cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

This annoys me

Community Veteran
Posts: 7,371
Thanks: 83
Fixes: 2
Registered: ‎30-08-2007

Re: This annoys me

I have to have higher CRB to drive school coaches for all levels of school ages. These are organised by the County Council (for whom the routes are sub-contracted) the county council pays the bill. The ID card reads "authorised driver for ** county council"
Experience; is something you gain, just after you needed it most.

When faced with two choices, simply toss a coin. It works not because it settles the question for you. But because in that brief moment while the coin is in the air. You suddenly know what you are hoping for.
itsme
Grafter
Posts: 5,924
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎07-04-2007

Re: This annoys me

I was always suspicious of BT requiring a Basic Disclosure especially when I had to renew when changing agency. BT use Disclosure Scotland http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/about/history/ and they are the Business partner
Quote
British Telecommunications plc (BT) operates as our business partner. Their appointment followed a competitive negotiation process. They are responsible for various operational aspects of the service, including:
    call centre facility
    issue and receipt of applications
    verification and authentication of applicants
    processing of fee payments
    development and support of disclosure IT systems
    printing and issuing of Disclosure certificates
Community Veteran
Posts: 14,439
Thanks: 728
Fixes: 12
Registered: ‎01-08-2007

Re: This annoys me

Quote from: walker23
I think you are right, the Enhanced CRB is required if working with vulnerable people (children, elderly etc.), I think the application has to go through the employer (or prospective employer) but what makes a difference is whether the employer charges the employee for the cost of the search or (in some cases) pays on behalf of the employee.  The regulations allow for an employer to use an existing CRB obtained through another employer but they can demand a new application.  In our case it was effectively the same employer but they insisted on a new CRB which we had to pay for.

You're right. I worked for a local authority and had to have a Enhanced CRB check along with some of my colleagues. A few weren't happy about it (wonder why lol). It took a while to get through but its a huge bit of paper with loads of sections on it that basically say "None recorded" in all of them. When I changed employers I showed this to them but they still demanded a Disclosure from Disclosure Scotland.
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!
Community Veteran
Posts: 3,827
Thanks: 44
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎24-09-2008

Re: This annoys me

Community Veteran
Posts: 18,893
Thanks: 294
Registered: ‎12-08-2007

Re: This annoys me

I read this earlier.  How disgusting.  I agree the squatters should be deported without further delay.
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,320
Thanks: 86
Fixes: 3
Registered: ‎08-01-2008

Re: This annoys me

There should be a law against this kind of thing.
I actually mean that the law should be able to do something immediately and effectively and those guilty (despite their weasley claims that they were not the ones who actually broke in) should be made to compensate their victim in some way.
Call me 'w23'
At any given moment in the universe many things happen. Coincidence is a matter of how close these events are in space, time and relationship.
Opinions expressed in forum posts are those of the poster, others may have different views.
Community Veteran
Posts: 18,893
Thanks: 294
Registered: ‎12-08-2007

Re: This annoys me

I think the law has changed recently.  An eviction order used to take weeks to get and then enforce but this lady got one in a day.
itsme
Grafter
Posts: 5,924
Thanks: 1
Registered: ‎07-04-2007

Re: This annoys me

I thought an eviction order is not needed in situations like this. To claim squatters rights the house has be long term empty not just for a few days otherwise houses will be at risk from squatters every time householders go on holiday.
Community Veteran
Posts: 18,893
Thanks: 294
Registered: ‎12-08-2007

Re: This annoys me

But the owner got an eviction order to get her property back Undecided
Community Veteran
Posts: 8,618
Thanks: 960
Fixes: 9
Registered: ‎02-08-2007

Re: This annoys me

They then move into another property and some other poor soul has to go through the process of getting them out.
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,618
Thanks: 629
Fixes: 1
Registered: ‎21-03-2011

Re: This annoys me

She should have insisted the police charge the squatters for criminal damage and theft (of wine and food).
Now Zen, but a +Net residue.
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 18,589
Thanks: 2,888
Fixes: 238
Registered: ‎06-04-2007

Re: This annoys me

I expect burden of proof would be difficult without a witness who actually saw the damage being done.

Forum Moderator and Customer
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear - Mark Twain
He who feared he would not succeed sat still

Community Veteran
Posts: 6,320
Thanks: 86
Fixes: 3
Registered: ‎08-01-2008

Re: This annoys me

Quote
burden of proof would be difficult without a witness

probably even though it's blatantly obvious who did it.  Though the victin in this case did clearly witness the criminals using her belongings and consuming her food to possibly the theft part could be proven, that ought to be enough to have taken them 'down the nick' for questioning instead of leaving them free to burgle another house (I'm sure they can only claim to be squatting if a property is empty and not being used, in this case it was absolutely obvious that this was someones home (fresh food in the frige for god's sake), they know they weren't 'renting' the place as the door/lock was broken to gain access - even if by some miracle that wassn't done by them - a 'landlord' doesnt smash a door to let you in.).  These people flout the law because they believe they can get away with it.
Call me 'w23'
At any given moment in the universe many things happen. Coincidence is a matter of how close these events are in space, time and relationship.
Opinions expressed in forum posts are those of the poster, others may have different views.
Community Veteran
Posts: 18,893
Thanks: 294
Registered: ‎12-08-2007

Re: This annoys me

If they forced entry they can be done for breaking and entering.  The Police should take them in for questioning and fully investigate their immigration status.
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,320
Thanks: 86
Fixes: 3
Registered: ‎08-01-2008

Re: This annoys me

Quote
If they forced entry they can be done for breaking and entering

Almost all squatters claim that the door was broken when they happened along, very often they will even use an 'accomplice' (often a fellow squatter already squatting nearby) to break the door then move on without entering, then they just happen to notice the (already) broken door as they conveniently and entirely by coincidence as they are walking past, the person who broke the door may well never visit the property again.  This was all on a television programme recently but I must apologise I cannot remember when or what channel or anything other than it was quite a revelation.
If caught on CCTV the parson who broke the door can be prosecuted at most with criminal damage, the squatters actually gain 'proof' that they did not break in.  It seems most squatters in an area co-operate with each other so they can all carry on a lifestyle that the rest of society sees as simply wrong if not downright criminal.
Call me 'w23'
At any given moment in the universe many things happen. Coincidence is a matter of how close these events are in space, time and relationship.
Opinions expressed in forum posts are those of the poster, others may have different views.