theForum

Teaching English Abroad


https://forum.unlock.org.uk/Topic11770.aspx

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

nono 


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 10/08/2013 21:20:01 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


Q3


“Never take the word of anybody on here, make your own choices and decisions” (Q3)


Yes spot on 100%, so I did and found out the truth myself.  Mine doesn’t come from the news or other people’s opinions. So Q3, what’s your life like and judging form previous comments, not too good eh? Here’s some news, the recession is officially over – must be true, some EU Minister said it. Austerity is good for you, again true DC said it. We all have choices, you stick to your minimum wage building site guard job and I’ll stick to the opportunities I’ve found here. No Q3, you are not a leader, you’re one of the systems followers; you’ll do as you’re told and spend your life complaining and moaning about it. I’m life’s drill sergeant and you know I’m never wrong, remember? lol  


P.S You probably came to Thailand looking for smut and found it, lots of it. (Naughty, naughty). Shame you had to go back three times to re-check; if you’d have asked I could have told you that any major UK city has red light areas and you could have saved yourself the trouble. smilewinkgrin


To all


There are plenty of firearms available in Thailand. They’re available everywhere in Asia and many are leftovers from Pohl Pots Cambodia and the Vietnam war. Here’s some more news based on personal experience; the UK inner cities are also flooded with them and I could as easily have bought one in the UK as I can here in Thailand now. Political unrest? Yes certainly, back in 2010 and the occasional riot – just like the ‘summer riots’ and looting in the UK. I’ve walked around Bangkok often at night, when is the last time any of us including me walked around an inner city area in Liverpool, Manchester or London? From personal experience I feel a lot safer here in Asia than I ever did in the UK and I’ve not come across a ‘no-go’ area for foreigners yet.


Don’t get me wrong, I wish I could have had this lifestyle in the UK, but I’m one of those that will never be officially rehabilitated and just as you would move to another part of town, or to another part of the UK to improve your job prospects, I moved 6,000 miles away to improve mine. The only difference is distance. I still work in the rat race, I still have to pay taxes, I still have bills to pay and it’s certainly not all lying on a beach under a palm tree stuff. A dream lifestyle it is, but it’s not promised to you by some Minister of verbal garbage in the UK, it’s something that you work towards and I think that is a problem for some to understand in a country that believes in equality and entitlements and all must be the same. My posts are not about a country without problems, they’re about what you can make of yourself in just about any country when you’re able to take away the UK government restrictions that hold you back and promise you a minimum wage as a goal in life. 


So, to sum up. Don’t listen to the government and don’t take to much heed of the media propaganda. All countries have problems, but all countries also have opportunities, just that with our pasts, some have more than others. Post conviction life makes a lot of people bitter, they feel safe and secure doing what they’re told, sticking to the known . . . yet for the adventurous types there is hope, as millions who have already done it will tell you. I’m not saying do it, I’m telling you what I did and it’s something that worked. :-)

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Thank-You Ian, I enjoyed your reply yeah 
 
I cannot even start to imagine what crimes you committed to be " Never Officially Rehabilitated ", and I shudder at the thought.
 
 
 
 
 


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 10/08/2013 21:20:29 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


Oh, I’ve never said that I dislike the UK. I dislike how it’s run, politicians, rules and regulations . . . but never the country itself. The crime(s) I committed don’t need to be gone into, but they resulted in double figure prison sentences and spanned a couple of decades – I believe I was referred to as a ‘career criminal’. There are people here who didn’t even get a prison sentence and are barred from any gainful employment. Real guts, well there’s an anomaly. I can and have trekked through jungles and my working environment now touches -30 in the winter, so no problems there.


Guts – surviving long term prison environments with the worst in the UK and coming out the other side alive and still mentally capable. Having the determination to go the course, not give up, improve and get from Category A prisoner to a teacher. Not many have done that, no one led me, no one told me what to do – I did it. Quite proud of it actually and I come on here to tell people that there’s hope. This isn’t me bragging, I tell people this is what I did and how I did it. Adventures? I prefer to forget mine, they give me nightmares and there was no safety net. Go watch ‘McVicar’ or Jimmy Boyles experiences in the Scottish prisons for a taste of no holds barred adventures.   


I never escaped really. What I did is escape the worst recession in living memory and it’s not over for you lot yet. In the good old days of the early to mid 2000’s a good HGV1 driver was earning 1000 a week before tax but I always knew I was capable of a lot more. It’s called progression, people move onto better things which is what I did. I’m not alone, millions have also done it, with or without a criminal conviction. Many here can’t even get a job down Tesco’s, now perhaps you’d offer them some advice?  


My main problem is with the government telling me I can never be rehabilitated and somewhat shamedly, I’m beginning to see The Foxes take on this. I’m in my late 50’s, I have a bunch of degrees, work skills, life experience and all the rest of it. I’m classed as a social and economic outcast because of what I did a quarter of a century ago? I’m expected to stand meekly in front of someone half my age whilst they tut tut about my being a bad boy and have a HR conference on whether to give me a chance to sweep their floors for six pounds something an hour? My problem is that I was never a follower, which got me into a lot of trouble in my earlier days, but having turned round, that same doggedness, refusal to obey and do what I think is best for me has now got me to the top of the food chain.


I’ve paid my share of UK taxes; I’ve been crime free for decades; I’ve obeyed the law and voted . . . and I have to beg for work and have to ‘prove’ myself for the rest of my life? (There follows a series of expletives)! Having now thought about what all this has got to do with teaching, well it’s better than begging, slipping into drug or alcohol abuse and much better than being unemployed, or what’s the nicey term now – low waged? Nope, I’ve no regrets even if it makes Mr. Cameron “physically ill” and the Daily Mail readers choke on their buttered scones. It’s better staying in the UK and putting up with it? I can assure you it’s not and I don’t care what Reuters, The University of Sydney or the UK government tell me. I’ve made my own bed, I’m lying in it and to tell you the truth, it’s rather comfy these days and comes with a nice view! You be careful with those ducks, they’ll be available down your local food bank if the recession carries on like this for much longer. Time is 1730 and it’s +40 outside. Cheers. :-)     


P.S Do you mean Chiang Mai, not Rai, because that's where the US forces were stationed. Chiang Rai is further up near the Laos border and there are no UK forces there unless perhaps you were special forces (SAS/SBS). Oh please, not that, we've enough 007's and ex- secret agents stories in the bars here to last a lifetime. :-)

By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM




Foxtrot said...
Big willy contest anyone?


Yes, it’s sounding like that, isn’t it. Can’t say I’m proud of where I’ve been and what I’ve done, but I’ve certainly come a long way since. Plodding through the jungles with my bag of English Grammar, killing the mosquito’s with my Collins dictionary and doing a Captain Scotty in -30 temperatures . . . .  lol Well, not quite, but extremes in temperatures just as a  hazardous existence have always been part of my make-up – perhaps that’s left over from my more adventurous days?


Can’t understand why people would be so negative in changing their lives though. ‘Where there’s a will’ and ‘go for it’ seem perfectly normal to me. Anything but a stagnating existence waiting for something to happen and so called ‘changes’. Don’t know if it’s a generation thing, but there’s a general despondency these days, a sort of giving up or waiting to see if it’s safe enough to jump. Oh well, each to his own. 


The thing is, there’s a huge recession/depression going on in the world. I haven’t felt it; I have never used a food bank and haven’t visited a job center since Thatcher’s recession in the 80’s. I’ve insulated myself from all this misery that’s going on and in the same sense, the ROA no longer has any meaning for me as it doesn’t affect me. I’m not watching house prices going down, empty high streets, worrying about my financial position, the useless LASPO . . . . . Why would anyone, but especially those who have a past, think the UK is a good place to be in?


  


Post Edited (IanC) : 10/08/2013 13:43:04 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

nono 


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 10/08/2013 21:21:01 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

aim said...
I'm afraid the rules play a massive part in your life when you have a criminal record. What we're talking about is how to play by the rules or avoid them entirely. You've not yet had experience of a basic or DBS check yet with unspent convictions. Or the conversations with people in HR or insurance companies about how it happened. I don't think you realise the impact this will have on your life. Take the cotton wool out of your ears and put it in your mouth? In the nicest possible way of course.


AGAIN...

M.O.S.T. E.M.P.L.O.Y.E.R.S D.O.N.'T. D.O. C.R.I.M.I.N.A.L. R.E.C.O.R.D. C.H.E.C.K.S.

How many times? I mean, seriously, Jesus Christ...?????????????

Then there's the fact that most convictions eventually become spent. You'd have to be some criminal to have a conviction that is never spent. Yes, some do, but they can be classed as extreme cases and extreme cases sometimes require extreme measures, etc.. Move to Thailand, maybe? But for the rest of us, isn't it just a matter of exercising care and thought?

The choices are...

1. Apply for a position that don't require DBS checks OR

2. Go self-employed OR

3. Apply for positions where you can lie about your record without the risk of breaking the law (as I tried to explain above).

It's really not difficult.

But no, I'm indulging in 'nonsense ramblings' again and my thoughts are 'laughable'. Yeah right....anything to explain away the fact that you've done nothing for ten years and it's all the fault of somebody else.

********!
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM

Don't just listen to me Richard, EVERYONE is telling you that you're shortly going to be in for a shock. I can't take your posts to pieces I haven't the time, though the content wouldn't be difficult. The problem is Richard, when one person or two tell you you're wtong that's OK, but when a whole forum who have direct ecperience tell you, it's maybe time to listen yourself? YOU came on this forum because you don't know what is going to happen and now you've been repeatedly told . . . . something about a brick wall comes to mind?

" . . . but I'm the one laughing here. You see, I don't need to move to Thailand." You might regret saying that after your trial? (I'll send you a postcard if you send me your reception letter). You're not in any position to laugh at anyone Richard, you're where I was nearly a quarter of a century ago.
By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Good Luck Ian C and the Fox !.

Not everybody that enters the "Dragons Den" leaves in one piece.

So Richard I am OUT !


 

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

RP said...
My goodness reading the last 5 pages, I was thinking if this was the thailand or working abroad thread but was getting confused when I read Q3 saying
I am not a cartoon mouse, with a girlfriend call Minnie and trying to picture just that.

I do not need to add anything since its all been said perfectly by the regulars.
 
 
 
Sorry for that !
 
I ate the wrong type of Mushrooms.
 
Have a good night RP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

IanC said...
You’re not being bullied Richard, you’re just being told in a rather abrupt way that you may find out yourself soon enough what we already know.


I do already KNOW, from experience in the real world IN THE UK. You are just massaging your ego here.

IanC said...
The problem with disclosure and checks is that it’s now so common that even Morrison’s CRB checked all there new employers in one store on the news today. ALL Richard, not just the relevant jobs. Now how did they manage to do that by sticking to the rules?


And? It doesn't mean that all employers do so. Most employers don't bother.

