Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Should women be able to check partners' records?

109 replies

moonferret · 16/07/2011 23:15

I've just noticed this article in the Mail.
Do you feel that it's reasonable, or should men have the same "equal" rights? Or are criminal records (where they exist) supposed to be confidential as I do?
No marks for the first person referring to it as the Daily Fail rather than offering anything constructive!

OP posts:
SardineQueen · 17/07/2011 19:43

What the fuck?

Is this a joke?

scurryfunge · 17/07/2011 19:48

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

MoreBeta · 17/07/2011 19:58

I think if two people sign a declaration that they are going to be married then they should both be given access to each others criminal record.

It is very easy to organise. Both me and my wife have ACRO certificates because we needed them for another purpose and those certificates provide the results of a deep criminal record search. Far deeper than CRB.

Under the Data Protections Act 1998 everyone has a right to see 'personal data' held about them on the Police National Computer (PNC). There are exemptions to this right of access - for example if releasing information would prejudice policing purposes or would identify other individuals. In these circumstances the information that is exempt will be omitted.

The ACPO Criminal Records Office (ACRO) provides Subject Access disclosures on behalf of most police forces in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Jersey and Isle of Man.

All applications for Subject Access must be made through your local police force Data Protection Officer (links provided below). Please click on your home force or, if you live abroad, the police force area in which you most recently lived.

ACRO will reply to you directly with the results of your PNC search. This can take up to 40 days from receipt of your request.

niceguy2 · 17/07/2011 20:13

Shit I wrote a long message but lost it when I clicked post Sad

Anyway, my main point is that whilst in principle I support this idea, in practice I question if it is practical.

It's so full of potential pitfalls that I just can't see how it can be implemented.

For example, who does the law regard as a "partner" and not just some random woman who's been on a date or even just someone with an axe to grind? So I meet a woman. We go on a couple of dates.....should she then be entitled to go to the police and apply for information? Six months? How does she prove we've been dating for 6 months? Or perhaps it's when we live together? Erm....isn't that a bit late? Again, how does someone prove she's living with him in a relationship and not just a houseshare? Or that the relationship is still going on? Perhaps she's just been dumped so she thinks "aha...I know...i'll see if I can dig up some mud...."

And which men do you provide information on? The guy who hit his wife/GF once during a major argument? Should he never be trusted and police be warning women forever for what may have been a very very uncharacteristic event or he may have been totally provoked? If we don't warn on first offence, then when? The second? The third? How many women must be abused before the law warns others?

And what's the definition of abuse? Physical (ie. fists & feet)? Or would emotional abuse be counted too? I have a friend who's been emotionally abused by her (now ex)husband for years and I can tell you the scars are just as real as being punched. If not worse. And over the twenty years, she's never once pressed charges on him even though he's hit her so....

...what about those who haven't been convicted? Perhaps allegations aplenty but no convictions. Are we going to ignore them?

Who decides when to release information? Would each individual officer reading the notes decide? Or would we set up a quango like the CRB office?

For me the whole online dating link is extremely misleading and just the newspapers sensationalising. Online dating is completely safe. It's just when you meet them it MAY get dangerous. That's no different than meeting a guy in the street/pub/club then agreeing to a date. You've no idea if the guy is going to be a bit handy with his hands in a few months or not.

Oh and lastly what about sexual equality? I know of two men who were beaten regularly by their wives. One was on the verge of divorce when she died, so that sorted that out. The other guy ended hanging himself as he couldn't face the shame of anyone knowing, nor the continued abuse by his wife. So it does happen. Should men be allowed to also apply?

Fuck it. Why don't we all submit to annual STD, CRB, genetic screening and store them with the government. They can then just give the information to whoever they see fit. What could possibly be the problem? After all, if you've nothing to hide..........

msrisotto · 17/07/2011 20:27

It's all a bit 1984 for my liking.

I dunno, if this kind of thing was published more often, abusers would be found on google.
Oh, if these people were dealt with appropriately at least.

moonferret · 17/07/2011 20:58

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

scurryfunge · 17/07/2011 21:06

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

moonferret · 17/07/2011 21:07

You have nothing to respond with...on this or any thread you abuse me on. End of.

