The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I'm a human! I have a Government stamp of approval!
trevellian
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Or "the road to hell is paved by politicians cheered on by committees"
Perusing my usual list of biased news sources (they're all biased one way or another - one has to learn to try to seperate the fact from the frenzy).
I ran into the following article
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/14/crb_checks_total_analysis/
It's a bit of a long read so I will try and summarise as accurately as I can.
In order to follow through on their plan for "joined-up government" the Government has announced that anyone wishing to work "young or vulnerable" people is required to pass a Criminal Records Bureau check (which they must pay for unless the work is voluntary, in which case the taxpayer pays).
This, in and of itself, does not sound overly onerous. The problem is that local councils and business managers have decided that some of the wording in the bill is so broad that, in order to cover their own arses, they are insisting that people must have a CRB check done all sorts of jobs that previously did not require them.
In addition, it appears that these checks do not carry over from employer to employer or county to county - so a teacher that changes school cannot point to his/her existing CRB check, but must pay for a new one. If that teacher then starts participating in a evening club that is not associated with the school, another CRB check is required.
Some estimates (found in the story above) suggest that around 14 million people will need to be checked (that's what? about 25% of the UK populace). These figures are unsubstantiated, but they at least break them down so we can see how they were arrived at and it does not seem to be an order of magnitude more than could be considered realistic.
It also leads to ludicrous scenarios like this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/7500376.stm
Now that is a clearly ridiculous scenario, but lets not rush into judgement - that is an individual case and seems more related to the asshattery of local council than government/overlord planning.
People with an agenda(tm) will point to this sort of thing and decry it as another attempt by Nu-Labour and 'Trousers' Brown to lead the UK into an Orwellian state. Personally I don't think that there is a grand conspiracy to crush our freedoms, I would go more with the theory of Hanlon's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor).
But I have to admit the Government are not helping themselves with these attempts and creating lists of the 'good' guys and the 'bad' guys.
We have already had arguments about the national ID card.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/passports-and-immigration/id-cards/
http://www.no2id.net/
The US has had spirited discussions about the usefulness of it's "no-fly list"
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/secure_flight.shtm
http://www.schneier.com/essay-052.html
The UK (and I am sure other countries as well) maintain a "sex offenders register"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan/18/childrensservices.politics1
to track people that may be a 'danger' to others (is there a "murderous bastard" list as well? or a "look-at-him-funny-and-he'll-beat-the-crap-out-of-you" list?).
Again, started with good intentions, but it is possible to get on the register for the most unlikely offences:
http://www.out-law.com/page-7782
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567410/Man-who-had-sex-with-bike-in-court.html
Now I bet you that if you hear the words sex offenders register, the vast majority will think "pedo" - and if you meet people that are not overly bright this can cause problems:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm
I guess the question I am trying to raise in peoples minds is - given todays litigous society, it was inevitable that those "in authority" would try to cover their backsides through legislation. At what point does this become a burden to society? Does this damage future generations abilities to assess people for themselves? Is technology giving us solutions that we are not culturally ready to accept?
TL : DR
Government lists are getting more popular although their effectiveness is under question. Are these lists a good or bad thing for a society?
Perusing my usual list of biased news sources (they're all biased one way or another - one has to learn to try to seperate the fact from the frenzy).
I ran into the following article
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/14/crb_checks_total_analysis/
It's a bit of a long read so I will try and summarise as accurately as I can.
In order to follow through on their plan for "joined-up government" the Government has announced that anyone wishing to work "young or vulnerable" people is required to pass a Criminal Records Bureau check (which they must pay for unless the work is voluntary, in which case the taxpayer pays).
This, in and of itself, does not sound overly onerous. The problem is that local councils and business managers have decided that some of the wording in the bill is so broad that, in order to cover their own arses, they are insisting that people must have a CRB check done all sorts of jobs that previously did not require them.
In addition, it appears that these checks do not carry over from employer to employer or county to county - so a teacher that changes school cannot point to his/her existing CRB check, but must pay for a new one. If that teacher then starts participating in a evening club that is not associated with the school, another CRB check is required.
Some estimates (found in the story above) suggest that around 14 million people will need to be checked (that's what? about 25% of the UK populace). These figures are unsubstantiated, but they at least break them down so we can see how they were arrived at and it does not seem to be an order of magnitude more than could be considered realistic.
It also leads to ludicrous scenarios like this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/7500376.stm
Now that is a clearly ridiculous scenario, but lets not rush into judgement - that is an individual case and seems more related to the asshattery of local council than government/overlord planning.
