XPost: uk.politics.parliament, uk.politics.misc
From: banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk
In article , Robert Henderson
writes
>In message , banana
> writes
>>
>>How did you get on, with your research on that one?
>>
>>Does the allegation have any 'legs' at all?
>>
>>Out of interest:
>>
>> - do you know for a fact that a Charles Linton (or Charles Lynton?)
>> was convicted on an importuning charge at Bow Street in 1983?
>Without an exact date they will not check, nor will they allow non-staff
>to go through the ledgers in which offences were recorded before
>computers became general. RH
Sounds as though they are being tricksy. There is an established
procedure through which, in certain circumstances, employers can insist
that a job applicant gets disclosure from the CRB of their entire
criminal record, including spent convictions. I do not believe that this
involves laborious hand-checking of ledgers in every magistrate's court
in the country. Nor do they need to know precise dates.
The levels of disclosure are:
BASIC (unspent convictions)
STANDARD (these, plus spent convictions, cautions, reprimands, etc.)
ENHANCED (these, plus some other sorts of information held by police)
Apparently 95% of basic and standard disclosures get returned within 1
week.
Dunno whether you have pursued this, but surely when a barrister gets
criminally convicted, he is obliged to tell the Bar.
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
