Hi Outsourced I would like to think that policy would be dictated by common sense but in my experience it doesn't. My case in point. When I applied for my parole it was initially turned down because" I hadn't done my course and hadn't submitted all paperwork"  My solicitors reply was "yes he has" p/b "well we dont have it" my solicitor "well yes you do, I sent it recorded and you signed for it!" .. It took the P/B 6 months to find it keeping yours truly hanging around inside for that time.. P/B eventually, " Oh yes you did and you have,, OK parole granted" 6 months at I believe to be the  going rate to keep me there 20k wasted because they couldn't do it sooner? My experience of the whole system is everyone pulling in their own direction so never getting anywhere. A total waste of time and effort. There was a guy in there who had been recalled for breach of licence, it took his legal team 12 months to get to the point where they proved he had not breached and it was incompetence by the parole service who had miss typed the licence. He was awarded 12 months false imprisonment plus legal costs. Another guy at hostel kept trying to find suitable accom, Police kept declining on grounds of unsuitability, he had been there for a long time, suspect the Police didn't want him to be their problem so kept him at hostel which was costing way more.
Nothing I experienced in my journey through the system made me think otherwise. If this was a private business it would have gone bust a long time ago being so disjointed.
I dont believe in the rehabilitation fairy

Don't get excited. Government policy will follow the pounds. 

Smoking was all well and good until the cost of NHS treatment tipped the tax scale. Now smoking is bad. 

When the long term unemployed and social welfare costs are bloated with the criminal untouchables, the slate will clear. 

If there is a hard brexit and severe shortage of workers, I guarantee a rehabilitation revolution to create the required taxpaying slaves. 


Todays news of 420 climate protesters arrested might find the above a sharp reality check. 

I think it's at least a start. I especially sympathise with people who got a conviction when they were very young and naive, misguided etc. Of course this attempt at looking at the efficacy of the ROA and CRB checks only really applies to those who have a one off minor conviction. I think those of us who are on the SOR boat won't see much in the way of change and those convicted of violent offenses.

CRB checks are in my opinion over used, and it's like cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. I think quite a lot of people who have committed a crime who otherwise have a good record ie: employment, education, character etc don't re-offend if they have made an effort to commit to dealing with whatever it was that was the catalyst for their behaviour. I mean sure, enhanced CRB is vital for roles where an individual will be placed in a position of responsibility for children or vulnerable adults but, for something like stacking shelves or picking stock in a warehouse, working in call center or some other blue collar type work it's crazy unless it's for a senior management position.

The problem is that so many employers are too quick to judge and come to assumptions and conclusions. It's never been unlawful  to employ someone with a spent or unspent conviction (unless it's a particular job: education, care etc)

Well, one thought is that if you have a criminal record, why are you reading the Daily Mail? They don't like you, so why should you use them? In terms of CC's reply, this is just a placeholder for now, to reassure the interested parties that they are on the case. The Daily Mail is probably only interested in trying to stop the government relaxing the rules in any way. Allegedly.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

In my opinion its again doing the bare minimum and doesn't take into account the statistical probability of re offending nor does it take into account what work the offender has done to reduce that re offending. What it does take into account is "how will this look in the press" I think the system would be much fairer if it was all based on the likely hood of any re offending. In this report there is too much use of vague terminology "certain" offences [ less demonised] and "could" [probably not] . If a move was going to be politically unpopular they wouldn't do it no matter how much sense it made.
My offence was over 15 years ago and no incidence since, that makes little difference apparently and I dont expect it ever will. Just look at the great FOI post Debbs put on here recently which shows a "post code Lottery " approach to applicants getting off the SOR. if you live in some areas your chances are virtually zero so dont even bother trying. I think that says a lot about "rehabilitation" attitudes which in my opinion are positively Dickensian.
 I dont believe in the rehabilitation fairy

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6930141/Criminals-convicted-minor-offences-given-clean-slate-new-proposals.html#comments

Thoughts?