IanC said...
If you did lie on an application form when asked and the company found out, you would be fired and it will tell you that on just about any application form. To disclose or not is not a cherry pick for the individual and that’s everybody’s point. Checks are being done now by just about everybody and even a Lollypop lady would have problems getting away without one. The excuse used is that the employee will be working with the public and that covers just about any job going.


It IS at the discretion of the individual. That is a fundamental point, and it seems to me that you are now contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say we shouldn't follow laws blindly (which is true), but now you seem to be saying we should follow laws blindly and just give up. I think this is really about your psychological needs. What I think you really want is people to validate your decision by taking the extreme step of moving abroad, but what has to be understood is that your circumstances are exceptional and this has led you to exaggerate the difficulties that might be faced by others.

IanC said...
I can’t properly ‘engage’ with you Richard, you post so much rubbish that it’s laughable for those of us who know.


Here you show your true colours. I am not therefore obliged to take you seriously either. Running off to Thailand, fabricating references and so on is not advice/guidance I would be giving to other posters on here.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

aim said...
Wow. A bit of a to-do.

Here's my view with four years of declarations under my belt. I will only disclose when I know I will be checked. Why? Because the person looking at your criminal record isn't likely to have any training in the matter and makes decisions on my life without a formal process to make those decisions. I don't like the sound of that conviction is enough to lose a job offer. The ROA doesn't apply unless your conviction is spent. So while in the unspent phase you're at the mercy of all and sundry.

RichardH - Have a look at this research paper for the effect a criminal record has on your life forum.unlock.org.uk/default.aspx?f=22&m=22493


Do you think an academic will help me understand about life with a criminal record? I doubt it.

The problem is that there is nothing on this Forum that actually helps people practically. I have been looking through the website and the forum. The Unlock publications are excellent, but the advice on here is normally incomplete or wrong. Speaking as someone 'new' to this (as people here say), I don't find any of this helpful. It just seems that most people here want to discuss their difficulties or the general difficulties, rather than discussing solutions.

I have presented a solution on this thread, and I have been told I am 'rambling nonsense' and that my thoughts are 'laughable'. I will be sure to repeat those quotes in future. It seems to me that some people just want to wallow in having a criminal record and the ascribed victim status that goes with it. That may be harsh, but based on what I have seen posted here, I consider it fair comment.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Now even I find that insulting, and I've had a dig at IanC in the past for 'fleeing', apologies for bringing that up. But IanC actually earned each and every one of those references through study, volunteering and downright sweat. Fabricating references? What a pranny you truly are.


Except for one tiny detail....He has consistently and repeatedly advocated and encouraged fraudulently conduct on here. Don't pretend - you know I am right.
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM

Good God Richard, keep taking that medication mate. It must be a pretty lonely life you live out there, dont you ever give up? You been verbally slaughtered for the rubbish you post and you're still at it. Why don't you just ask questions? YOU came on the forum for help and it turns out you know more than the rest of us put together. rolleyes">
 

OK and seriously, I mean it. I'm on the ROA for life. Late 50's and have some heavy duty sentences behind me for serious stuff. Years ago though and nothing even remotely recent. So, tell me how I'd move on in the UK now. Advise me, give me hope, make suggestions . . . "well you know, you'd just keep trying . . ." isn't classed as an answer. Come on, I'm serious, tell me. Let's have some of that factual information you're keen on. Now, if you can find me employment that matches what I've even remotely got now I'll apologise profusely and eat my words. Otherwise, I stick by what I've said, that is that you're talking rubbish! :-)  

 

Err P.S Richard. I spent 10 years at Uni on release. Now for the third time, go and find where I've said to others to commit fraud and fraudulently copy degrees.  

 

PPS. "Do you think an academic will help me understand about life with a criminal record? I doubt it." A former academic WITH direct experience.
  

Post Edited (IanC) : 18/08/2013 18:53:37 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

aim said...
Well Richard the paper is based on people who have lived with the ROA. Until you're sentenced you won't know whether you're a 5, 7, 10 years or forever at the mercy of disclosure legislation.

But you'll be getting first hand experience of it soon and I wish you luck.


I am sure the paper is intriguing, but I don't need it.

You see, this partly illustrates my point. You are preoccupying yourself with 'what the rules say' and helping offenders by looking at how they react to 'what the rules say'.

That's the wrong approach. It's the reason why 'many' (in the words of IanC) make no progress. That's in part the point I was trying to make on this thread, but I am of course indulging in 'nonsense rambling' and my thoughts are 'laughable'.

So, I'll leave you all to it.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

IanC said...
Good God Richard, keep taking that medication mate. It must be a pretty lonely life you live out there, dont you ever give up? You been verbally slaughtered for the rubbish you post and you're still at it. Why don't you just ask questions? YOU came on the forum for help and it turns out you know more than the rest of us put together. rolleyes

OK and seriously, I mean it. I'm on the ROA for life. Late 50's and have some heavy duty sentences behind me for serious stuff. Years ago though and nothing even remotely recent. So, tell me how I'd move on in the UK now. Advise me, give me hope, make suggestions . . . "well you know, you'd just keep trying . . ." isn't classed as an answer. Come on, I'm serious, tell me. Let's have some of that factual information you're keen on. Now, if you can find me employment that matches what I've even remotely got now I'll apologise profusely and eat my words. Otherwise, I stick by what I've said, that is that you're talking rubbish! :-)


You know, you are really patronising.

If you really think I am posting rubbish (and I suspect you don't, I think this is just your ego talking), then you would go back and pick out my explanatory post and take it apart line by line. You can't do that. So you treat me in the same way that anyone with a new idea is treated and you rubbish me.

It's disgusting and cowardly - but I'm the one laughing here. You see, I don't need to move to Thailand. [And neither do most people - God help them though if you're giving them advice, as they might think they have to].
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

IanC said...
Let's all take a deep breath then, agreed?
Richard, in less than 200 words, would you explain exactly what is the point you're trying to get across? (Apart from the fanciful notions that I'm falsifying documents). What is the point you're trying to make and what experience do you have of it? If it's just that you think so that's OK, but I must admit I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.


To be fair - and again, nothing personal here - but I HAVE already explained it.

The reason you don't understand it is because you keep intervening with your own exaggerations, prejudices, myths and misunderstandings, which are clouding the situation.

What people who come to a forum like this need is CLARITY OF INFORMATION. What they don't want is conspiracy theories and inane ramblings about hysterical news stories that, while true in their essence and representing perfectly valid concerns, are deliberately exaggerated.

What I suggest is that we all leave this for a few days and during that time I will try and start a new thread.
By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

" I can't make you look stupid. You're posting under a pseudonym, right? Q3 is not your real name, yes? You're not a character in Star Trek or something, so you don't need to feel hurt and you can't look stupid because nobody knows who you are" - Remember that line Richard ?...I can't believe you spat your dummy out and threatened to report me.

You also said " Just a polite request to Unlock, who own this site - Could we have some effective moderation here, please? This should be a forum for providing valid advice and information to people with convictions "

Your VALID advice is its OK to lie ?

As I said your a "highly intelligent person" who has acted like a fool and who is now facing Prison (So you say) I was not saying you were stupid, after all RichardH isn't your real name is it ?, so nobody knows who you are ?

Here is some clarity of information : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents

I suggest you read through the Fraud Act 2006.

IF any of your actions COULD be within the remit of the LAW and the Fraud Act 2006, then COMMON sense will dictate that you must follow the law.

I don't write the law, I am just one of the millions that have to abide by it.


 

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Not just Morrisons, check out the application process for Tescos, and pay attention to the clauses on criminal record checking.


 

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Sometimes I love this forum, especially when you get one who thinks he knows about 'our' side of disclosure, the CJS and so forth without having any experience of it. Sure, it's not all 'ducking and diving' but it is certainly self preservation. A little lie here, a little omission there - whatever doesn't raise too many awkward questions.

Like I say, I've had it for 10 years, IanC's had, what, 40 odd years, and others have had whatever, but now we should be honoured to be in the presence of a first-time offender who hasn't even been sentenced yet. Obviously all that 'we' have experienced is made up, we dreamt it all, it's all an hysterical illusion more suited for the David Icke forum. My eyes have been opened.


That's because you don't understand what you are talking about.

You need to stop posting here.

You and several others are giving out disinformation and confusing people with your own misunderstandings.

I will start a separate post in a few days to clear this point up.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
No... listen to the question - if the job is not likely to attract a DBS check (ergo, not one involving children or vulnerable people), would it be a condonable lie for that man to 'omit' his conviction in order to provide for his family, rather than live off the state?


Yes, and I have answered your question. Please go back and re-read it.
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM




RichardH said...



IanC said...
Richard, take another deep breath. I have lived through forty years of the ROA, please believe me, I don’t exaggerate and they’re not myths. It’s no point starting a new thread; the same people will answer it and tell you you’re talking nonsense. Well no, to be fair I shouldn’t say that as I’m not sure what you’re saying, but it is coming across as a nonsense rambling.


Ian,

How is it a 'nonsense rambling' to say [reducing this down to simplicity]: Disclose where the conviction is relevant to the decision to employ; don't disclose when it is not relevant because that is not fraud as there is no material non-disclosure.

Tell me, IanC - how is that nonsense? Stop repeating yourself to massage your own ego and actually engage with what I am saying.

You’re not being bullied Richard, you’re just being told in a rather abrupt way that you may find out yourself soon enough what we already know.


The problem with disclosure and checks is that it’s now so common that even Morrison’s CRB checked all there new employers in one store on the news today. ALL Richard, not just the relevant jobs. Now how did they manage to do that by sticking to the rules?


If you did lie on an application form when asked and the company found out, you would be fired and it will tell you that on just about any application form. To disclose or not is not a cherry pick for the individual and that’s everybody’s point. Checks are being done now by just about everybody and even a Lollypop lady would have problems getting away without one. The excuse used is that the employee will be working with the public and that covers just about any job going.


I can’t properly ‘engage’ with you Richard, you post so much rubbish that it’s laughable for those of us who know.  lol

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
They're even allowing students to access it!! freaked


No, they allow their employees to access it. Some of those employees may also be students.

I think I'd like to stop this conversation, as you don't understand and we're not getting anywhere.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Somebody said...
I think that judging by your first post on the forum, and the reference to your 'psychiatric issues', you will continue to live in innocent bliss until something nasty bites you on the bum.


Just a polite request to Unlock, who own this site - Could we have some effective moderation here, please?

This should be a forum for providing valid advice and information to people with convictions.

This should not be a place for:-

- conspiracy theorists;

- people who think that exaggeration is the same as an argument;

- people who think it is OK to commit fraud to get round life challenges [and then deny it when they are called out on it];

- people who want to complain about life challenges but won't take constructive advice or accept responsibility for their own actions;

- people who want to exorcise their frustrations by needling, insulting or abusing those who can cope and are able to give constructive advice.

