanction under the law, so that provision simply
> doesn't apply.
>
> It is arguable that it is sufficient "punishment" that morally it
> *should* apply, but at present it is not the law.
I disagree, particularly where someone is sacked from a job, as they are
effectively be punished purely on suspicion of committing a criminal
offence. This seems to me to strike at the very essence of the right to a
fair trial i.e. that nobody should suffer a significant penalty without a
properly constituted judicial process taking place. At present the penalty
can effectively be applied based purely on unsubstantiated, rumour and the
whim of a senior police officer. That was how the STASI operated in East
Germany, as did other similar organisations elsewhere in the Eastern Bloc.
It was to prevent that sort of abuse of fundamental rights that brought
about the EHCR in the first place.
Peter Crosland
D.M. Procida
> Secondly, you are not addressing the equally precious rights of the service
> users. If you were about to have a serious operation, would you wish to
> know that the surgeon had recently escaped being struck off by a narrow
> margin, and was widely considered to be a mentally-unstable alcoholic? If
> you had children at the local school, would you be happy knowing that there
> was a high likelihood that the PE teacher was an active and violent child
> molester?
That's not what records state though, is it? "An investigation found
that serious doubts exist over this individual's fitness to practise."
The system allows a false and malicious allegation to have the same
effect as abuse that didn't get proven.
Daniele
D.M. Procida
> John Briggs wrote:
> > On 25/02/2011 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:
> >>
> >> It occurs to me that any future CRB check will disclose the arrest
> >> etc. but may not provide the full facts and thus prejudice his future
> >> voluntary activities.
> >
> > Which was, of course, the entire point of making the false allegation in
> > the first place. And providing 'the full facts' won't make a blind bit
> > of difference.
>
> I manage staff in a CRB environment, including recruitment, and this is not
> the case in my organisation or any other reputable one. False complaints
> are very common in some professional fields - secondary teachers, working
> with mental health service users, and child protection work, for example.
> If you disqualified every applicant who had received such an allegation, you
> wouldn't be able to run your school/whatever.
That's certainly true, but not every false allegation goes anywhere near
an arrest. The vast majority of false allegations are dismissed with
long before the police need to get involved, and even when the police
are involved, that doesn't entail an arrest.
So being arrested does stand out on one's record.
Daniele
Zapp Brannigan
No, it really doesn't allow that. The Police are perfectly capable of
understanding, and communicating, what level of concern is indicated by
their involvement with a subject. Remember that their own workforce is
subject to similar false allegations, and requires a similar level of
fitness for employment.
That's not to say that there won't be mistakes and misjudgements, but I
manage 50+ Enhanced CRB staff, and have done so continuously since the CRB
system was introduced, and the error rate has been very good. You would
expect an applicant to disclose any convictions or discipline issues before
interview, and it's rare that an applicant has tried to conceal something.
Soft intel can be more problematic, but it's very rarely disclosed and only
in situations where it has been useful to the selection process. To
understand why it may ben necessary, just reflect upon Ian Huntley's
appointment as a school caretaker despite very obvious warning signs which
were not passed on -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders#Huntley.27s_trial
Zapp Brannigan
> That's certainly true, but not every false allegation goes anywhere
> near an arrest. The vast majority of false allegations are dismissed
> with long before the police need to get involved, and even when the
> police are involved, that doesn't entail an arrest.
>
> So being arrested does stand out on one's record.
There is no requirement for an arrest to have been made. If the Police are
aware of relevant, adverse information they will pass it on. Often this
will be obtained and logged on their local intel system through their
collaboration with other public services, rather than directly through
criminal investigation. Child protection concerns, dealing with
asylum-seekers, domestic violence, anti-social behaviour, political or
religious radicalisation, school bullying or truancy, many of these meetings
will have a Police officer in attendance, making notes for a huge and
permanent intelligence database.
