B& q and crb checks

[lowvoltage]

Up to recently I used to work for a kitchen fitter who says that B&Q want all sub contractors to be CRB checked and carry one of thier ID cards.

They also said that it is non negotiable.

Though I have ben CRB checked and have no problem, its the fact that B&Q want us to carry one of their ID cards.

Thoughts.

 

[spsparks]

band q are not acting legally and most of you seem to missing the point about crb checks. I had these checks when working for housing assoc and had no problem with them. The person requesting the check must provide a valid reason for that check.
They are meant to protect children and vulnerable adults. Not to prevent some scally nicking a watch, or worse, give a company the chance to vet its staff based on some poorly considered bias.
The rehabilation of offenders act gives all a fair chance if a mistake has been made in life. It would be unfair of any employer to discriminate against someone who had smashed a window or had a brawl, not to mention illegal.
The crb check is supposed to make sure that those in society who are a danger, are prevented from harming anyone else.

The standard disclosure is primarily for positions involving regular contact with children or vulnerable adults, but can also be used for some other professions of high responsibility (for example, accountancy).

Enhanced disclosure is for positions involving greater contact with children or vulnerable adults (for example: teachers, nurses, midwives, doctors, social workers, student nurses, student midwives, medical students, pharmacists, pharmacy students) and for certain additional professions (for example, judicial appointments).

 

[Electricalserv]

Forget B&Q most likely they have forgotten that their customers are mainly DIY enthusiasts!

 

[pushrod]

Some informed comment on here about crb checks and some from people who in my opinion fail to see the full implication of such checks, possiby because they are unaffected by them.

There are three types of check: basic, standard and enhanced. Basic will not reveal anything that is spent. Standard checks will now reveal any caution, warning or conviction from anytime in your life. An enhanced crb will not only reveal any conviction, warning etc but also any arrest or association with the police even if it has subsequently been thrown out or that you were genuinely innocent of eg a false accusation will mean that an enhanced crb will not come back as clear.

Crb checks should be used where appropriate and only relevant information disclosed - a single minor offence as a teenager - possibly being drunk, and picked up by an over zealous police officer trying to meet their arrest quota, should not have any bearing on someone's employment chances 5, 10, 30 years into there future and yet this is happening. Such information should be private and not be allowed to get into the public domain.

This legislation is not doing what it was intended for - paedophiles can and do change their identities. Huntley was the boyfriend of the woman who worked at that school and knew the children - if he was unemployed he would still have met those 2 children. unless people are saying that all your relatives and friends should be crb checked as well when you go for a job and are all future acquaintances are subsequently checked as well!

As electricians we know about knee jerk legislation.

... and just for the record my enhanced crb is clear but i know a man who has theft on his because as a 15 year old he admitted accepting a few stolen mars bars. How many people can honestly say they never commited a single offence when they were a teenager - i know i can't. I was just lucky never to have been caught.

 

[alarm man]

the crb is only what the police know about us anyway,but previously employers didnt,cant see the problem really,there have been high profile cases where mr/mrs x was unsuitable for the job,so an enhanced disclosure is needed,personally id want to know if mrs teacher or mr caretaker was a wrong'un before i sent my kids there,and id want to know if x contractor was employing wrong'uns that were near my kids..not to much to ask is it,because if something happen'd those same people would be on there hind legs wanting answers..

 

[gpz900jim]

There go but for the grace of god go a lot of people. I think that the rehabilitation of offenders act is a good thing helping people to put their pasts behind them and to carry on with a good life. But when companies like B and Q make it a condition of employment that you have a check, I feel that they are circumventing legislation. But of course, we all know that its all a sales gimmick. "come to us, all others may be criminals" . I personally am not sure about whether the rehabilitation of offenders act should apply to sex offenders, particularly paedophiles. Although, having said that, they need to earn a living too, but where is safe? I dont think I would want a paedophile working in my house even though my kids are now grown up. Some things are just beyond the pale. Id rather have a murderer who had done his time in my house than a paedophile.