Thank you.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
So, if someone with an unspent conviction, with a family to feed and clothe, was asked if they had any convictions at a job interview that was not likely to be subject to a DBS check, would saying 'no' be a condonable lie?


I've already answered this - have you been following the thread? Admittedly, a great deal has been discussed, so if you like, I could start a new thread in which I set out my position on this as clearly as I can, but I'm tired with this now.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
No, I'm fine if you want to provide a simple yes or no.


But it isn't simple, is it. It depends on the relevance of the conviction. If, to a reasonable person, the conviction would be considered relevant to whether a job offer is made, then you have to tell the truth in that situation if you want to apply for the job. If it's a conviction that would not be considered relevant to the job offer, then that's different.
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM

Let's all take a deep breath then, agreed?
Richard, in less than 200 words, would you explain exactly what is the point you're trying to get across? (Apart from the fanciful notions that I'm falsifying documents). What is the point you're trying to make and what experience do you have of it? If it's just that you think so that's OK, but I must admit I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
I think perhaps you need to man up a little if you think this is tough - God knows how you would deal with a prison sentence. A bit more than 'needling' in there.


What are you talking about now???

Is this a prison? No.

This is a forum for providing information to people with convictions.

How can you justify your behaviour? You act like you are dysfunctional, asking me to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over again, making the same invalid and irrelevant points that are just exaggerations of known facts, and you blame me and go psycho because I am trying to help by showing what the correct position is regarding disclosure.

Nothing personal - but you are one of several people on here who would be better off as a reader rather than a contributor. You're just clouding things with your conspiracy theories. Yes, there's some validity in the root points, but what people who come here need is clarity and constructive help, not wild ramblings about who has access to the PNC based on hysterical news stories. Sorry, but I don't need to have been here long to see this.
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


Firstly, there were no checks involved in doing a postgrad Criminology degree. Its theory based and doesn’t involve working with ex/offenders, the police or the prison service, although most of the intake comes from those involved in the CJS. Most went to work in the CJS, I couldn’t. I did mine 15 years ago, p/t over two years and it cost me 3k a year. Are there checks now? I don’t know. I believe CS has a Masters in law and Andy H, (where did he go), is doing a Ph.D with the OU.


Richard and I’ll repeat; go and find me instances of where I’ve encouraged people to commit fraud, buy degrees, and falsify documents. Methinks you’re reading into posts that which isn’t there?


Your theoretical position on reform is admirable and it’s just what it says in the blurb, but unfortunately practice raises its ugly head and for many it’s either self-employment or a lifetime of dole queues. That’s fact Richard. It may not sound nice, it may not be what the government says, it may not fit in with the ideas of rehabilitation, but that’s the reality. If it were as simple and as straight forward as you imagine it is, there would be no need for a forum like this.


I don’t ask you or anybody else to do what I did, but if I took your position I wouldn’t be where I am now. That’s the bottom line Richard; if you’re sentenced to a period in jail, when you come out you do what I did using your outraged position on morality and tell me how you did it.


OK, I’ll say it again, don’t use fraud to move on, but use your discretion about telling people about your past because someone else says you deserve to be at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. In the world of the CJS which you are about to enter, you will find that everything is not as black and white as you now imagine.    

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

We are all going round in circleroll .
 
Richard, its obvious that your a highly intelligent person, who is gifted with the ability to express yourself through the written word.
 
On the flip side your also a very stupid person facing a term of imprisonment.    
 
If you find time check out the Fraud Act 2006 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents
 
Please read the act, and re-read it to you fully understand.
 
Obtaining a so called  "pecuniary advantage", has disappeared, this term is now as old as the ark.
 
Even if NO loss is made and NO gain is made, it is still an offence under the various parts of the fraud act.
 
I am not a cartoon mouse, with a girlfriend call Minnie, and have no need to lie, I am just a member of Joe Public, who was arrested, charged and dragged through the courts on points of law, covered by the Fraud Act 2006. (I didn't tell little lies, I told the truth, but check out the act, there COULD have been a loss)
 
IF anybody on here wants to say "little lies" to gain employment, then good on them.
 
IF anybody on here wants to refuse to disclose any crime because they decide it's not relevant to the position then good on them.  
 
If the term " HAVE YOU BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME" crops up on an application form that anybody on here wants to fill out you in the future, think long and hard before you tick NO.
 
 
 
 
 
  


 

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Sigh...

https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2013/07/the-rpsca-will-pnc-you-now.html

"The information handed over is subsequently going unaudited by the Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office (ACRO) – run by the Association of Chief Police Officers – who also charge for the access. This is despite the PNC User Manual specifically stipulating that auditing is required for organisations that have had access to ‘sensitive information".

I think the key phrase there is "who also charge for the access". As long as you pay, they don't give a toss who's accessing it.

Yes, it deals with one police area - there are 43 in England/Wales, so those 76 officers being investigated could easily equate to over 3,000 officers nationwide. And that's just the police - what about the other (more lax) organisations?


Again, so what? Sorry, but I don't see the connection with this thread. This is not going to be relevant to most people's circumstances. Personnel/HR and managers/owners in most businesses never carry out criminal record checks and it never occurs to them to do so. That is FACT.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Your evidence is....?


This is not a court of law. I am not here to produce evidence. My views are based on my experience of life, including my work which involves advising businesses on commercial and recruitment matters. The information is not disseminated through society, is not widely shared and most employers don't bother with criminal record checks. Of course, your root concern is perfectly valid - but the problem is, like IanC, you're exaggerating it to make a point that doesn't cohere with reality. It's annoying, because it's misleading and encourages a sense of paranoia that isn't warranted.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Somebody said...
As I have said, it's not just a matter of being corrupt, but careless, or believing you have complete liberty to access the PNC for the most trivial or non-criminal purposes. It would be interesting to know exactly what was the reason for you having access, especially if you were not employed with the police. However, as it's come so late into the argument, it may be a little... shall we say... fanciful?


Ah, I see. I am being fanciful for suggesting that I once had employment that involved access to the PNC. Yet, you are not being fanciful for suggesting that PNC information and data is disseminated routinely in society, on request, to people who are not authorised to see it?

That makes sense...

I had access to the PNC in a low-level administrative job while working as a student. This was some years ago, but I recall it was made abundantly clear that unauthorised access was a criminal offence in its own right and would almost-certainly result in suspension and dismissal, if not prosecution. I was using the PNC to bring up print-outs on court-bound defendants. I recall that as soon as I began accessing the system and conducting name searches, it was immediately clear that each search was being recorded - date, time, name of subject, and name of operator. If I had abused the system by searching for enemies and friends, I would easily have been caught. That is not to say I doubt there is corruption. To the contrary, I am certain there is corruption. My certainty is derived from other, quite separate, experiences I have had, but the point I am making is that corrupt type of activity will probably always be with us as long as there is privileged information. It's not a relevant concern for most job-seekers who have convictions.

So, please stop exaggerating.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Doesn't cohere with your current or past reality, but that reality will be changing soon. Post prosecution, your life will change forever. Trust me. Why do you think the most active thread on here are about employment and disclosure problems?

The thread was talking about lying... post prosecution, your life will need to be one big lie, from talking to any new neighbours to explaining that odd gap in your CV.


If I had a very nosy neighbour who asked me to confirm my business drawings, I might lie. If so, it would be a condonable lie.

If, on the other hand, an inspector from the Revenue were to ask me to confirm my business drawings, I am less likely to lie, as that could amount to an offence.

It's a just matter of common sense.
By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

RichardH said...
I think we have thrashed this out for long enough. I have a reason for putting IanC through the mill. I apologise for it, as he is a good poster - and he should be teaching in the UK! I also don't doubt that IanC has legitimate credentials. That in itself wasn't the issue, but it needs to be made clear that if you go down the dishonest route by fabricating things and committing fraud, then you are a re-offender, not a reformed offender, and you must accept that there can be severe consequences, if caught. As we are reformed offenders, this is a lesson we have already learnt, is it not? Do we really need to re-learn it? It may be that lots of successful or powerful people do this, and it may be (as Q3 demonstrates above) that most people are dishonest by default, and so there is a lot of hypocrisy in society, but none of that gives YOU an excuse to indulge in the same behaviour.

I'm not going to go into detail about my offending but it is not a petty offence. My conviction is very serious. I will be sentenced in a couple of months following a probation report and further psychiatric report, and I would say prison looks very likely. So I do not underestimate the challenges faced by offenders. When I am out of prison, I will not necessarily be able to do the first thing that pops into my head, but for me the point is finding something else that I want to do. These are ordinary life challenges that can be overcome legitimately and without having to commit further offences or do something as drastic as move to the other side of the world. There is always a choice to be made, and with care and thought, we can choose to do something worthwhile and that we want without, yet again, jeopardising our futures.

The real issue here is whether someone with convictions should commit significant illegal or immoral acts as a way round obstacles in their path. To an extent, this has to be a decision for the individual and it's not my intention to make generalised prescriptions as I realise there will be some desperate or sympathetic circumstances where dishonesty may be morally defensible. However, we all need to remember that this type of 'expedient rationalisation' – i.e. justfying the means (law-breaking) by reference to the ends (doing something you want to do) - is what brought many of us here in the first place. Even where the circumstances are sympathetic, the law (or some significant rule) has still been broken, and this carries with it consequences. It's easy, and a little naive, to sit behind a computer and deny this, but these consequences can be very real. For an intelligent person, there has to be a sensible middle ground, between the two extremes of 'blind obedience' and 'blind expediency'.

What I would propose is an attitude of 'thoughtful expediency', whereby on the one hand we don't follow rules blindly, but on the other hand we take care that we are not risking our own rehabilitation by committing further, serious offences. If that middle path means that we have to mediate or compromise some of our ambitions to reality, then so be it. It doesn't follow that we cannot do something that we 'want'.

This can be applied practically. For instance, even with unspent convictions or convictions that will never be spent, it is condonable to lie where the offence is historic or has little or no bearing on the employment being sought. So although there may be a rule that says disclosure is required when asked-for, in most circumstances you are allowed, in practice, to disregard that rule as petty and inconsequential. In any case, most employers still do not carry out basic DBS checks, and are highly unlikely to, and only a small section of employers are covered by a statutory requirement for DBS checks. For that reason, I do find it difficult to believe when some people claim on here that they have never had and cannot obtain employment since conviction. Sorry, but there must be more to it. You are either not trying hard enough or you have not thought about what you are doing. There is also the possibility of self-employment to consider - and we really need a dedicated section on the forum to discuss that.

I am not saying things are easy or simple for people with convictions, but it needn't be a melodrama either. It's possible to live a normal and successful life with a little care and thought. There are always choices. You don't have to commit further offences. You can do something that you want to do without repeating your previous mistakes.
 