Example - Police are surveilling a crack house, to identify the dealers &
principals. In doing so they identify many of the customers, who are not
particularly of interest to them but it all goes into the database anyway as
SOP. Let's say that you are identified as a regular visitor to the crack
house, and they then receive an Enhanced CRB data request for you to be
employed as a youth worker. They will disclose information to the
employer which you didn't even know they were holding. If the surveillance
has been a long and costly operation and is ongoing, they may also stipulate
that you must not be told what has been disclosed - another ugly but
necessary balance between individual rights and the public interest.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>
>Soft intel can be more problematic, but it's very rarely disclosed and only
>in situations where it has been useful to the selection process. To
>understand why it may ben necessary, just reflect upon Ian Huntley's
>appointment as a school caretaker despite very obvious warning signs which
>were not passed on -
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders#Huntley.27s_trial
Except, of course, Ian Huntley didn't get access to his victims through his
role as a school caretaker, so even if he had been prevented from taking
that post it wouldn't necessarily have made any difference to the outcome.
Roland Perry
2011, Zapp Brannigan <zbr...@doop.com> remarked:
>To understand why it may ben necessary, just reflect upon Ian Huntley's
>appointment as a school caretaker despite very obvious warning signs
>which were not passed on -
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders#Huntley.27s_trial
It's a bit complicated because the murder victims didn't attend the
school where he was caretaker. So while a CRB check would have denied
him that job, it would not necessarily have caused him to be living
elsewhere than Soham, where he met the girls because they knew his
partner.
--
Roland Perry
Zapp Brannigan
Yes Mark, I think that we're all aware of that irony.
Nonetheless he was clearly not a fit person to be employed in a position of
trust, and the system failed to protect those children (the pupils at the
school where he was employed) from a very real and avoidable risk of serious
harm.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:30:03 +0000, Zapp Brannigan put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>>
>>> Soft intel can be more problematic, but it's very rarely disclosed
>>> and only in situations where it has been useful to the selection
>>> process. To understand why it may ben necessary, just reflect upon
>>> Ian Huntley's appointment as a school caretaker despite very obvious
>>> warning signs which were not passed on -
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders#Huntley.27s_trial
>>
>> Except, of course, Ian Huntley didn't get access to his victims
>> through his role as a school caretaker, so even if he had been
>> prevented from taking that post it wouldn't necessarily have made any
>> difference to the outcome.
>
>Yes Mark, I think that we're all aware of that irony.
I wish. I'm pretty sure that most intelligent professionals working in the
field are well aware of it, but Huntley still gets trotted out by
journalists, campaigners and politicians as an example of where CRB would
definitely have prevented a crime.
>Nonetheless he was clearly not a fit person to be employed in a position of
>trust, and the system failed to protect those children (the pupils at the
>school where he was employed) from a very real and avoidable risk of serious
>harm.
That's true, but it's also true that Huntley didn't cause any harm at all
to the pupils at the school where he worked. Using risk of harm as a proxy
for actual harm may be understandable, butit's not necessarily valid. To
know whether the CRB system is working, we need to know the actual figures
for the incidence of abuse committed by people in CRB-eligible positions
both prior to their introduction and following it. If the latter is lower
than the former, by a statistically significant margin, then that's good
evidence if the efficacy of the system. But I have never - ever - seen any
such figures presented by anyone, despite the fact that not only are they
the only figures which matter but that, if they do exist and show such a
decline, they provide the single biggest argument against the system's
critics. It is rather difficult, therefore, to avoid the suspicion either
that the figures have never been collated (which would be utterly
scandalous) or that they have been but have been supressed because they
don't show the desired result.
Roland Perry
16:00:03 on Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Except, of course, Ian Huntley didn't get access to his victims
>>> through his role as a school caretaker, so even if he had been
>>> prevented from taking that post it wouldn't necessarily have made any
>>> difference to the outcome.
>>
>>Yes Mark, I think that we're all aware of that irony.
