No, they are saying that on balance it's better that the police, in an enhanced CRB check, let a potential employer know about a court case, so that employer can make their own minds up if an innocent verdict is relevent to protecting students or not.
Or you take the other option, don't tell them and face a huge anti-police backlash if the person in question ever does do something bad.
They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. But the former option potentially keeps people safer, at the expense of one man having some of his job options curtailed.
I suppose in reality, there's no such thing as an innocent verdict, only 'not guilty' if there was, why would we feel the need to have to protect students from someone who had been found innocent?
My main problem with the law, is a 'one-size-fits-all' approach doesn't work too well in certain circumstances, for example - If this teacher had never been in trouble with the law before, been caught up in something only to be found not guilty - then to me, it seams reasonable and proportionate to remove his details from the PNC and DBS databases. Mostly because in that situation - he has no proven history of wrongdoing, or previous problems with the police, so the risk of problems occurring could be deemed to be low, perhaps it stays on record for 3 or 5 years then disappeared completely - for piece of mind?
Where someone is found not guilty of a crime, whom happens to have a string of crimes against their name - then it would make sense to keep a record of that specific 'not guilty' incident on the DBS system, because despite being found 'not guilty' the risk would clearly be higher, which advances the argument for keeping people safe.
My main problem with the system is how in the wake of the Soham murders (Ian Huntley) the police ****** up monumentally, by not performing proper CRB checks on him (despite him having a string of violent criminal convictions) the result was, he got the job as a caretaker and murdered those girls. Many changes to the criminal records and PNC retention guidelines changed after that, to the point where absolutely nothing is ever deleted from the PNC, on anybody - until you're aged 100. If you stole a packet of chewing gum when you were 18, or just cautioned for shouting in a bar at night when you were 18 - then live an 100% crime free life, those things will stay on the PNC until you're 100, and haunt you at places like job interviews, DBS checks and immigration checks.
The reason I have such a burning hatred of governmental policy, is that if you look at the Ian Huntley case - all the correct checks and procedures existed, the police just didn't follow their own rules - rather than fix that, they used it as a way to get a disproportionate amount of data withheld on people indefinitely, which I believe - hurts society more than it helps.
Sorry /rant.