 
So when a job application states " Have you ever been convicted of any criminal offence"  BUT the position seems to be out of the remit of normal DBS checking arena , and the ROA is factored in, what should you do ?.
 
I think that from my point of view, that maybe the "criminal type" of thought processes that I still have, are now hard wired in.
I don't think that anyone is born a criminal, however, I do think that we are open to learned behaviours, and therefore carry these traits with us for life.
  
I hope that when you leave the prison system, that you re-post your experiences....
 
When your cell get's spun, and your cellmate get's caught with a mobile phone, and your questioned , are you really going to tell the guvnor the truth ? , yes Gov, I knew he had a phone, and end up being the block grass ?
 
Or are you going to tell a lie, save your own skin, and let the forces that be take action.
 
Committing fraud is basically telling a lie.
 
The basis of fraud is gain, and loss.
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 17/08/2013 20:55:54 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

For all those wishing to study and emulate Ian experiences, and trade in their HGV licence for the chance to study at their local university, I have listed some details in respect to the route to a masters degree education in criminology from my local area.

MSc criminology and criminal justice at Portsmouth www.port.ac.uk. Cost of course £3,320 full-time or £1,500 a year part-time distance learning. Duration One year full-time, two to three years' distance.

Plymouth www.plymouth.ac.uk. Cost of course £3,950 full-time or £220 for 10 credit modules. Duration One year full-time, two part-time.

Please note that ALL Postgraduate MSc training and acceptance in to ANY University is of course subject to certain entry requirements:

A good honours degree in criminology, sociology, social policy, law or other related social science discipline, or substantial experience in social or political research or a relevant profession.

Many Universities require all non-native speakers of English to reach a minimum standard of proficiency in written and spoken English before beginning a postgraduate degree. Certain subjects require a higher level.
 
FOOTNOTE : Maybe CS can give advice on getting a university place to learn this type of subject with a criminal record.  


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 17/08/2013 21:19:17 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Q3 said...
So when a job application states " Have you ever been convicted of any criminal offence" BUT the position seems to be out of the remit of normal DBS checking arena , and the ROA is factored in, what should you do ?.


I've answered that question above. If your conviction would have no reasonable bearing on the employment decision [and PLEASE read my wording - no REASONABLE bearing on the employment decision], then a lie is condonable and you are not committing an offence. The central issue is a consideration of the materiality of the lie and your record. In most cases, this is nothing more than a broad application of common sense.

For instance, you could have an assault conviction that is not yet spent, but if you're applying for a job as a shop assistant, it's not going to be relevant. You can safely lie and you would not be committing an offence by doing so. Yes, your lie may later be discovered, but that's a separate issue. If you are dismissed just on the basis of the lie, then your employer is walking on thin ice from an employment law point-of-view because the lack of materiality means that trust and confidence in the employee cannot be disturbed by it. If your employer tried to report you to the police, they would get short shift. Lying does not always amount to dishonesty, and in this case there would be no fraud because your criminal record cannot be reasonably considered to have a significant bearing on the decision of whether to employ you as a shop assistant. See my point?

On the other hand, if you are applying for a job as a store detective and you have a conviction for GBH, you're in more of a grey area. In an Employment Tribunal, the employer would probably win because he would have a sound argument that a GBH conviction is a significant disqualifier, but even then he might have been expected to consider you for other work. It's unlikely you would be criminally-prosecuted, but it's a grey area and it would help if the conviction is aged. To be frank, it's unlikely that your burning ambition in life is to be a store detective, so it would then probably be a case of looking at something else in that type of situation rather than applying and having to lie. Maybe a private detective or assistant bailiff or something out of 100 other alternatives that are similar so that you can make use of your skills or fulfil broadly the same role.

Q3 said...
I think that from my point of view, that maybe the "criminal type" of thought processes that I still have, are now hard wired in.
I don't think that anyone is born a criminal, however, I do think that we are open to learned behaviours, and therefore carry these traits with us for life.


I'm not very keen to debate this, but in essence I think that we are all capable of reform. Rehabilitation is only a bunkem concept when put in the hands of politically- or ideologically-sensitive people. In truth, I think the solution to much of this is very simple - most offenders just want another chance, and most will reform if given a chance.

Q3 said...
I hope that when you leave the prison system, that you re-post your experiences....

When your cell get's spun, and your cellmate get's caught with a mobile phone, and your questioned , are you really going to tell the guvnor the truth ? , yes Gov, I knew he had a phone, and end up being the block grass ?

Or are you going to tell a lie, save your own skin, and let the forces that be take action.


I don't see the relevance of the question. I've already made it clear that I don't think people should follow rules blindly. Let me repeat: I D.O.N.'T. T.H.I.N.K. P.E.O.P.L.E. S.H.O.U.L.D. F.O.L.L.O.W. R.U.L.E.S. B.L.I.N.D.L.Y. Is that clear enough? I think people should use discretion and common sense, but with an overall attitude of not risking their rehabilitation by committing serious offences. I think we all have a choice of whether to offend or not. To my mind, this is nothing more than common sense.

Q3 said...
Committing fraud is basically telling a lie.

The basis of fraud is gain, and loss.


Fraud is not just telling a lie. There is more to it than that, and there are situations where lying can be seen as condonable. It's a matter of exercising judgement in each situation. Let me illustrate with another basic example: if I go for a job as a warehouse worker, then my conviction is not relevant and it's safe for me to lie. I might end up getting the sack if the lie is discovered, but I am not going to be prosecuted for fraud as there is no material dishonesty in the lie. This is because, when the situation is looked-at objectively, it's unlikely that my record would have been considered important by a reasonable recruiter when deciding whether to give me the job. This reasoning applies to lots of situations. This is why I agree with IanC that it is foolish just to follow petty rules for the sake of it, but I disagree with IanC in his tolerance level for cutting corners. If you lie on insurance forms, fabricate references and qualifications, etc., you are just another criminal.

Post Edited (RichardH) : 17/08/2013 21:56:06 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

RichardH said...
Q3 said...
So when a job application states " Have you ever been convicted of any criminal offence" BUT the position seems to be out of the remit of normal DBS checking arena , and the ROA is factored in, what should you do ?.


I've answered that question above. If your conviction would have no reasonable bearing on the employment decision [and PLEASE read my wording - no REASONABLE bearing on the employment decision], then a lie is condonable and you are not committing an offence. The central issue is a consideration of the materiality of the lie and your record. In most cases, this is nothing more than a broad application of common sense.

For instance, you could have an assault conviction that is not yet spent, but if you're applying for a job as a shop assistant, it's not going to be relevant. You can safely lie and you would not be committing an offence by doing so. Yes, your lie may later be discovered, but that's a separate issue. If you are dismissed just on the basis of the lie, then your employer is walking on thin ice from an employment law point-of-view because the lack of materiality means that trust and confidence in the employee cannot be disturbed by it. If your employer tried to report you to the police, they would get short shift. Lying does not always amount to dishonesty, and in this case there would be no fraud because your criminal record cannot be reasonably considered to have a significant bearing on the decision of whether to employ you as a shop assistant. See my point?
 
 
I will reply with respect Richard.
 
Please don't patronise me or try and make me look stupid. This is important to me. Yes I see your point C-L-E-A-R-L-Y so thanks for that. (Is that clear enough ?)
 
Where the confusion still lies in my world, is the actual wording on application forms now.
 
When I see the words : ANY CRIMINAL CONVICTION, regardless of having a record for assault and working in a shop, that means everything surely ?
 
Any conviction can have any bearing on any profession, am I right ?
 
Employers see a conviction as a bearing on the character of the person, I don't make the rules, but have come across this 100's of times. 
 
Ok, the conviction for a pub punch up, shouldn't affect my chance of working in B&Q, however read between the lines Richard.
 
I could have anger management problems, I could be the best paint salesman in B&Q, but could explode and start kicking a few heads if somebody complains about my choice of Matt rather than Gloss.
 
I could have a conviction for fraud and theft both spent, but am handling money, and credit card transactions, and stealing and skimming cards.
 
See, I can sometimes see your point, and then, you throw a curve ball, and bang, we are back to square one.
 
A lie is a lie, and saying that an unspent conviction could be non-disclosed, in reference to a certain position has got to be wrong.
 
To lie on any form and gain employment is fraud by false representation.
 
I cannot break forum rules on this, but I contacted some old clients by e-mail, when I became redundant from my sales position.
 
Yes, I know, your now thinking, is this guy from another planet, but this is an example of UK law.
 
I was arrested  by three officers for fraud, and ended up in front of a jury.
 
My crimes :
 
Fraud by abuse of position : I used information entrusted in me, under contract to make a gain for somebody else (A competitor)
 
Fraud by false representation : I said something that could of made a loss for my old employer. (Advised a client on our business practices)
 
Yes, I agree with most or all offenders wanting that second chance, but the odds are stacked.
 
HR departments run by conviction free people, with no idea of the world, tick the boxes, it's Black or its White, there are NO Grey areas. 
 
I am on the PNC and DNA database, until I take my last breath !   
 
 
 


On the other hand, if you are applying for a job as a store detective and you have a conviction for GBH, you're in more of a grey area. In an Employment Tribunal, the employer would probably win because he would have a sound argument that a GBH conviction is a significant disqualifier, but even then he might have been expected to consider you for other work. It's unlikely you would be criminally-prosecuted, but it's a grey area and it would help if the conviction is aged. To be frank, it's unlikely that your burning ambition in life is to be a store detective, so it would then probably be a case of looking at something else in that type of situation rather than applying and having to lie. Maybe a private detective or assistant bailiff or something out of 100 other alternatives that are similar so that you can make use of your skills or fulfil broadly the same role.
 
Q3 said...
I think that from my point of view, that maybe the "criminal type" of thought processes that I still have, are now hard wired in.
I don't think that anyone is born a criminal, however, I do think that we are open to learned behaviours, and therefore carry these traits with us for life.


I'm not very keen to debate this, but in essence I think that we are all capable of reform. Rehabilitation is only a bunkem concept when put in the hands of politically- or ideologically-sensitive people. In truth, I think the solution to much of this is very simple - most offenders just want another chance, and most will reform if given a chance.

Q3 said...
I hope that when you leave the prison system, that you re-post your experiences....

When your cell get's spun, and your cellmate get's caught with a mobile phone, and your questioned , are you really going to tell the guvnor the truth ? , yes Gov, I knew he had a phone, and end up being the block grass ?

Or are you going to tell a lie, save your own skin, and let the forces that be take action.


I don't see the relevance of the question. I've already made it clear that I don't think people should follow rules blindly. Let me repeat: I D.O.N.'T. T.H.I.N.K. P.E.O.P.L.E. S.H.O.U.L.D. F.O.L.L.O.W. R.U.L.E.S. B.L.I.N.D.L.Y. Is that clear enough? I think people should use discretion and common sense, but with an overall attitude of not risking their rehabilitation by committing serious offences. I think we all have a choice of whether to offend or not. To my mind, this is nothing more than common sense.