>
>I wish. I'm pretty sure that most intelligent professionals working in the
>field are well aware of it, but Huntley still gets trotted out by
>journalists, campaigners and politicians as an example of where CRB would
>definitely have prevented a crime.
And just about everyone I mention this [1] to, many of whom I would have
expected to know better, claim to be surprised by the revelation.
Nor is it mentioned specifically on the relevant Wikipedia page [yes, we
could edit that].
[1] That he was a caretaker at a secondary school, the girls were ten
years old, and therefore even without specific evidence to the contrary
(which we do in fact have) then they were not pupils at "his" school.
--
Roland Perry
Zapp Brannigan
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:15:02 +0000, Zapp Brannigan put finger to
>> Mark Goodge wrote:
> I wish. I'm pretty sure that most intelligent professionals working
> in the field are well aware of it, but Huntley still gets trotted out
> by journalists, campaigners and politicians as an example of where
> CRB would definitely have prevented a crime.
>
>> Nonetheless he was clearly not a fit person to be employed in a
>> position of trust, and the system failed to protect those children
>> (the pupils at the school where he was employed) from a very real
>> and avoidable risk of serious harm.
>
> That's true, but it's also true that Huntley didn't cause any harm at
> all to the pupils at the school where he worked. Using risk of harm
> as a proxy for actual harm may be understandable, but it's not
> necessarily valid.
I think that it very much *is* valid. Policy-making on this matter
involves both actuarial risk assessment of the sort you describe, but also
consideration of public confidence. That latter aspect is written into the
process for dealing with POCA & POVA for example. So even if it could be
proved that drug-dealing, bank-robbing, wife-beaters *never* commit any
offences against any children in their care, it might still be proper to
exclude them from employment as creche workers.
The case of Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families v BP
[2009] EWHC 866 (Admin) is a good example.
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/866.html
Zapp Brannigan
> In message <0jskm6df56vss74nl...@news.markshouse.net>,
> at 16:00:03 on Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Except, of course, Ian Huntley didn't get access to his victims
>>>> through his role as a school caretaker, so even if he had been
>>>> prevented from taking that post it wouldn't necessarily have made
>>>> any difference to the outcome.
>>>
>>> Yes Mark, I think that we're all aware of that irony.
>>
>> I wish. I'm pretty sure that most intelligent professionals working
>> in the field are well aware of it, but Huntley still gets trotted
>> out by journalists, campaigners and politicians as an example of
>> where CRB would definitely have prevented a crime.
>
> And just about everyone I mention this [1] to, many of whom I would
> have expected to know better, claim to be surprised by the revelation.
Perhaps I am being over-optimistic, and there are more stupid people around
that I had dared to fear.. :o)
Species8472
I rather thought that the present system would have stopped *her*
getting/keeping *her* job - assuming that the CCs had discovered the
joys of joined up thinking and writing. It would clearly be wrong to
employ someone who lived with, or had a close relative, or associated
with, or lived in the same street as, someone who was a known risk.
Meanwhile, anyone with a clear CRB can bask in the sure and certain
knowledge that they are beyond suspicion. After all, they have a clear
CRB...
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:15:02 +0000, Zapp Brannigan put finger to
>>> Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> I wish. I'm pretty sure that most intelligent professionals working
>> in the field are well aware of it, but Huntley still gets trotted out
>> by journalists, campaigners and politicians as an example of where
>> CRB would definitely have prevented a crime.
>>
>>> Nonetheless he was clearly not a fit person to be employed in a
>>> position of trust, and the system failed to protect those children
>>> (the pupils at the school where he was employed) from a very real
>>> and avoidable risk of serious harm.
>>
>> That's true, but it's also true that Huntley didn't cause any harm at
>> all to the pupils at the school where he worked. Using risk of harm
>> as a proxy for actual harm may be understandable, but it's not
>> necessarily valid.
>
>I think that it very much *is* valid.
It may well be, but we can't know that without a comparison with the actual
abuse figures.