 

[pushrod]

the crb is only what the police know about us anyway,but previously employers didnt,cant see the problem really,there have been high profile cases where mr/mrs x was unsuitable for the job,so an enhanced disclosure is needed,personally id want to know if mrs teacher or mr caretaker was a wrong'un before i sent my kids there,and id want to know if x contractor was employing wrong'uns that were near my kids..not to much to ask is it,because if something happen'd those same people would be on there hind legs wanting answers..

The problem is that people who might be the best person for the job are being excluded from applying because of some totally irrelevant, minor misdemeanour from there distant past. No one is suggesting paedophiles get jobs in schools, or pyromaniacs get jobs in firework factories. If the conviction is totally irrelevant or minor and obviously from the distant past it should not be disclosed.

Think for a moment of the number of people from abroad who work in the caring services with the sick, elderly, mentally and physically handicapped. CRBs are not international, foreign people can not be, and are not, checked for working with these vulnerable people.

And if CRBs are introduced for more and more jobs you are effectively discriminating against British workers whose records can be accessed, for foreign workers, whose criminal records can not be accessed.
Does that seem fair to you?

People should be allowed to rehabilitate themselves otherwise what do they do? Do you want to pay for British workers on the dole while foreign workers with totally unknown criminal records are given preference.

 

[Engineer54]

What i can see of these CRB checks, they seem to be being used for all the wrong reasons, by all the wrong people, and not for what they were originally supposed to do!!! Like everything in the UK these day's, these sorts of official departments that dream up these things can't help themselves from going OTT, and then can't police what they have set up correctly.

They were brought about for a specific purpose, mainly for those working in direct contact with children. Then extended to anyone that comes remotely into contact with children. Now it seems anyone can insist you have a check carried out, even for those that have nothing to do with children...

I've had security checks carried out on myself, ...that was because i was working at that time in national security sensitive buildings, even had to sign the official secrets act of non disclosure, which is fine by me. But i can't for the life of me see the need for private companies having personal and private information, on your life.

So what's next, your friends and neighbours being able to get this information?? These numbties here, that can't see past what they want to believe of these CRBs need to think a little more on where all these checks can lead!!! You may just end up with no personal or private life left.

Thank god I'm not in that situation, ....another dam good reason not to reside in the UK. It just seems like it's getting to be one more pile of crap, on top of another pile of crap you have to put up with, just to be able to work for a living.....

 

[malcolmsanford]

gpz900jim and Pushrod are so right in this.

On another thread similar I commented on a friend I worked with for many years, was a business owner, councillor and on many charity comitees with his wife, also ran the local cricket club, which had a youth team.

About 5 years ago he had to do an enhanced CRB as per the law and when it came back it disclosed that in 1984 he was arrested for assault, when he was a flying picket during the miners strike. As we know Mrs Thatcher banned this practice, and he was one of 15 or 16 guys that were going to the next pit to join in a picket. They were all stopped outside their own pit where they met, and the polcie dragged them off the mini bus and arrested them. Of course there were scuffles and such, and of course all these guys were arrested and charged with assault.

I can remeber Ron (his name) face when he had to submit this CRB to the club, how he was ashamed that he had a record from then over 20 year previous. IMO these pieces of paper are worthless, just ask the parents of the Little Ted's nursery how good and useful they are.

 

[pushrod]

Good example Malcolm and this is being repeated up and down the country and it is stopping people from getting involved in the community, helping out at youth clubs and youth teams etc because they don't want some petty incident from their distant past to become public knowledge in the community in which they live. So the legislation that is there to protect is actually having the effect of reducing the opportunities for young and vulnerable people.

 

[alarm man]

The problem is that people who might be the best person for the job are being excluded from applying because of some totally irrelevant, minor misdemeanour from there distant past. No one is suggesting paedophiles get jobs in schools, or pyromaniacs get jobs in firework factories. If the conviction is totally irrelevant or minor and obviously from the distant past it should not be disclosed.

Think for a moment of the number of people from abroad who work in the caring services with the sick, elderly, mentally and physically handicapped. CRBs are not international, foreign people can not be, and are not, checked for working with these vulnerable people.

And if CRBs are introduced for more and more jobs you are effectively discriminating against British workers whose records can be accessed, for foreign workers, whose criminal records can not be accessed.
Does that seem fair to you?