Q3 said...
Committing fraud is basically telling a lie.

The basis of fraud is gain, and loss.


Fraud is not just telling a lie. There is more to it than that, and there are situations where lying can be seen as condonable. It's a matter of exercising judgement in each situation. Let me illustrate with another basic example: if I go for a job as a warehouse worker, then my conviction is not relevant and it's safe for me to lie. I might end up getting the sack if the lie is discovered, but I am not going to be prosecuted for fraud as there is no material dishonesty in the lie. This is because, when the situation is looked-at objectively, it's unlikely that my record would have been considered important by a reasonable recruiter when deciding whether to give me the job. This reasoning applies to lots of situations. This is why I agree with IanC that it is foolish just to follow petty rules for the sake of it, but I disagree with IanC in his tolerance level for cutting corners. If you lie on insurance forms, fabricate references and qualifications, etc., you are just another criminal.


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 17/08/2013 23:06:40 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Q3 said...
I will reply with respect Richard.

Please don't patronise me or try and make me look stupid. This is important to me. Yes I see your point C-L-E-A-R-L-Y so thanks for that. (Is that clear enough ?)


I can't make you look stupid. You're posting under a pseudonym, right? Q3 is not your real name, yes? You're not a character in Star Trek or something, so you don't need to feel hurt and you can't look stupid because nobody knows who you are.

Q3 said...
Where the confusion still lies in my world, is the actual wording on application forms now.

When I see the words : ANY CRIMINAL CONVICTION, regardless of having a record for assault and working in a shop, that means everything surely ?

Any conviction can have any bearing on any profession, am I right ?

Employers see a conviction as a bearing on the character of the person, I don't make the rules, but have come across this 100's of times.

Ok, the conviction for a pub punch up, shouldn't affect my chance of working in B&Q, however read between the lines Richard.

I could have anger management problems, I could be the best paint salesman in B&Q, but could explode and start kicking a few heads if somebody complains about my choice of Matt rather than Gloss.

I could have a conviction for fraud and theft both spent, but am handling money, and credit card transactions, and stealing and skimming cards.

See, I can sometimes see your point, and then, you throw a curve ball, and bang, we are back to square one.


I've already answered this. You have to understand that some lies are condonable and some aren't.

To take an innocent, everyday example - You may think your wife/husband has an awful haircut, but most people would understand if you say: "Darling, what a nice haircut! Who's the stylist? Sweeney Todd you say? I really must go there myself!" You're lying, but it's a condonable lie. Most people understand that you don't want to hurt your wife/husband's feelings.

To take a more significant example: You go for a job as a HGV driver. Now, it so happens that you have an unspent conviction for fraud from a couple of years back and you even did a few months in prison. The HGV company aren't going to run a DBS check on you as it's not an excepted position, and let's say they don't bother with basic checks (most don't). But they do ask if you have any criminal convictions. You lie and say you don't. Are you committing an offence? No, because looking at the situation objectively, it is unlikely that disclosure of your conviction would have any bearing on the decision to employ you. That's not to say that the HGV company want to employ people with convictions and it may even be that there is no way they would employ you if they knew, but none of that has any bearing unless they make that plain. Otherwise, the historic conviction is irrelevant in that situation. To lie is condonable.

Q3 said...
A lie is a lie, and saying that an unspent conviction could be non-disclosed, in reference to a certain position has got to be wrong.

To lie on any form and gain employment is fraud by false representation.


No it is not. Lying is not always fraud, as - I hope - I have illustrated above. 'Fraud' is a term of art. It involves criminal dishonesty. If I lie when applying for a job for which my criminal record is, objectively-speaking, immaterial, then I am not gaining a pecuniary advantage by dishonesty and thus I am not committing the relevant sort of fraud and I cannot be prosecuted in the criminal courts. Yes I may have lied, but the CPS would not proceed with charges (even if it got that far, which is unlikely) as there would be no way of demonstrating to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that I must have known that the decision to employ me would not have been taken if my record had been disclosed. Please read and re-read that carefully until you understand fully.

Q3 said...
I cannot break forum rules on this, but I contacted some old clients by e-mail, when I became redundant from my sales position.

Yes, I know, your now thinking, is this guy from another planet, but this is an example of UK law.

I was arrested by three officers for fraud, and ended up in front of a jury.

My crimes :

Fraud by abuse of position : I used information entrusted in me, under contract to make a gain for somebody else (A competitor)

Fraud by false representation : I said something that could of made a loss for my old employer. (Advised a client on our business practices)

Yes, I agree with most or all offenders wanting that second chance, but the odds are stacked.

HR departments run by conviction free people, with no idea of the world, tick the boxes, it's Black or its White, there are NO Grey areas.

I am on the PNC and DNA database, until I take my last breath !


That all sounds very Mickey Mouse to me, and if it's true, then it sounds to me that you were stitched-up, so I sympathise to that extent. 'Stealing' customer data happens a lot in competitive industries.

It seems to me that you need to move on. You can't just wallow in your oppression. Who cares who runs HR departments? It's your responsibility to find a way to progress. The opportunities are there for you if you want to take them. I'm not necessarily referring to you in particular here, but I do think some people would rather be victims and wallow in it than step up to the plate and take responsibility for their lives.

Post Edited (RichardH) : 18/08/2013 00:36:47 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

RP said...
Is not the whole point of ROA, once its spent we should never have to declare it so we no longer get discriminated for it.... and then they simply make a phone call or tap on a keyboard and find all your history and convictions on the PNC.

Its like a breach of data protection and privacy, I don't agree with the discrimination and the law doing nothing to put food or roof under our heads you just have to do what you gotta do within reason and the legal route.

Does not help we all have to wait till 67 (well most of us) till we can get state pension!


Yes, that is the whole point of the ROA and that is what it does. No-one can find your unspent convictions on the PNC unless it is a role for which a DBS check is permitted, and even then only if you agree to the check. So there is no breach of data protection or privacy.
By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Thanks Ian.
 
I think, I will also be using the " Need to Know" basis of thinking in my life from now on.
 
Lots of people ask lots of questions, but do they really need to know the answers.
 
As for the fraud issue, surely it's only fraud if you get caught !! (That was a joke CS). 
 
From a personal view, I am really starting to see things from a totally different and fresh prospective.
 
Q3 turn
   


 

By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM




Q3 said...
Thanks Ian.

 

I think, I will also be using the " Need to Know" basis of thinking in my life from now on.

 

Lots of people ask lots of questions, but do they really need to know the answers.

 

As for the fraud issue, surely it's only fraud if you get caught !! (That was a joke CS). 

 

From a personal view, I am really starting to see things from a totally different and fresh prospective.

 

Q3 turn

   


Aaah, a convert. Yes, people ask questions and the more they get to know you the more they ask. Remember though, that your best friend also has best friends and might not always be your best friend and your partner, if and when you split, will have access to information which can destroy you and time after time on these threads that is exactly what has happened. You want the world to know about your past? Put up a sign in your front garden advertising it. You wouldn’t? Neither would I.


We live in a modern era. It’s not unusual to have had half a dozen jobs in the last ten years. It’s not unusual to get a divorce and move locations. It’s not unusual to have gaps in your CV. I bounce around Asia and rarely stay in one job or one country for more than a couple of years. I don’t look on non-disclosure as a criminal offence – fraud is actively using false information to deceive someone for gain. I simply don’t give out the information in the first place, which then leaves opportunities for others to judge and set up restrictions affecting my life based on their personal judgment. I’m not a member of Facebook or other social sites which collect personal information. I don’t give out my email to everyone who asks for it on the internet and if you want to know how old I am, ask. I and only I might tell you, but you won’t force it out of me with laws that tell me you need to know because it’s in my best interests.


It is not the place of an employer to further judge me; you take me as you find me and I hope I come across as a pretty well balanced individual to most employers and my friends. What I did twenty years ago, how many times I’ve been divorced or my hobbies and interests are my business and not for public consumption and gossip. Now that might sound rather strange to the UK, but its par for the course in many other parts of the world and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Where’s Richard, my sparring partner?  :-)

Post Edited (IanC) : 15/08/2013 10:03:13 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

IanC has mentioned lying on insurance forms (fraud), fabricating references (fraud) and that people might want to make-up academic degrees (fraud). Go ahead and alter or edit your previous posts, but I've seen what you've written on here and so you're not going to kid me.

Most of us are here on this Forum because we treated the law expediently. I'm not saying we should venerate the law. I have the same contempt for the authorities that IanC has, but I'm also mindful that we are here to discuss how to build lives as reformed offenders, not as re-offenders pretending to be reformed. If we adopt the IanC attitude of: "I can't do this because the law or a rule says I can't, so I'll lie and get round it that way", then what do you think will happen to some of us? I imagine the prisons are full of people like Ian who say: "If politicians can lie and cheat and commit fraud, then surely I can lie and cheat to become a teacher". The result is predictable and I hardly need go on. You'll be found out. Of course, we all should know this already, since we are reformed offenders...right?

Of course, one legitimate way round this is to move abroad - but that's a completely different issue, and it's important to understand that IanC's circumstances were/are extreme. He has been treated disgracefully by the UK and he is understandably cynical and resentful, and I share most of his cynicism and resentment. But most of us on here have more down-to-earth challenges and we don't need to move abroad. Of course, if you WANT to move abroad, well that's different, and that's your prerogative, but most of us don't NEED to.

I'm not saying people should follow rules or laws blindly, but what I am suggesting is that committing further serious offences is both stupid and unnecessary. Yes, there's huge hypocrisy in society. Almost everyone has done something seriously dishonest that would amount to an imprisonable offence if detected, including the people who oppress and discriminate against those with convictions. We know this, but that does not excuse committing serious crimes and it will not be an excuse if and when caught. It's possible to build a new life doing something you want to do and enjoy doing without committing the very same mistakes that brought you here in the first place.

It's also important to be aware that IanC is exaggerating the issues in the UK. No doubt this is because of his own tragic situation - and I do sympathise - but his rather extreme calculus of things doesn't apply to most of us here. In the UK, you are allowed to lie about historic convictions, even if unspent, so long as they are not materially relevant to the job. Plus, many generally honest people exaggerate and tell little white lies, and that's just the nature of things. I'm not excusing lying, but there is a large category of condonable dishonesty that can be socially-acceptable. Most of us on here can be successful as long as we are realistic and thoughtful in how we move forward. What you're not allowed to do is cross the line and start fabricating credentials or lying about a criminal record when it is materially relevant to an employer's decision. Of course, in some situations this may be morally defensible, but if you do go down that path, then you must accept responsibility for your own actions and the consequences. Remember that there is always a choice.