> Policy-making on this matter
>involves both actuarial risk assessment of the sort you describe, but also
>consideration of public confidence. That latter aspect is written into the
>process for dealing with POCA & POVA for example. So even if it could be
>proved that drug-dealing, bank-robbing, wife-beaters *never* commit any
>offences against any children in their care, it might still be proper to
>exclude them from employment as creche workers.
I'm not disagreeing with the need to make policy based on public preference
as much as statistical evidence. But it is deceptive to present the former
as if it were the latter.
Zapp Brannigan
> I'm not disagreeing with the need to make policy based on public
> preference as much as statistical evidence. But it is deceptive to
> present the former as if it were the latter.
I agree, and it's good to see that the CST hearings are usually very proper
in how they set out and approach their judicial considerations. Very
interesting reading www.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk/Public/search.aspx
Roland Perry
17:15:01 on Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Species8472 <us...@example.net> remarked:
>> It's a bit complicated because the murder victims didn't attend the
>> school where he was caretaker. So while a CRB check would have denied
>> him that job, it would not necessarily have caused him to be living
>> elsewhere than Soham, where he met the girls because they knew his partner.
>
>I rather thought that the present system would have stopped *her*
>getting/keeping *her* job - assuming that the CCs had discovered the
>joys of joined up thinking and writing. It would clearly be wrong to
>employ someone who lived with, or had a close relative, or associated
>with, or lived in the same street as, someone who was a known risk.
But that's the problem - a CRB check generally only looks at the person
being checked. Perhaps, in a very few cases, if they were associating
with a known felon (to use a generic term) then something would be put
on an existing 'record', but would the police *start* a 'record' for an
otherwise law abiding person they'd had no other contact with, just
because of that?
And I imagine that people's relationships change so much, you'd never be
able to keep up with it all, and would you really want a secret note
against your name saying that a former boyfriend is an offender, when
it's years since you went out with them (but how would the police know
that).
>Meanwhile, anyone with a clear CRB can bask in the sure and certain
>knowledge that they are beyond suspicion. After all, they have a clear
>CRB...
That's the false sense of security that the scheme is prone to cause (as
noted in some previous threads).
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
typed:
>In message <lzvap.246377$eU6.2...@en-nntp-04.am2.easynews.com>, at
>17:15:01 on Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Species8472 <us...@example.net> remarked:
>
>>> It's a bit complicated because the murder victims didn't attend the
>>> school where he was caretaker. So while a CRB check would have denied
>>> him that job, it would not necessarily have caused him to be living
>>> elsewhere than Soham, where he met the girls because they knew his partner.
>>
>>I rather thought that the present system would have stopped *her*
>>getting/keeping *her* job - assuming that the CCs had discovered the
>>joys of joined up thinking and writing. It would clearly be wrong to
>>employ someone who lived with, or had a close relative, or associated
>>with, or lived in the same street as, someone who was a known risk.
>
>But that's the problem - a CRB check generally only looks at the person
>being checked. Perhaps, in a very few cases, if they were associating
>with a known felon (to use a generic term) then something would be put
>on an existing 'record', but would the police *start* a 'record' for an
>otherwise law abiding person they'd had no other contact with, just
>because of that?
>
>And I imagine that people's relationships change so much, you'd never be
>able to keep up with it all, and would you really want a secret note
>against your name saying that a former boyfriend is an offender, when
>it's years since you went out with them (but how would the police know
>that).
There are all sorts of potentially horrible problems caused by taking
relatives'/partners' records into account. For a start, you have to know
that someone has a partner (or relatives), and yet explicitly asking about
them on an application form is likely to fall foul of anti-discrimination
legislation. And there are significant privacy implications in revealing
that a relative or partner has a past that they would prefer (and, in any
other circumstances, would have an absolute right) to keep secret. And, as
you say, what happens when someone who passes a CRB check, along with their
existing partner, dumps them (or is dumped) and takes up with someone else?
Should CRB-eligible staff be expected to declare any new relationship to
their employers so that the new partner can be checked?
