ChatterBank2 mins ago
CRB check
I was interviewed under caution by police 2yrs ago about an alleged offence , does this go on a CRB check?
No further action was taken and case closed but CRB check is asking to declare cautions and not sure if i have to for this as i have no criminal record,
I understand it will be on record but is being interviewed under caution the same as being given a police caution or warning?? sorry to seem a bit thick about this but not had much dealings with the police except the interview
No further action was taken and case closed but CRB check is asking to declare cautions and not sure if i have to for this as i have no criminal record,
I understand it will be on record but is being interviewed under caution the same as being given a police caution or warning?? sorry to seem a bit thick about this but not had much dealings with the police except the interview
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by wiggy143. 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.
Like i have said not had many dealings with the police so not 100% sure if being interviewed will show up, At the time the police officer stated it was a matter of course to be interviewed under caution for everbobys protection, i was never given any formal or written caution ans was told at time case was closed, could be im worrying over nothing but was just wanting to put my mind at rest
Your last sentence (“...any innocent person who was arrested would find it bloody hard to get a job....”) is very appropriate at the moment, ummmm.
Currently (until the government decides to instruct police forces to obey a ruling from the European Court) people who have been arrested but are subsequently neither convicted nor even charged with any offence do indeed find it difficult when it comes to applying for a job. This is because their DNA profile is obtained and retained indefinitely. Many employers now include in their application process a question which says (roughly) “have you ever had your DNA profile taken and retained by the police?” Innocent people have to say that they have and this often jeopardises their chances of employment.
Furthermore, the type of interview to which wiggy refers will almost certainly be on police records. If wiggy wants to associate with children or vulnerable adults in even the most informal way (giving a few of them a lift to the Scouts on a regular basis, for example) he will have to undergo a check by the newly formed “Independent Safeguarding Authority” (ISA). That body’s checks will almost certainly reveal his interview and so he will he will fail the ISA’s test of "suitability".
These two developments now mean that the balance has swung so heavily towards individuals being forced to prove their innocence before being allowed to undertake normal everyday activities, that even the genuinely innocent are unable to do so.
Currently (until the government decides to instruct police forces to obey a ruling from the European Court) people who have been arrested but are subsequently neither convicted nor even charged with any offence do indeed find it difficult when it comes to applying for a job. This is because their DNA profile is obtained and retained indefinitely. Many employers now include in their application process a question which says (roughly) “have you ever had your DNA profile taken and retained by the police?” Innocent people have to say that they have and this often jeopardises their chances of employment.
Furthermore, the type of interview to which wiggy refers will almost certainly be on police records. If wiggy wants to associate with children or vulnerable adults in even the most informal way (giving a few of them a lift to the Scouts on a regular basis, for example) he will have to undergo a check by the newly formed “Independent Safeguarding Authority” (ISA). That body’s checks will almost certainly reveal his interview and so he will he will fail the ISA’s test of "suitability".
These two developments now mean that the balance has swung so heavily towards individuals being forced to prove their innocence before being allowed to undertake normal everyday activities, that even the genuinely innocent are unable to do so.
Well this getting more complex judging by the posts.
First i was never arrested only asked to come in to be interviewed to eliminate me from there investigation and secondly they never took or even asked for a DNA sample, if they had they could of had it.
After whats been in the news lately about people not being able to give lifts to kids to footy practice and the like it made me think how far would they go checking thats all, god feel like a criminal now
First i was never arrested only asked to come in to be interviewed to eliminate me from there investigation and secondly they never took or even asked for a DNA sample, if they had they could of had it.
After whats been in the news lately about people not being able to give lifts to kids to footy practice and the like it made me think how far would they go checking thats all, god feel like a criminal now
Police had 2 options - arrest you or interview you under caution. Its so you just don't walk out. Also it gives you the option to seek legal representation. The interview will be on the police database but it won't show up on any CRB check.
Employers who ask the question "have you ever had your DNA profile taken and retained by the police?” are seeking to weed out potential candidates which goes against the polciy of our legal system - innocent until proven guilty. No right to do so so just answer No.