I labour these points because it's important that people identify and understand what is both good and bad about IanC's message. I am not Ian's 'sparring partner'. Quite the contrary. I agree with 99% of what Ian is saying, especially the need for a different attitude and to take responsibility and not to follow rules blindly. I also agree about the over-bureaucratised and risk averse nature of the UK. And I think it is sad that my country cannot find a role for someone of Ian's evident talent and abilities. But things are how they are.

My issue with Ian is this crucial 1% of the issue - it's important that no-one is sucked into this naive belief that you can go through life telling significant lies without consequences. You will get caught out, and you might not like the consequences, but in those circumstances, sorry, I would have no sympathy. It would be the second time you have been caught and you will have lied in the full knowledge that you had other choices.
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


First of all, I do not delete my posts and usually edit just to add something on instead of starting a new post. I stand by everything I’ve said. Now, go and find a post where I’m encouraging people to commit fraud or make up academic degrees. I’ve said the exact opposite, don’t do fraud as the risk is too great.


I didn’t lie and cheat to become a teacher, I have the necessary qualifications to become one, but not in the UK because there’s a bar on it. What don’t you understand about my saying I HAVE DEGREES? Why do you keep on insisting I’m lieing when I say it and telling others to do the same as me and fiddle it? I simply moved elsewhere to do it and took my degrees with me. My references are impeccable and I got the first one as a prison volunteer in Thailand. The second I got as a volunteer in a school and so it went on. None of my references I’ve ever made up.  


OK, so YOU don’t need to move abroad to better yourself, but there are some who need to. If you don’t want to, then don’t go, it’s that simple? So, by not disclosing, where are these serious offences I’ve committed?  


You go and build your own life up and leave others to decide how to move on in their own lives Richard. No one has to take my route. So, you’re saying people can move on with a criminal record? Yes, some can and some can’t. The ones that can’t will find other ways, like me.


Something you might be interested to know – you CAN’T lie about historic convictions if they aren’t spent, that in itself is breaking the law and you'll find that out yourself if they catch you. I’m also perfectly aware of what I can and can’t legally do Richard, my Masters degree was in Criminology. I better than most know what I can and can’t do. My convictions are never spent.


Yet you’re right, we all have choices and we all must accept responsibility for our actions. I accept responsibility for mine, have no regrets and don’t insist others follow my route – but if there’s no other way, perhaps it gives food for thought to some with more serious pasts. The problem is Richard is that you’re coming into this as a petty first time offender whose past will soon be forgotten and the slate will be wiped clean. It doesn’t work like that for many and a quick read through the threads will show you that there’s more than one here who is unemployed and unemployable because of what happened years or even decades ago. Everyone has to make their own mind up. As long as it doesn’t cause harm to others, I have and will continue to use morality and not the law to move myself forward and if you, the CJS, Cameron or LASPO don’t agree, that’s tough. I don't lie back and accept things Richard, I move forwrds and it's not by obeying the laws and morality of others. :-)


P.S An Edit. I continually and unashamably never declared on insurance forms either, which the government itself now agrees shouldn't be done. Do you think I know something that it took them decades to find out?  

Post Edited (IanC) : 17/08/2013 17:44:56 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

I very much liked the prospective from both Ian and Richard.

I have used this simple example of employee fraud.

According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, businesses lose on average 7% of their revenue from fraud. In a recent survey of over 2000 employees carried out in the UK, 20% of them admitted to fraud – 70% of respondents said that they would commit fraud if they knew for sure that they would get away with it. Much of this fraud may be modest inflation of expense claims, but much will be more serious..

Did you see the key words ?

" If they knew for sure that they would get away with it ", who knows for sure that they will get away with any crime ?.

A few years back, and still in the public domain, there are recorded instances of MP's who clamed expenses for things that they were not legally entitled to.

These MP's were not simple people in the street looking for work, they were elected people, on very high salaries, feathering their nests even further with tax payers money.

I didn't hear of one of the MPs that came out of prison, losing their house or car, or savings through the proceeds of crime act.

I cannot explain the law, or why people who have made errors of judgement are treated the way they are, but I it will always be a them and us mentality in the UK.

Would I lie and steal to feed my family ? - If I had NO choice then yes I would.

Would I lie to keep a roof over my new born babies head - Yes I would.

What person or member of the jury, would send somebody away for just trying to do the those two fundamental things ?.

To some people crime is a way of life, to others its a drastic choice.


 

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

I think we have thrashed this out for long enough. I have a reason for putting IanC through the mill. I apologise for it, as he is a good poster - and he should be teaching in the UK! I also don't doubt that IanC has legitimate credentials. That in itself wasn't the issue, but it needs to be made clear that if you go down the dishonest route by fabricating things and committing fraud, then you are a re-offender, not a reformed offender, and you must accept that there can be severe consequences, if caught. As we are reformed offenders, this is a lesson we have already learnt, is it not? Do we really need to re-learn it? It may be that lots of successful or powerful people do this, and it may be (as Q3 demonstrates above) that most people are dishonest by default, and so there is a lot of hypocrisy in society, but none of that gives YOU an excuse to indulge in the same behaviour.

I'm not going to go into detail about my offending but it is not a petty offence. My conviction is very serious. I will be sentenced in a couple of months following a probation report and further psychiatric report, and I would say prison looks very likely. So I do not underestimate the challenges faced by offenders. When I am out of prison, I will not necessarily be able to do the first thing that pops into my head, but for me the point is finding something else that I want to do. These are ordinary life challenges that can be overcome legitimately and without having to commit further offences or do something as drastic as move to the other side of the world. There is always a choice to be made, and with care and thought, we can choose to do something worthwhile and that we want without, yet again, jeopardising our futures.

The real issue here is whether someone with convictions should commit significant illegal or immoral acts as a way round obstacles in their path. To an extent, this has to be a decision for the individual and it's not my intention to make generalised prescriptions as I realise there will be some desperate or sympathetic circumstances where dishonesty may be morally defensible. However, we all need to remember that this type of 'expedient rationalisation' – i.e. justfying the means (law-breaking) by reference to the ends (doing something you want to do) - is what brought many of us here in the first place. Even where the circumstances are sympathetic, the law (or some significant rule) has still been broken, and this carries with it consequences. It's easy, and a little naive, to sit behind a computer and deny this, but these consequences can be very real. For an intelligent person, there has to be a sensible middle ground, between the two extremes of 'blind obedience' and 'blind expediency'.

What I would propose is an attitude of 'thoughtful expediency', whereby on the one hand we don't follow rules blindly, but on the other hand we take care that we are not risking our own rehabilitation by committing further, serious offences. If that middle path means that we have to mediate or compromise some of our ambitions to reality, then so be it. It doesn't follow that we cannot do something that we 'want'.

This can be applied practically. For instance, even with unspent convictions or convictions that will never be spent, it is condonable to lie where the offence is historic or has little or no bearing on the employment being sought. So although there may be a rule that says disclosure is required when asked-for, in most circumstances you are allowed, in practice, to disregard that rule as petty and inconsequential. In any case, most employers still do not carry out basic DBS checks, and are highly unlikely to, and only a small section of employers are covered by a statutory requirement for DBS checks. For that reason, I do find it difficult to believe when some people claim on here that they have never had and cannot obtain employment since conviction. Sorry, but there must be more to it. You are either not trying hard enough or you have not thought about what you are doing. There is also the possibility of self-employment to consider - and we really need a dedicated section on the forum to discuss that.

I am not saying things are easy or simple for people with convictions, but it needn't be a melodrama either. It's possible to live a normal and successful life with a little care and thought. There are always choices. You don't have to commit further offences. You can do something that you want to do without repeating your previous mistakes.

Post Edited (RichardH) : 17/08/2013 19:23:01 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


Fortunately I don’t declare. That gets me around the world. Travelling presents me with opportunities. Opportunities I’m not slow to grasp. It all fits in easily with my philosophy.


I live in a place where I can buy certain things cheaply and tried it out by taking an item back to Bangkok as hand luggage and made a huge profit. Already I’ve got some more orders from word of mouth, but I can only take so many back as they’re fragile and bulky and so I want to advertise to a wider audience and sell by Paypal or International money order. My products sell for between 25 to 100 GBP, so it’s not colossal amounts, but they are sought after items.  


I’ve found a web hosting site that will let me use their templates to make the site and host it for a few U.S $ on a one year rental. Cheap and easy, I think, but using meta tags for key words, or how to promote the site leaves me baffled. Fire away, I live and learn and perhaps this might give ideas to others also?


Just as an aside; many years ago I friend I had was heavily into car boot sales. One day I was watching him get ready and he had a piece of wood about 5” x 2”. I asked home what it was for and what he said has stayed with me since then. He said, “Someone in the world is making something right now and that piece of wood is just what they’re looking for. When I find them, or they find me, they’ll buy it because it’s what they want and they’ll pay me the price I want”! I found the product, now I want to find the man who wants to buy it because it’s just what they want.


la-kawn (Goodbye) sawatdee (Hello). Kap Kuhn Kap. :-)    

By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


No Ader, I’ve never been back, can’t see the point of returning. Yes, you’re right, I’ll start another thread.

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

IanC said...
You might not be able to lose 30Ibs and marry an Argentinian super model, but I will and have become a professional, have a middle class lifestyle and I am not restricted by the ROA in what I can do and am capable of. That’s the difference between us Richard – if I think I’m capable of doing something I’ll go for it and try. You on the other hand will wait for someone to tell you if you are allowed to.

Now, if you don’t need to go to the lengths of emigrating to realize a dream, you stay and wait for it to get better. I set both the goals and standards for my own life, not others. I don’t commit fraud and wouldn’t encourage it but you seem to think I do, I just don’t declare which is not fraud for gain, but a lie to achieve. Just as you’ve said you’d lie for a supermarket job, but not for something bigger.


Ian,

You have this slightly annoying habit of reading into what people post what you want to read into it and ignoring what they actually say, while essentially repeating yourself over and over again. Obviously, the thing about losing 30 pounds and marrying whatever...was just a joke or flippancy on my part, but the point is that none of us are going to do exactly what we want. We all (or most of us) have to mediate our ambitions to reality - at least, to a degree.

I am not suggesting anyone should "wait around for someone to tell me if I am allowed to do something". That's just your spin on what I am posting. It's not what I am actually saying.

What I am saying, and what I think is reasonable, is that we all have to decide what we can realistically do in the circumstances we find ourselves in. That's the first step to real freedom - as opposed to the fantasy of running away to Thailand. It doesn't mean 'waiting around'. It means finding something you want to do that you can do without hurting anybody else.