People should be allowed to rehabilitate themselves otherwise what do they do? Do you want to pay for British workers on the dole while foreign workers with totally unknown criminal records are given preference.

just because you have info on the crb doesnt mean you wont get a job or even be fired from the job your in,theres guidelines to this,and you would win hands down in a tribunal,i wasnt an angel when i was younger the things on mine id even forgot about,you wouldnt want a former burglar working for a company who goes to your home,no matter how long hes been straight,its all down to what the company sees as a risk/not a risk to theircustomer.the check is in different sections,its not just 'this person is a wrongun' youve got convictions/section 142 education/children's barred list/vulnerable adults barred list,so if you had a drunken fight when you were 18 and got nicked and your now 35 with wife and kids with no further bother then you would not then get a job or be fired as theres no risk,but if your 35 and been nicked a good few more times for the same thing then a company might not want to employ a violent person if he comes into contact with their customers

 

[pushrod]

just because you have info on the crb doesnt mean you wont get a job or even be fired from the job your in,theres guidelines to this,and you would win hands down in a tribunal,i wasnt an angel when i was younger the things on mine id even forgot about,you wouldnt want a former burglar working for a company who goes to your home,no matter how long hes been straight,its all down to what the company sees as a risk/not a risk to theircustomer.the check is in different sections,its not just 'this person is a wrongun' youve got convictions/section 142 education/children's barred list/vulnerable adults barred list,so if you had a drunken fight when you were 18 and got nicked and your now 35 with wife and kids with no further bother then you would not(assume this not is a typo) then get a job or be fired as theres no risk,but if your 35 and been nicked a good few more times for the same thing then a company might not want to employ a violent person if he comes into contact with their customers

But if the application form has a section saying do you have a criminal record do the "yes" ones even get an interview when there are ten that say "no" ! And even if the conviction is from 20 years ago and totally minor you still have to declare a criminal record as a standard crb will show it. On the other hand the EU worker who is a regular burglar and has recent convictions can safely tick the "no" answer!

 

[alarm man]

But if the application form has a section saying do you have a criminal record do the "yes" ones even get an interview when there are ten that say "no" ! And even if the conviction is from 20 years ago and totally minor you still have to declare a criminal record as a standard crb will show it. On the other hand the EU worker who is a regular burglar and has recent convictions can safely tick the "no" answer!

i had the same problem,do i or do i not declare the spent convictions,i decided to declare them,had no problems as they were a good while ago and would not affect the job i do,with regards the eu worker i agree with you,if they are not able to provide the checks everyone else has too then no job,its only fair as you say and id go with that

 

[Electricalserv]

Sorry guys but it only takes a numbskull from any trade to do a shifty deed alla ian huntley and unfortunately we will all be subject to crb's its wrong. But as I've already stated just because you are crb cleared doesn't make u better than the assault convict in anyway shape or form and the sooner this is recognised the better.

 

[Engineer54]

The difference being Pushrod, is that other European countries have to respect there citizens human rights, can you imagine the French or even Germans accepting this kind of crap?? Which unlike the UK, who think they can tramp all over it, when it serves there purpose, or just let's things get out of hand, because the bureaucracy has overwhelmed them!!

The fact is, private companies that are not involved in sensitive government areas, or have nothing to do with the care of children, should have no right whatsoever to your personal information, for whatever reason ...whether it be past or present!!! Those that think they should, will soon find the folly of there thoughts, ....and you can take that to the bank!!!!

 

[alarm man]

Sorry guys but it only takes a numbskull from any trade to do a shifty deed alla ian huntley and unfortunately we will all be subject to crb's its wrong. But as I've already stated just because you are crb cleared doesn't make u better than the assault convict in anyway shape or form and the sooner this is recognised the better.

maybe it doesnt..but lets say you have mr x likes a drink in the club then comes home,gives the wife a bit of a kicking,this happens every week in mr x's house polis get called often but because the wife loves him and he doesnt mean it no charges pressed,to his work mates he's a good lad does all the right stuff,but behind his 4 walls hes a bit of a dick,now on the crb this would show in the cpo section,he's got no convictions so he appears clear, but he's known,if i employed someone like that id never had known without crb,now i see him a bit different,then its up to me do i employ him,do i talk to him its then my choice depending on the work id be sending him too