Despite the fact Blairy Poppins and many of her friends, even her wife, are connected in some way or other with the legal system; she seems to have a real grudge against due process, and prefers instead to dish out instant justice.I wonder if this is related to something that happened in her dim and distant childhood?
Anyhoo, it was recently reported that Nanny's most respected and efficient Home Office had wrongly labelled 1,500 people as criminals in the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) database.
This blunder has led to some people being turned down for jobs, or university places.
Nanny's Home Office said that the errors arose when personal details were similar to a recorded conviction, but represented "a tiny proportion of cases"; in other words they cocked it up.
The Home Office went on to say that 90% of disputes were resolved within 21 days and, while regrettable, it would not apologise for "caution".
It said it made "no apology for erring on the side of caution".
One of Nanny' trolls from the Home Office said:
"The Criminal Records Bureau's first and foremost priority is to help protect children and vulnerable adults
by assisting organisations who are recruiting people into positions of trust.
These cases are clearly regrettable,
but represent a tiny proportion of cases
0.03% of the nine million disclosures issued by the CRB since it began operating in March 2002.
We err on the side of caution in these rare cases precisely
because it is vital to ensure that the disclosure individuals do not fraudulently try to claim they have no criminal convictions when in fact they have."
Now here is the rub, Nanny wouldn't apologise for this as she is of the firm belief that it is better to put innocent people in jail rather than allow criminals to walk free.
That concept may play well in the tabloids, who routinely scream for blood, but it overturns centuries of jurisprudence in this country. The very bedrock of our justice system is that you are innocent until proven guilty, and that it is better for a guilty man to walk free rather than for an innocent man to go to jail.
Nanny has reversed that, and has set us on a very dangerous downhill course towards dictatorship.
I hope to God that we are soon rid of her and her nasty, headline chasing, acolytes.
Guilty intil proven innocent is the modern cost effective way, especially for technical law breaking with the potential for cash generation.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand thugs and gangsters on the run from other parts of the world are welcomed and have freedom available to them after the most peremptory of stays. Interestingly the numbers are similar, though the percentages are very different.
It does strike me that 9 million disclosures for the CRB, given their supposedly limited brief for who they can release information to and about what, in 3 or 4 years (When in 2002 did they start?) is a massive number. A very expensive level of bureaucracy to support for what seems to be relatively little benefit.
Or am I missing a point here?
Who do you think runs the CRB? None other than CRAPITA. Makes you think.
ReplyDeleteTV Licensing is another one of Crapita's little scams ...
ReplyDeleteAnti-TV Licensing website
CRB hahahahaha.
ReplyDeleteI've done CRB checks, as a CRB registered site. The error rate is nothing like 0.02%, it's more like 5% - and that's the ones we've detected.
Had to send in the forms 3 times before we got application forms with the right name on. One chap with an African name had to send his form in FOUR times before Crapita's morons typed it in right. Two people we knew had criminal records (minor unimportant ones, but still they were there) came back clean. Half a dozen others were sent back because details (usually names) had stupid mistakes ; this is out of 100 or so applications (!)
It's absolute sh*te.
Before the moral panic of Soham, it was done by the Police. They only checked people with substantial access to children. But they did it properly.
Now it's an amateurish check run on everyone.
The #1 problem appears to be they don't check to see if the person actually exists. So you could get a clear form back for "Keneth Frost" (due to the typo) even if "Kenneth Frost" was a mass murderer.
For the record, I have never murdered anyone at Mass in my life.
ReplyDeleteWhat does nanny think about the large numbers of offenders given electronic tagging devices which they remove, more than half, according to figures I have come across and written about.
ReplyDeleteThat means more criminals on the loose when we should be protected.
Ah, the hand of Crapita.
ReplyDeleteSo, the 3 million applications were really about 500,000 but if you count all the re-applications due to errors in the first (and subsequent) passes you get a big number which makes the operation look more important than it should be. Kudos.
That is good for persuading someone (Nanny) to invest more in the business for core purposes.
On top of the core funding I would hazard a guess that there is a payment per transaction, probably without any penalty clause for errors made. (Due to the strange nature of the enquiry which couold indeed be a licence to print invoices for doing nothing.)
So every time a letter is sent or received a charge is incurred. The BBS Licence is probably worked the same way. (I'm guessing but it would be a typical commercial model I believe.)
No wonder Crapita have come from nowhere to dominance in such a short time. Payment for failure can be very lucrative.