>>Meanwhile, anyone with a clear CRB can bask in the sure and certain
>>knowledge that they are beyond suspicion. After all, they have a clear
>>CRB...
>
>That's the false sense of security that the scheme is prone to cause (as
>noted in some previous threads).
Indeed. The Plymouth nursery case springs to mind here - all those involved
were "clean".
Big Les Wade
>I rather thought that the present system would have stopped *her*
>getting/keeping *her* job - assuming that the CCs had discovered the
>joys of joined up thinking and writing. It would clearly be wrong to
>employ someone who lived with, or had a close relative, or associated
>with, or lived in the same street as, someone who was a known risk.
Of course it wouldn't; but perhaps you are being ironic.
--
Les
Species8472
> In message <lzvap.246377$eU6.2...@en-nntp-04.am2.easynews.com>, at
> 17:15:01 on Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Species8472 <us...@example.net> remarked:
>
>>> It's a bit complicated because the murder victims didn't attend the
>>> school where he was caretaker. So while a CRB check would have denied
>>> him that job, it would not necessarily have caused him to be living
>>> elsewhere than Soham, where he met the girls because they knew his
>>> partner.
>>
>> I rather thought that the present system would have stopped *her*
>> getting/keeping *her* job - assuming that the CCs had discovered the
>> joys of joined up thinking and writing. It would clearly be wrong to
>> employ someone who lived with, or had a close relative, or associated
>> with, or lived in the same street as, someone who was a known risk.
>
> But that's the problem - a CRB check generally only looks at the person
> being checked. Perhaps, in a very few cases, if they were associating
> with a known felon (to use a generic term) then something would be put
> on an existing 'record', but would the police *start* a 'record' for an
> otherwise law abiding person they'd had no other contact with, just
> because of that?
I was writing thinking of the yet to be, rather than the here and now.
Each future "Soham" will produce yet more expressions of "lessons must
be learnt". Rather than abandon CRB checks, the argument will be to make
them more comprehensive. The extension to also examine records of
immediate family is but a button-press away, if it has not been pressed
already. Neighbours, persons living at the same address - the electoral
roll, benefits agency, medical records, DVLA, passport agency, credit
reference agencies - just a few more button-presses. Each "Soham" means
another button press..
>
> And I imagine that people's relationships change so much, you'd never be
> able to keep up with it all, and would you really want a secret note
> against your name saying that a former boyfriend is an offender, when
> it's years since you went out with them (but how would the police know
> that).
What you want and what you get have never been the same. Of course the
records will be incomplete and inaccurate - but, "Lessons have been
learnt". The problem will be seen as just one of data fusion.
>
>> Meanwhile, anyone with a clear CRB can bask in the sure and certain
>> knowledge that they are beyond suspicion. After all, they have a clear
>> CRB...
>
> That's the false sense of security that the scheme is prone to cause (as
> noted in some previous threads).
The underlying principle is so fatally flawed. You only have to think of
motor vehicles as an analogy to realise how stupid the CRB concept is -
a system where anyone can drive any vehicle until there is a hint of
scratched paintwork, however caused- at which point they are never
allowed near a vehicle ever again - even as a passenger..
Roland Perry
18:45:02 on Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>That's the false sense of security that the scheme is prone to cause (as
>>noted in some previous threads).
>
>Indeed. The Plymouth nursery case springs to mind here - all those involved
>were "clean".
As a senior ex-policeman once told me: "a clean CRB check just means you
haven't been caught yet".
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
typed:
>I was writing thinking of the yet to be, rather than the here and now.
>Each future "Soham" will produce yet more expressions of "lessons must
>be learnt". Rather than abandon CRB checks, the argument will be to make
>them more comprehensive.
Fortunately, that argument has been lost. The government's rather
grandiosely named "Protection of Freedoms Bill" includes provisions to
severely curtail the CRB system. And not before time.