People with an agenda(tm) will point to this sort of thing and decry it as another attempt by Nu-Labour and 'Trousers' Brown to lead the UK into an Orwellian state. Personally I don't think that there is a grand conspiracy to crush our freedoms, I would go more with the theory of Hanlon's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor).
But I have to admit the Government are not helping themselves with these attempts and creating lists of the 'good' guys and the 'bad' guys.
We have already had arguments about the national ID card.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/passports-and-immigration/id-cards/
http://www.no2id.net/
The US has had spirited discussions about the usefulness of it's "no-fly list"
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/secure_flight.shtm
http://www.schneier.com/essay-052.html
The UK (and I am sure other countries as well) maintain a "sex offenders register"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jan/18/childrensservices.politics1
to track people that may be a 'danger' to others (is there a "murderous bastard" list as well? or a "look-at-him-funny-and-he'll-beat-the-crap-out-of-you" list?).
Again, started with good intentions, but it is possible to get on the register for the most unlikely offences:
http://www.out-law.com/page-7782
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567410/Man-who-had-sex-with-bike-in-court.html
Now I bet you that if you hear the words sex offenders register, the vast majority will think "pedo" - and if you meet people that are not overly bright this can cause problems:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/901723.stm
I guess the question I am trying to raise in peoples minds is - given todays litigous society, it was inevitable that those "in authority" would try to cover their backsides through legislation. At what point does this become a burden to society? Does this damage future generations abilities to assess people for themselves? Is technology giving us solutions that we are not culturally ready to accept?
TL : DR
Government lists are getting more popular although their effectiveness is under question. Are these lists a good or bad thing for a society?
trevellian on
0
Posts
you used to be so great
damn you blair
This way, my employer knows that they don't have a (proven) criminal working their sensitive data.
On the other hand, maintaining an active list of naughty people should be the realm of santa claus only. Not only are they extremely vulnerable to slippery slope (Where public urination lands you on the same list as pederasts), they will run into definition problems, naming issues, and grow out of control. And if the list is public, it's even worse, but you are opening up paths to vendetta and vindication.
The worst of the worst is the USA terrorist lists. This week it grew to a million names.
One million names are flagged as terrorists, and anyone with that name (oh the beauty of lists) is in for a hellish time every time they cross a border or try to board a plane. Not a good time to be named Muhammad, or John Smith.
That's fine, and particularly for that specific job I can understand it. Also, if it was that cheap and efficient I don't think there would be so many complaints.
However, anecdotal evidence in the UK is that the checks are anything but fast (weeks to months) and the cost is around 56 GBP (that's what? $100'ish?) which the employer does not pay for (you pay it) and you have to get done repeatedly as you cannot point to your current CRB and say 'got one' if you start in a new role. Plus the recommendation is that it should be renewed every 3 years.
Those problems are administrative ones however - my bigger concern is where this leads us as a society. As I said in the OP, we tend to be a litigous people, therefore it is only natural that anyone who has to make a decision based on a CRB will take the most 'cautious' route possible ie. if anything comes up, anything at all then you can't get the job. With more and more companies and employment agencies wanting to 'take the lead' and insisting on CRB checks for any work with them what do you think the possible outcome of that might be?
Those who cower from tyrants deserve their chains."
-unknown
I had to have a CRB check here (in England) last year before I could work as a volunteer with a disabled kids group, it took about 5 minutes to fill out a form and I was cleared a few days later.
Sex Offender Lists have the issue of being a lasting penalty after the court imposed penalty and having an exceedingly long list of ways to get on them (urinate in public while drunk? You too could be a sex offender and have to live outside of X feet of children!), but wasn't the list made due to a huge relapse rate on sex crimes?
Not quite accurate. People who work for the government, NHS and local government (so teachers, social workers, nurses...) CRB checks fees are paid for by their employers. Voluntary / charity sector organisations get them for free. So that only leaves the for-profit sector. So they have to pay. Shame. Average time for CRBs to come through is currently up to 5 weeks - varies a bit, but by the time you've been offered a new job, accepted it, handed in your notice, your CRB is often through. Also, you don't have to have your CRB done before you work with children/vulnerable adults, you just have to be supervised by someone who has a current CRB check. I have an enhanced CRB, as I work with children and vulnerable adults.
CRB checks can be portable between employers, its up to individual employers
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
Ah thanks for that - I knew voluntary positions got the fee waived, didn't know that NHS, teachers etc got the fee waived too - glad to hear that.
Cool, I got bogged down on that website so missed that section, thanks for posting that.
