- Messages
- 6,632
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
Nope, that's not what I am saying (assuming you were responding to my post), no one's rights have been infringed unless of course the judge put a ban on releasing any information from the trial, that information will be available to the general public.
What I am saying is that the checks and clearances (general clearances including but not exclusively classes as Security/Higher Vetting) are gathering/checking information for an assessment of risk to judge whether a person is suitable for a role. For instance lets say Bob applies for a job, the initial questionnaire includes a question regarding any criminal convictions/proceedings to be declared which Bob answers No, the background check shows this to be a lie, is that person the best person for the job where a high level of trust is required?
I must add, I do not know the specifics of the OP case, as I have not looked into it.
It was you I was replying to and you still don't see the issue. If you were found NOT guilty why is acceptable for this to come up on a check? that is the issue and thats where the rights get infringed and follows a person for the rest of their lives. The issues not about someone having an actual criminal conviction and lying about it.
I'd guess those that are outraged have never worked in a field that requires any type of clearance, the rules in such work places are vastly different to other more normal (for want of a better word) roles.
Well you would be wrong again, at least in my case!
It's on THE record because it's what happened. No-one (police or otherwise) has "decided" to put it on there.
Wrong, it can be put on the enhanced DBS by the police at their discretion, its on the DBS website in black and white.
Actually its on the Criminal Record Check, if the person does not have a criminal record, ie has not been convicted of a crime, then it really shouldn't be there, imo.
This^^