Zapp Brannigan
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:55:02 +0000, Species8472 put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> I was writing thinking of the yet to be, rather than the here and
>> now. Each future "Soham" will produce yet more expressions of
>> "lessons must be learnt". Rather than abandon CRB checks, the
>> argument will be to make them more comprehensive.
>
> Fortunately, that argument has been lost. The government's rather
> grandiosely named "Protection of Freedoms Bill" includes provisions to
> severely curtail the CRB system. And not before time.
That is true, and very welcome (I want to be clear that I'm not a
cheerleader for the present system!) but as Species has remarked, there is a
real threat emerging from the technology - "The problem will be seen as just
one of data fusion.".
Now it's possible for state agencies to harvest vast amounts of data, index
it and keep it forever, and crunch it with clever analytical tools designed
for market research. It's an order of magnitude change from the records
kept ten years ago, and it's accelerating like Moore's Law. It cannot be
long before "Nope, we've never heard of him" is a rare response to a CRB.
Species8472
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:55:02 +0000, Species8472 put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> I was writing thinking of the yet to be, rather than the here and now.
>> Each future "Soham" will produce yet more expressions of "lessons must
>> be learnt". Rather than abandon CRB checks, the argument will be to make
>> them more comprehensive.
>
> Fortunately, that argument has been lost. The government's rather
> grandiosely named "Protection of Freedoms Bill" includes provisions to
> severely curtail the CRB system. And not before time.
You think it will survive a single "Soham"? I do so hope that you are
right.
The leak will be that the crime would have been prevented, but for the
"innocent" perpetrator having had his DNA profile removed and CRB checks
curtailed. Untrue, denied but mud sticks. Everyone will be rushing to
state that they warned HMG this would be the result of being so soft on
crime. NewerLab promising to introduce even tougher controls when
re-elected. There look like being a lot of marginal seats - next time.
I really do hope that I am wrong on this one..
Jethro
But eventually, the logical conclusion of such a system, is *no-one*
could pass a check. See my previous post about the watering down of
points on your license, because more and more people have them.
Zapp Brannigan
Depends what you mean by 'pass'. At present a nil return is seen a
desirable, but this cannot last much longer. Managers and HR depts will
have to get used to receiving CRB's with content, and assessing the
significance of it. Eventually a tipping point will be reached where a
majority of Enhanced CRB's have content, and "Nope, we've never heard of
him" becomes suspicious.... :o)
Alex Heney
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
>news:ii3jm6tiii4o8278n...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:30:02 +0000, Percy Picacity
>><k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in
>>>news:neA*h9...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>>>
>>>> In article <8spra6...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Zapp Brannigan <zbr...@doop.com> wrote:
>>>>>www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1870.html
>>>>
>>>> Urgh. In that case the social worker was sacked for failing to
>>>> prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think it is worse than that. He was sacked for having had the
>>>allegation made against him and recorded on a CRB certificate. He
>>>need not have had a previous opportunity to disprove it (he need
>>>not have been told of it), and the new employer sacked him without
>>>asking for his comments. He could have been sacked without even
>>>being told the nature of the allegations. There is guidance (I
>>>don't know if it has been tested in court) that says he could be
>>>sacked without being told that a disclosure (other than the one
>>>shared with him) had even been made, especially if the police
>>>certify that he should not be told for certain administrative
>>>reasons.
>>
>> It isn't "especially if..." and nor is it "administrative
>> reasons".
>>
>> It is "only if", since he WILL be given a copy of the disclosure
>> ("the certificate in the legislation).
>>
>> And elements may only be redacted from his copy if , in the
>> opinion of the chief police officer, the information "ought not to
>> be included in the certificate, in the interests of the prevention
>> or detection of crime,"
>>
>
>Well is "the interests of the prevention and detection of crime"
>some kind of quasi-holy mission or an administrative reason?
Neither. And you have taken that out of context - the part saying
"ought not to be" is just as important.
