Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 As I made clear, above: "Some suspension of the right to privacy must have been put in place (either by Westminster or the Welsh Assembly) to allow Gwent police to circumvent current privacy and confidentiality regulations whilst piloting this scheme." Probably. But either Parliament of the Welsh Assembly has to be using some sort of statutory powers under legislation. It's that vague word 'scheme' that I find uncomfortable: is it law or isn't it law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frededwards Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 From the BBC website: Clare's Law: Gwent Police to pilot violence history scheme The scheme is called Clare's Law after a mother who was killed by a former boyfriend Continue reading the main story A pilot scheme under which people can find out from police if their partner has a history of domestic violence has started in the Gwent Police area. The trial of Clare's Law, named after Clare Wood, who was killed by a former boyfriend, will also be carried out in three force areas in England. The Home Office announced the trials in March. Domestic violence campaign group Refuge has criticised the scheme, saying it will do little to protect victims. Besides the Gwent force, Clare's Law is also going on trial in Greater Manchester, Nottinghamshire and Wiltshire. The pilot will end in September next year. I'm not going to argue semantics with you. I don't have the time or the inclination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Jay Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I think this is terrible, first it was employers doing CRB checks, now its women checking if you have a history of violence before they get involved with you, and next it will be insurance companies looking at your DNA to see if you're "likely" to have certain illnesses as an excuse to charge you more. This is the depressing way society is going, its the unfortunate downside to technology, its facilitating an unhealthy desire to know everything about everyone instantly, and then jump to conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I think this is terrible, first it was employers doing CRB checks..... CRB checks are intended to prevent, for example, paedophiles having access to children through work. If you think that's terrible then please explain why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah-Lacie Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I think this is terrible, first it was employers doing CRB checks, now its women checking if you have a history of violence before they get involved with you, and next it will be insurance companies looking at your DNA to see if you're "likely" to have certain illnesses as an excuse to charge you more. This is the depressing way society is going, its the unfortunate downside to technology, its facilitating an unhealthy desire to know everything about everyone instantly, and then jump to conclusions. There is already Sarahs law in place which allows people to put a request into the police about neighbours, or new partners of family members etc to find out if they have any history of child abuse, paedophilia and violence - I can't see this new law being much different. You could already check up on new partners or partners of a family member AFAIK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingray-man Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I think this is terrible, first it was employers doing CRB checks, now its women checking if you have a history of violence before they get involved with you, and next it will be insurance companies looking at your DNA to see if you're "likely" to have certain illnesses as an excuse to charge you more. This is the depressing way society is going, its the unfortunate downside to technology, its facilitating an unhealthy desire to know everything about everyone instantly, and then jump to conclusions. hence why i aint on any facebook or tw@tter sites, why dont people want to have abit of privacy anymore ?, i just dont understand it, everyone has this need to plaster all sorts of crap and every detail about their life on the internet for everyone to read, and the biggest problem is who is wasting all their time and life reading about what everyone else is doing ? everyone is just sat on facebook reading what each other are doing and half the time its probably nowt, i just cant understand why people waste their time on it and like i said i don't understand the need to tell everyone every detail of your life, i don't want people to know my business that's why its called my business because its nothing to do with you. i must be a grumpy git, but i don't care i like being that way, i can actually go out and do something without other people knowing which is quite good as i can do something myself without someone else getting involved or sticking their nose in where its unwanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I'm not going to argue semantics with you. I don't have the time or the inclination. Well said. It sounds as though it is a pilot scheme, which if successful will form the basis of new law, but I agree, that isn't the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Not argumentative at all; I wished to know- and you yourself aren't yet able to say- by what legislative means this 'law' has effect. It might be an order in council. Unlikely to be a conflict of supra-national law and super-natural law ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Not sure on this one. All it would show is a record of violence or not, not whether the person is violent. Would an offence of gbh committed at 17 be applicable when that 17 yr old is now 55? Do all people who are violent have criminal records? Personally I would rather see those that have committed more the one offence of violence to have "violent history" tattooed on their forehead rather than create some curtain twitchy legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Do all people who are violent have criminal records? Good point - only those who are caught do. And how many wife beaters are out there who know how to "cheat the system"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.