OP posts:
scurryfunge · 17/07/2011 21:08

Ha, ha....he thinks he is a moderator.
Snigger.

moonferret · 17/07/2011 21:11
OP posts:
scurryfunge · 17/07/2011 21:11

Go to bed then.

moonferret · 17/07/2011 21:13

Still going...
Thinking I'm a "moderator" for noting you have nothing to respond with!
What's the connection exactly?!

OP posts:
scurryfunge · 17/07/2011 21:20

It was the comment, "end of " which suggests you are arrogant enough to assume you have any control over a thread. That amused me.

Your subsequent comments suggest you are trolling and have another agenda or mindset that is incapable of a meaningful discussion.
Sorry, I do not value your opinion because of previous postings.

moonferret · 17/07/2011 21:25

I thought your advice to others about me was Just ignore ?
And no, the phrase "End of" in no way implies any moderator style belief in having "control over a thread"..what an absurd idea!

I do not value your ludicrous postings. I cannot call them "opinions" as you don't have any, just a desire to abuse on any post you can find me on..sad! You'll soon move on to someone else...

OP posts:
scurryfunge · 17/07/2011 21:35

Nah...sorry. My advice is still to ignore your ramblings.I have given my reasons as to why I won't engage with you on anything that matters, though.
Much as I am loving your amusing comments,The Apprentice is getting more interesting so I will catch up later. Mwah!

moonferret · 17/07/2011 22:06

You haven't given any "reasons"..you just realise that you don't have the intellect to even try to come up with any counter arguments. The only people you can "engage" with are people who see things your way...

OP posts:
verax · 18/07/2011 00:15

I don't agree with this proposal, a persons criminal record is private and confidential and someone should not just be able to access it.

DioneTheDiabolist · 18/07/2011 00:19

Are Criminal Records private? Our local newspaper reports on all manner of law breaking: from speeding to murder. What privacy are we talking about here?

verax · 18/07/2011 00:28

Although the media can report individual instances of crime, as far as I know accessing a persons entire criminal record can only be done with that persons permission. There are exceptions eg the police can do it also.

NotaDisneyMum · 18/07/2011 00:29

I think it would be very hard to implement - and if it only applied to women with male partners then it would be discriminatory.

A lot of the victims of domestic abuse are fully aware of their partners criminal convictions - but believed that they could 'change' him, that it would be 'different' this time Sad I think the people who would benefit most probably wouldn't use it Sad

DioneTheDiabolist · 18/07/2011 00:43

Well, they can say that "so and so was previously convicted of this and that" and say when. I agree that to make this available to just women would be discriminatory, but if my local newspaper can report it and any prospective employer can check it out, why can't I or anyone else find out about the criminal record of someone?

This is the internet age. I could google them or I could ask and pay for a police check. What is the difference?

moonferret · 18/07/2011 00:52

No, you can't simply "Google them", as only a small minority of convictions will show, and the larger the place, the fewer it will be as a proportion of the total. In large towns and cities (over 100,000 people), only a tiny number of cases (usually serious ones) make the press and hence the internet. Also, they will only be there for recent offences. If the person has a "common" name, they will be harder to find. And no, you (or any "prospective employer") cannot check it out. Only prospective employers can, and they need to request (and have grounds for) requesting a CRB check. This has to have the consent of the person concerned.

You were correct about availability being limited to women being discriminatory, however.

OP posts:
BooyHoo · 18/07/2011 00:52

wtf is an 'average domestic beating'?? Hmm

you are clearly not someone who has ever suffered a violent assault.

moonferret · 18/07/2011 00:58

"wtf" do you think it is?
A black eye, bruises, cut lip perhaps..the sort of injuries that routinely result.

As opposed to teeth knocked out, broken bones etc. Are you understanding this?

OP posts:
BooyHoo · 18/07/2011 01:01

"are you understanding this?" Hmm

FTFOAWYGTFOA. are YOU understanding this?

Swipe left for the next trending thread