It seems to me that you have had to make a decision on a similar basis. You didn't just pick the first thing you WANTED, you had to decide what was REALISTIC, and because your circumstances are pretty extreme, unfortunately that meant moving to Thailand. I say 'unfortunately' because it sounds to me that you could be an asset to the UK education system, which just demonstrates how backward and stupid this country is. But the reality is, you can't teach on the same basis in the UK because you'd probably be forced into a situation where you'd be breaking the law, right? So, in a way, you're living proof of my point - except that you've chosen to take some extra shortcuts and basically commit fraud by falsifying documents. 'Not declaring' is a different matter. I can't blame anybody for not declaring, as in most circumstances it's not an offence anyway, even if you lie, so that's not normally going to be an issue. The problem I have with you here is that you are encouraging people to take things one step further and actually break the law - and that in turn raises an awkward question of whether this is something we can condone. You're treating serious aspects of the law as an expedient. Are there people in prison who are in prison for doing exactly the same thing? Yes, I would say there are.
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


You have this slightly annoying habit . . . . . “ Oh, I’ve got lots of them. Yet as you say we can’t always have what we want, my reply was, Yes we can, within reason.


My implication of having to wait around waiting for something to happen, will happen if you obey the law to the letter. Just my opinion of course, but the squeaky clean you would run their lives according to the dictates of others are in for a long wait.


There is no ‘fantasy’ of running away to Thailand, or for that matter anywhere else. The fantasy, as you will discover on the forum, is that to stay in the UK is a dead end for many.


No Richard, I picked what I wanted to do and did it. What I wanted wasn’t achievable in the UK, so I went elsewhere and did it. It really is as simple as that. I wouldn’t even get a job sweeping the playground in any school in the UK, never mind teaching!


“ . . . you've chosen to take some extra shortcuts and basically commit fraud by falsifying documents.” Where on earth did you get that statement from? I can assure you I’ve never falsified a document. I have two Degrees (B.A and B.Sc) and a Masters (M.A) from UK Universities Richard and spent ten years at various ones. What stopped me from being a teacher in the UK was not a lack of qualifications, but my past - so I went elsewhere. Obviously you think I was born a HGV driver? What I recommended was that others don’t buy dodgy ones, not that I’d done so.


You say I read into posts what I want to hear? rolleyes">

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Regarding the online e-commerce site Ian, yes I look forward to a new thread if you are actually allowed to discuss such things on here.
It sounds like a really good idea, however, fragile and bulky, are two words, I don't like hearing when it comes to stock and shipping items.
Meta Tags and SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) is an art and another world.
However there are also other great ways to get the word out there.  
Give me the head's up when you re-forum post turn
 
In regards to the current rutting your having with Richard,, well, from a personal view Ian, you have opened up my eyes.
I am the first to admit, that I have been a bit blinkered and very naïve to certain things and issues. 
The more I read your input, the more it seems to make sense.
 
 
Anyway, all the very best to everyone involved in this posting.  


 

By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM




Q3 said...
Regarding the online e-commerce site Ian, yes I look forward to a new thread if you are actually allowed to discuss such things on here.

It sounds like a really good idea, however, fragile and bulky, are two words, I don't like hearing when it comes to stock and shipping items.

Meta Tags and SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) is an art and another world.

However there are also other great ways to get the word out there.  

Give me the head's up when you re-forum post turn

 

In regards to the current rutting your having with Richard,, well, from a personal view Ian, you have opened up my eyes.

I am the first to admit, that I have been a bit blinkered and very naïve to certain things and issues. 

The more I read your input, the more it seems to make sense.

 

 

Anyway, all the very best to everyone involved in this posting.  


I think Richard simply misread my posts and I’ve always said I draw the line at fraud; I simply don’t tell anyone anything unless I want to and certainly not, if it’s not in my best interests and will be used against me. I try not to get involved in politics; what is a requirement today will often change tomorrow when it suits the government, not when it suits the individual. I’m sure Mr. Cameron is a nice man, but his policies are not helping me and he goes against the whole concept of rehabilitation, unless he’s forced to accede by the ECHR. I’ve simply refused to play, taken my ball back and taken up another interest which best suits me.


I did open a thread about self-employment, but its buried under Other Areas of life and Preparing myself for the worst.

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

When I said:

RichardH said...
You've just answered your own question.


I meant 'Yes'. If the conviction is irrelevant to the employment decision, then it follows that the applicant can safely lie.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...





Let's Hope For His Sake He Get's HMP Ford...and I don't mean a 5 Door Focus.


Again, is there moderation on this forum or not? Aren't your posts in breach of forum rules? Isn't this supposed to be a forum to assist offenders?
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
That's not my quote


Regardless, these comments (and you have made similar) are unwelcome.

The 'General Conditions' under the Forum Rules state that you must not harass other members.

I wish to tell you that I consider references to what might happen to myself or others in prison as both offensive, hurtful and also amounting to harassment in that it is an off-topic subject that has no bearing on this thread and is simply designed to intimate and upset me.

You either desist from it or I will ask the owners of the site to do something about it.

I am not being hypersensitive. The Forum Rules are there for a reason. What you are doing is not helping understand any of the issues. It's just disruptive and bullying activity.
By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Safe Lying ? - Ummmm that's a funny term to use.
 
 


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 18/08/2013 17:55:43 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

My god, just switch off your PC if your un-happy Richey !

I am sure it will all work it's self out in the end.


 

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

I am very interested in your export business idea.
If it's allowed, I can give you some simple help and guidance on starting a small e-commerce, on-line shop Ian.
I used this method to start a small on-line retail jewellery business for my daughter, and it cost us less than £20 to set up, and its free to run..

la-kawn sawatdee.

Q3


 

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Foxtrot said...


RichardH said...



Q3 said...
I don't like FT but, he has a point this time.

cry  I'm insulted.

 
 
turn  Not half as much as me, so a big SORRY might be in order turn
 

 

 

 

:p roll :p


 

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
But it is simple. I'll try to expand - if an ex-offender, no matter what their conviction is for, applies for a job that is not likely to attract a DBS check, therefore not one of high responsibility or one working with children or vulnerable adults, omitted to inform the employer of his conviction, is that condonable.

It matters not what his conviction whether it is fraud, sexual or violent, as he trying to reform, has dealt with any underlying issues, is just trying to move on and he has a family to provide for. He doesn't want a lifetime on benefits, feeling ever more depressed. This job could make all the difference.

Should he disclose?


It's not as simple as you think. You haven't given enough information. I need to know what the conviction is for and what the job is. That's the whole point, because this is all about the relevancy of the conviction to the employment decision. A lie in that context can only be condonable if the conviction would not be considered relevant to the employment decision by a reasonable employer. So, if the unspent conviction is for dishonesty and the reformed offender is applying for a role as an accountant, the criminal record would be considered relevant by a reasonable person to the employment decision, and so the applicant is at risk of breaking the law if, when asked, he fails to disclose. On the other hand, if the reformed offender with a dishonesty conviction is applying for a role as, let's say, a transport manager for an HGV company, it's very unlikely that the conviction could be considered relevant to an employment decision and so (all things being equal) the lie could be seen as condonable in those circumstances. If the lie is later discovered, the employee may find himself dismissed, but that is a separate issue of employment law. It would be highly difficult to sustain a criminal prosecution against him due to the 'reasonable belief' that existed on employment, which suggests there was no objective dishonesty, let alone a dishonest mind. You cannot be 'dishonest' in the criminal sense if the thing you are lying about is not material to the decision or transaction. The lie needs to be relevant to the 'transaction' or it does not touch on criminal law.

To illustrate further with a silly example: if I am buying a sack of potatoes and the potato merchant asks me: "But do you have a criminal record? I don't sell potatoes to criminals." My answer could be: "No, I don't have a criminal record." I have obviously lied in order to obtain the sack of potatoes, but have I committed fraud? Is there criminal dishonesty? The issue is whether the lie is relevant to the transaction. Clearly, there is no fraud - or, if there is a technical statutory fraud, it is highly unlikely that I would be subject to police action, let alone a prosecution. We can see that would be ridiculous. Now translate that analogy to the employment situation. The aspiring transport manager is asked: "Do you have a (unspent) criminal record?" He does, but it is historic and not for anything to do with the role he is applying for. Simply by asking him the question, that does not mean there is relevancy or materiality in his criminal record. The policies of the company on criminal record disclosure are likely to say that each case is judged on its merits, which to an extent supports the exercise of discretion on the part of the applicant. In short, he can lie, in the knowledge that he is not misleading the company as to facts that would reasonably be considered pertinent to the employment decision.

I hope that explains it a bit more, but if not, well, as I have stated above, I have work to do, so I cannot guarantee I will answer or reply to any more of these posts. By all means, I'll start a thread on this in maybe a week, when I have more time, and I will do my best to re-explain it all.

Post Edited (RichardH) : 18/08/2013 17:20:46 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Nope. The job applied for carries no huge responsibility or trust (I would say an accountant would need to prove their honesty). Ok, for want of example, the job is at the local pub, pulling pints. The conviction is of no relevance, otherwise you're saying there is a hierarchy of offenders.


You've just answered your own question.

But the nature of the conviction will normally be of relevance. I don't care if that creates a hierarchy of offenders - that's just your ideology - but the fact is it doesn't. The point is that different kinds of convictions create different sorts of risks. That's not an intended hierarchy, just a sensible assessment of the situation. If a convicted child sex offender applies to work in a nursery school and lies about his unspent sexual conviction, then that lie presents a legal problem, no matter how you look at it.

Post Edited (RichardH) : 18/08/2013 17:35:45 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Foxtrot said...
Q3... you want a big sorry?! There's a massive one in your last post.
 
 
 
 
 
 
turn roll turn   New Thread Started !


 

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
I find it hilariously ludicrous that you won't swallow your pride and just say yes or no to that one scenario. This sort of attitude will do you no favours when they strip search you, demand an MDT or when the big guy with the swastika tattoo jumps the canteen queue.

"Have you taken any illegal drugs?"

"I refer you to my answer I gave last week, for it is not as simple as that as you have not explained what 'taken' means, nor do I know if any narcotics have since been decriminalised..... WHACK"


Once again, are there moderators on this forum or not? I'd really like to know.

I have answered your question. The problem here is that you cannot read and you have difficulty with abstract ideas. I have explained that each situation has to be judged, and that requires facts. By all means, I am happy to discuss hypothetical scenarios, but give me some substance or I cannot give you definitive answers.
By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

 .


RichardH said...

You've just answered your own question.

 

I find it hilariously ludicrous that you won't swallow your pride and just say yes or no to that one scenario. This sort of attitude will do you no favours when they strip search you, demand an MDT or when the big guy with the swastika tattoo jumps the canteen queue.

 

"Have you taken any illegal drugs?"

 

"I refer you to my answer I gave last week, for it is not as simple as that as you have not explained what 'taken' means, nor do I know if any narcotics have since been decriminalised..... WHACK"

 

 

 

  


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 18/08/2013 17:57:17 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

I thought that there was only one type of lie (other than the "does my bum look big in this" answer one) but now I am faced with the condonable lie aspect.