*edit*
Yes, you are correct that technically it can be portable, but when the website has phrases such as
"PORTABILITY FRAMEWORK
Please note: The CRB no longer facilitates portability, organisations that choose to accept a previously issued Disclosure do so at their own risk (see limitations)"
and then goes on to list a large number of limitations and emphasising that this is additional risk, then many societies, organisations etc will simply state that they require a specific CRB for that position - otherwise they may be leaving themselves open to claims they did not not do everything in their power etc etc etc ad nauseum.
*end edit*
I was kind of hoping we could get a discussion going about the direction we seem to be headed down in terms of relying on various 'official' lists to determine peoples status in society but it seems we have got bogged down on a single list, the CRB list.
In another 3 years, we're going to try to check out if our phone was really tapped - me and LP's dad were involved with the Peace camp movement/CND in the early '80s, and he was passed over for promotion in the Civil Service several times, much to his bosses' surprise, so it will be interesting what we can find out.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
Richard Hurtz and other such registered terrorists.
Is that the under the 30 year rule when Government docs get sent to the national archives?
Really? My Mum and Dad were as well, my mum apparently left me naked for a soldier to carry off when they broke into Greenham Common... it explains so much.
In other news. The register had a play around with the maths and whilst it's probably the second worst source for news and conjecture it was a bit interesting as the positive and false positive hit rates are apparently pretty close. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/09/vetting_checks/
I had to pay for a Disclosure Scotland check for my tutoring, and it's valid for something like 3 years, so I can go on a exploitation bender for a few years and just give everyone my old certificate.
Man read the comic, it has far more depth than the film ever even had the pretence of.
On topic: What I really hate about this kind of legislation is that they always leave it too vague and far reaching, never defining anything. It always leads to problems later on because they can't be bothered to do their jobs and enact strict regulations and guidelines.
There has been a growing movement that the gut feeling you get that something is not right with someone and they are "dodgey criminals" you shouldn't hire or should fire amounts to nothing more then racism or some other form of discrimination.
So we passed legislation all over the world to prevent discrimination. Great.
And then we start making lists to do the job of determining the good from the bad for us, absolving us of both discrimination and deciding someone if is trustworthy. Great?
I understand why lists and criminal background checks came about. I think they are useful and have their place. But is someone who no longer drinks with a DUI from 5 years ago the same as a murderer or thief when your looking for someone to work cashing the checks at the bank? Should someone who urinated in public be on the same list as a rapist? And over a million people on a terrorist list? Somewhere in the process we lost our way.
Yes.
Thank you, I get lost in my own waffle
Your welcome, I don't mind reading some text if it has meaning. Nice OP.
You know the old "What would you rescue from your house if it was on fire and your family was safe?" question - its my piece of Greenham Common fence wire.
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
You're already on the known hippie list, if you start to promote nuclear disarming and point out the US is failing to disarm they will add you to the "terrorist" list as well :P
And doesn't Britain have its own nuclear weapons? what are you doing on the forums? Get back to protesting immediately!
But people with criminal backgrounds still need to work, and they'll still apply for jobs. It's not like everyone who's ever committed a crime is going to say, "Well, I'm a criminal, guess I'll just lie in a ditch and wait to die of exposure." And the more common CRBs become - it sounds like they're becoming pretty prevalent - the less able a person will be to simply only apply for places that don't require them. Further, it doesn't take that much time to apply for a job or even interview for it, especially if you're currently unemployed. May as well - the worst that happens is they say no.
In short, I'm not so much buying the deterrent effect, especially if there's reason to believe the CRBs aren't even that effective.
Right. They'll just say, "I can't get a job with my record, so I might as well go back to dealing drugs."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But what if the dealers start requiring CRBs?
The web site gives advice to people about the sort of jobs for which they will need a CRB, drug dealers aren't currently on the list.
I'm too old...
For paintings in progress, check out canvas and paints
"The power of the weirdness compels me."
Drug dealers don't call them "CRBs." They call them "resumes."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, I never understood that. All my criminal minds knowledge comes from popular media and a law course, so I don't know shit, but why is jail time a plus on a drug dealer resume? Shouldn't getting caught mean you suck at it? I can see how not ratting out people is a plus, but if prison sentences just push someone further into the lifelong criminal path by making it near impossible to get a decent job and easier to join criminal gangs then the system is failing.
This is true. California has a system where non-violent drug offenders can go into what's called a diversion program - basically, a combination of rehab and probation. If they successfully complete the diversion program, their records are sealed and generally will not show up on a pre-employment criminal background check. (Assuming there wasn't a clerical or computer error, which happens more often than it really should. Sometimes records don't get properly wiped.) They'll still show up on a law enforcement record pull, just not an employment background check.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Due for a Shake Up anytime soon.
And rather embarressingly, we don't. We have to borrow our Trident missiles from the US Navy. I think the warheads are still ours though.