Employers who ask the question "have you ever had your DNA profile taken and retained by the police?” are seeking to weed out potential candidates which goes against the polciy of our legal system - innocent until proven guilty. No right to do so so just answer No.
Yes, bJohn, all very simple and straightforward.
Until, that is, you gain employment by just answering “no” (which is false) and then are accused of obtaining the job by telling lies and are sacked.
My earlier post was not really a direct answer to ummmm’s question (for which I apologise) and I was simply trying to broaden the debate. His interview will not show up on a CRB check, but it will show up if the ISA were doing the checking. And it will not be long before employers use questions about those checks (such as, “would a check by the ISA reveal any adverse results?”) when screening out prospective employees.
Individuals should not be put in the position of either having to tell lies or face being screened out for telling the truth when that truth shows no guilt. It is quite clear that employers are circumventing the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (which provides for convictions to be “spent” after a period of time). And the government is complicit in helping them do so by maintaining and making available details of people who have not been convicted of any crime.
Until, that is, you gain employment by just answering “no” (which is false) and then are accused of obtaining the job by telling lies and are sacked.
My earlier post was not really a direct answer to ummmm’s question (for which I apologise) and I was simply trying to broaden the debate. His interview will not show up on a CRB check, but it will show up if the ISA were doing the checking. And it will not be long before employers use questions about those checks (such as, “would a check by the ISA reveal any adverse results?”) when screening out prospective employees.
Individuals should not be put in the position of either having to tell lies or face being screened out for telling the truth when that truth shows no guilt. It is quite clear that employers are circumventing the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (which provides for convictions to be “spent” after a period of time). And the government is complicit in helping them do so by maintaining and making available details of people who have not been convicted of any crime.
It’s not a question of what you do, Bjohn. You should not be asked such questions. The questions are only able to be asked because the facilities that maintain the answers (the DNA database and the ISA database) are available.
I’m not suggesting for one moment that the DNA database should not exist. It is a highly useful tool for fighting serious crime. But either everybody should be on it or only those convicted of a serious crime should. If everybody is not to be on it then innocent people should not have their details kept. This has been the position adopted by the European Court in their verdict and the government has blatantly ignored it whilst it “considers its position”.
Just because someone has had “dealings with the police” in no way justifies their employment being jeopardised. The police have dealings with lots of people – that’s what they do. But many, many of them are released without charge and many who are charged are acquitted. There is no more justification for reatining their profiles than there is of retaining those of people who never come into contact with the police.
As for the proposed ISA database, I think enough has been said about that in recent weeks without me adding more.
I’m not suggesting for one moment that the DNA database should not exist. It is a highly useful tool for fighting serious crime. But either everybody should be on it or only those convicted of a serious crime should. If everybody is not to be on it then innocent people should not have their details kept. This has been the position adopted by the European Court in their verdict and the government has blatantly ignored it whilst it “considers its position”.
Just because someone has had “dealings with the police” in no way justifies their employment being jeopardised. The police have dealings with lots of people – that’s what they do. But many, many of them are released without charge and many who are charged are acquitted. There is no more justification for reatining their profiles than there is of retaining those of people who never come into contact with the police.
As for the proposed ISA database, I think enough has been said about that in recent weeks without me adding more.
Think i feel a lot better now as i was not asked about an ISA search and never had my DNA taken then or anytime previous, its the very fact you here all these reports in the news that alarm bells start ringing even when you have done nothing other than help police eliminate you from there invetigations.
I fully understand that the police will have a record of the event on the PNC but having heard all comments on here i feel a CRB check will not reveal the interview.
Finally thanks to all who posted as it has made things a lot clearer in my own mind now
I fully understand that the police will have a record of the event on the PNC but having heard all comments on here i feel a CRB check will not reveal the interview.
Finally thanks to all who posted as it has made things a lot clearer in my own mind now
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Home & Garden3 mins ago
They Just Can't Help It Can They?
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