The clear *intention* of that part of the legislation is that the
disclosure will only not be included on the certificate where it
relates to information the subject will not already have, and where if
he were allowed to have it, that would prejudice an investigation.
I accept that the legislation *could* be misused if a police force
particularly wanted to, but what reason might they have for doing so?
It is more work for them, because it means they must compose two
different versions, and keep track of what information has been held
back from the certificate.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm as bored as a pacifist's pistol.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On 2/27/2011 2:00 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <8sv1mc...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:30:03 on Sun, 27 Feb
>> 2011, Zapp Brannigan <zbr...@doop.com> remarked:
>>
>>> To understand why it may ben necessary, just reflect upon Ian
>>> Huntley's appointment as a school caretaker despite very obvious
>>> warning signs which were not passed on -
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_murders#Huntley.27s_trial
>>
>> It's a bit complicated because the murder victims didn't attend the
>> school where he was caretaker. So while a CRB check would have denied
>> him that job, it would not necessarily have caused him to be living
>> elsewhere than Soham, where he met the girls because they knew his partner.
>
>
>I rather thought that the present system would have stopped *her*
>getting/keeping *her* job - assuming that the CCs had discovered the
>joys of joined up thinking and writing. It would clearly be wrong to
>employ someone who lived with, or had a close relative, or associated
>with, or lived in the same street as, someone who was a known risk.
>
But the CRB check will very rarely show that.
A standard check never will, while even an enhanced check will only
show it if the police have recorded the fact. And remember, her
boyfriend had no convictions, only unproven allegations, so recording
that against her as well seems unlikely.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Printed on 100% recyclable phosphor.
Species8472
As Big Les deduced - what I wrote wasn't intended to be taken *that*
literally :). I doubt that even "zero tolerance" Chief Constables will
want to include stuff on a "same street" basis, especially if the street
is Watling Street...
However, that you dismiss it as "seems unlikely" gives me the cold
shivers as it hints that it could indeed be a possibility.. Although I
suspect that you were just being polite.
However, few of us (Chief Constables included in our little group,
excepted) can know what is being written in their little billet doux.
Anyone been chatting to a foreign looking stranger on a train? Parked
next to a fence unaware that it was an army base the other side? Sat on
a park bench eating chips within half a mile of a kid's playground?
I do wonder whether moving to China will be the only way of getting
anonymity in the future.. after all, there, we all look alike..
Percy Picacity
Well I think that in general (and there will always be genuine cases
where it is urgent to prevent someone being employed despite not
having yet told them they are being investigated, I suppose, but not
very often) the principle of not having to suffer secret accusations
is more important than the administrative convenience of "not
prejudicing an investigation". In these rare genuine cases ad hoc
actions rather than waiting for a CRB check request to turn up and
replying to it would seem more appropriate to me. I don't think
that police investigations should in general be beyond the control
of due process, except perhaps where life or safety of a victim is
in imminent danger. The CRB checking process does not seem to me to
be a likely mechanism to use in such cases.
--
Percy Picacity
Big Les Wade
>Anyone been chatting to a foreign looking stranger on a train? Parked
>next to a fence unaware that it was an army base the other side? Sat on
>a park bench eating chips within half a mile of a kid's playground?
My elder brother used to live next to a small public park by a river.
Picturesque little place, but sadly there was a children's playground in
it. He had to give up his occasional pastime of sitting on a bench by
the river reading the newspaper, because of the number of "comments"
made in a loud voice by mothers ("Come away from that old man Aaron, how
many times have I told you about strangers!"). Sooner or later, he knew,
there'd be a visit from the police.
Imagine that, all you "nothing to hide nothing to fear" brigade. A
solitary grey-haired man in a park, spoken to by a group of police
officers, perhaps even invited for questioning down at the station.
Suppose someone who knew him saw it happen ... He simply could not risk
it.
--
Les
John Briggs
Perhaps you should have added that experience has shown that where the
police can misuse legislation, they will (eventually) do so.
--
John Briggs