I have printed off the debate, and will use this as my form of defence if I am caught lying...

The interesting fact is, that the whole argument has not been answered yet : I don't like FT but, he has a point this time.

" would it be a condonable lie for that man to 'omit' his conviction in order to provide for his family, rather than live off the state?"


 

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Is that a yes, it is condonable, or yes, you understand the question, but are too pursed-lipped to give a one word answer, preferring to act childishly?


In what sense am I acting childlishly?

I have told you that the issue cannot be reduced to simple answers. It depends on the facts of the situation. I have given you an answer, based on the limited information you provided, and in the process I have attempted to explain the line of reasoning that needs to be adopted.

Your original question was:-

Foxtrot said...
So, if someone with an unspent conviction, with a family to feed and clothe, was asked if they had any convictions at a job interview that was not likely to be subject to a DBS check, would saying 'no' be a condonable lie?


My answer was...

RichardH said...
But it isn't simple, is it. It depends on the relevance of the conviction. If, to a reasonable person, the conviction would be considered relevant to whether a job offer is made, then you have to tell the truth in that situation if you want to apply for the job. If it's a conviction that would not be considered relevant to the job offer, then that's different.
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


Richard, take another deep breath. I have lived through forty years of the ROA, please believe me, I don’t exaggerate and they’re not myths. It’s no point starting a new thread; the same people will answer it and tell you you’re talking nonsense. Well no, to be fair I shouldn’t say that as I’m not sure what you’re saying, but it is coming across as a nonsense rambling.


We and I’m talking of the people who are replying to you here don’t do conspiracy mate, we live it, it’s true and we know because we’re on the receiving end and you’re not. Information people can get from the UNLOCK helpline; the forum is experienced based and populated by people who have experience, or alternatively are looking for those who have it. You have neither Richard and it’s this that makes your posts a jumble of incoherent personal ramblings.


No offence Richard, but the CJS is a mass of individuals like yourself who read from the same text book. You have the answers because that what it says should happen. Life isn’t like that – ‘it shouldn’t happen like that, therefore it doesn’t’. You base your ideas of exaggeration and myths on what? Certainly not experience Richard and it’s why people are tearing your arguments to bits.      

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

IanC said...
Richard, take another deep breath. I have lived through forty years of the ROA, please believe me, I don’t exaggerate and they’re not myths. It’s no point starting a new thread; the same people will answer it and tell you you’re talking nonsense. Well no, to be fair I shouldn’t say that as I’m not sure what you’re saying, but it is coming across as a nonsense rambling.


Ian,

How is it a 'nonsense rambling' to say [reducing this down to simplicity]: Disclose where the conviction is relevant to the decision to employ; don't disclose when it is not relevant because that is not fraud as there is no material non-disclosure.

Tell me, IanC - how is that nonsense? Stop repeating yourself to massage your own ego and actually engage with what I am saying.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Q3 said...
I don't like FT but, he has a point this time.

" would it be a condonable lie for that man to 'omit' his conviction in order to provide for his family, rather than live off the state?"


I have already answered this...!!!

This is like pulling teeth.

Look, can we call a halt to this now as I have things to do. I will be back in a few days, maybe a week, to post a new thread.
By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

RichardH said...
Q3 said...
" I can't make you look stupid. You're posting under a pseudonym, right? Q3 is not your real name, yes? You're not a character in Star Trek or something, so you don't need to feel hurt and you can't look stupid because nobody knows who you are" - Remember that line Richard ?...I can't believe you spat your dummy out and threatened to report me.


Yes, and in which part did I insult you? Where did I call you stupid or call you an idiot? Nowhere. The insult came from you.
 
 
When you go through reception, and your put on the wing with the other inmates, being called "stupid" is going to be the least of your worries Richey !, however if I have hurt your feelings I am really sorry.   
 
 
Q3 said...
You also said " Just a polite request to Unlock, who own this site - Could we have some effective moderation here, please? This should be a forum for providing valid advice and information to people with convictions "

Your VALID advice is its OK to lie ?


Yes, because some lies are condonable. I have explained the point already. You and others here are having real problems grasping it, despite my clear exposition. This is largely because you keep intervening with your own misconceived ramblings.
 
 
These are not "ramblings", Lets get this straight : I am a convicted criminal, you are not. I know the problems faced by having a record and applying for job after job, you do not.
 
It's ok you coming on here giving advice about so called "condonable lies", but I have already faced the legal system, been convicted under the fraud act, had countless court appearances,(14 in total)from Magistrates to Crown, and endless sleepless nights, over something so stupid, you couldn't make it up if you tried.
 
I didn't even know that what I was doing was illegal, and that makes it even worse.
 
I have had stupid and totally pointless probation meetings with PO's with Tattoos and Nose Studs, who can't fit me into a tidy box, because I don't drink or do drugs, and therefore class me as a " Focused Offender".  
 
I was convicted after the Police and the CPS decided it was in the public interest to take me to court.
So I do actually know what I am talking about.I read lot's, in fact for 24 months I read all the aspects of the Fraud Act, I researched case history, I also researched PACE Regulations.
 
This is why, in reference to ANY case involving Fraud, I say, check out the act first, then comment.
 
The law in the UK can be an Ass, we all know that, but that is life. We applaud the have a go hero, but laugh at the guy who get's nicked for standing up to his kids bullies, or fight's with the burglar stealing his TV.
 
These are not misguided so called facts, these are the facts from somebody who has experienced them first hand.      
 
 
 
You also fall into the category of posters here who need to read more and contribute less. You don't understand what you're talking about.

Q3 said...
As I said your a "highly intelligent person" who has acted like a fool and who is now facing Prison (So you say) I was not saying you were stupid, after all RichardH isn't your real name is it ?, so nobody knows who you are ?

Here is some clarity of information : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents

I suggest you read through the Fraud Act 2006.

IF any of your actions COULD be within the remit of the LAW and the Fraud Act 2006, then COMMON sense will dictate that you must follow the law.

I don't write the law, I am just one of the millions that have to abide by it.


Again, I refer to my previous remarks on these points. You're just repeating misguided information, for your own motives.


 

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
A rather glib and desperate comment, but who knows? G4S in particular do not have the greatest record in competence.


Actually, it's not a glib or desperate comment. It's very relevant. You see, the problem with yourself, IanC and Q3 is that you prefer to spout myths and exaggerations rather than properly understand things.

You are implying in this thread that those organisations officially sanction the use of the information by everyone who works for them. That's unlikely to be true, as it would represent a breach of data protection and a breach of privacy. The reality is, those organisations can only use the information under restricted circumstances and for limited purposes. That's not to say I condone what they do or the way the system works, and I appreciate that there will be corruption, but my point is that you are misleading everybody in the way you present these issues.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
"Since 2009, a total of 76 officers in London have been investigated for misusing the Police National Computer (PNC), according to figures released under Freedom of Information laws."

"Two officers last year "resigned/ retired" following the investigation, according to the figures, and in 2011 two officers were dismissed without notice."

But prosecuted? lol


Yes, and what is your point? This assists my argument.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Well obviously, in the same way that a bank security guard has no access to your account details.

But allowing ever more and more organisations and individuals access to such sensitive information makes controlling the confidentiality of that info increasingly difficult. Increasing the numbers who have access also makes any breach harder to trace.


That's a fair concern - and I share it - but the information is not being shared around routinely.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
What, the argument about prosecutions? What I see is investigations that are clearly leading no-where


It wasn't an argument about prosecutions. I said that police officers have been prosecuted for unauthorised access to the PNC. You then posted up a relevant story that confirmed the police investigate themselves for......unauthorised access to the PNC! So your link helps my argument. The story doesn't mention prosecutions, but that doesn't tell us there are no prosecutions. In fact, there are. The reason the police know about the unauthorised use of the PNC is that each and every PNC check is recorded, so there is an audit trail. You then say the investigations are "clearly" leading nowhere? What is your basis for saying this? Some of the officers were dismissed or suspended. It doesn't tell us anything else and it only deals with one police area. I'm not going to defend the police or the authorities, but my interest here is in facts and all I see is you exaggerating and reading your own prejudices into things.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Er no, what I am saying is there is people within these organisations with access, the numbers of which is anybody's guess. Perhaps it's one very secretive worker, but my guess is that there will be many tiers of management and support staff with daily access. After your prosecution, you'll begin to realise all of this, and emerge from your sweet fluffy world a wiser man.


I'm sorry but this is getting really annoying. I do not live in a "sweet fluffy world". It's really irritating when people come over all patronising like this. I live in the real world, just like you do. I know what goes on. I am not going to reveal too much about myself, but I have worked in organisations with access to the PNC. I once had access to it at my desk. I know how it works and I know it would be easy to abuse, but all checks are recorded. There are people who abuse it, but it is not widespread and the chances of detection are high. That's why everything you have said has nothing to do with this thread. If people are corrupt, there is no accounting for that. It's just a facet of life. The point is that it will not affect us most of the time and it is not worth worrying about. It may be that the use of the PNC expands, but so far it hasn't expanded beyond fairly limited usage in non-police organisations, in all cases for investigative or security purposes, so there is no point in basing our discussion on this. It's paranoia.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Q3 said...
" I can't make you look stupid. You're posting under a pseudonym, right? Q3 is not your real name, yes? You're not a character in Star Trek or something, so you don't need to feel hurt and you can't look stupid because nobody knows who you are" - Remember that line Richard ?...I can't believe you spat your dummy out and threatened to report me.


Yes, and in which part did I insult you? Where did I call you stupid or call you an idiot? Nowhere. The insult came from you.

Q3 said...
You also said " Just a polite request to Unlock, who own this site - Could we have some effective moderation here, please? This should be a forum for providing valid advice and information to people with convictions "

Your VALID advice is its OK to lie ?


Yes, because some lies are condonable. I have explained the point already. You and others here are having real problems grasping it, despite my clear exposition. This is largely because you keep intervening with your own misconceived ramblings.

You also fall into the category of posters here who need to read more and contribute less. You don't understand what you're talking about.

Q3 said...
As I said your a "highly intelligent person" who has acted like a fool and who is now facing Prison (So you say) I was not saying you were stupid, after all RichardH isn't your real name is it ?, so nobody knows who you are ?

Here is some clarity of information : https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents

I suggest you read through the Fraud Act 2006.

IF any of your actions COULD be within the remit of the LAW and the Fraud Act 2006, then COMMON sense will dictate that you must follow the law.

I don't write the law, I am just one of the millions that have to abide by it.


Again, I refer to my previous remarks on these points. You're just repeating misguided information, for your own motives.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Q3 said...
We are all going round in circleroll .


No, we're not going round in circles Q3. You just don't understand.

Q3 said...
Richard, its obvious that your a highly intelligent person, who is gifted with the ability to express yourself through the written word.

On the flip side your also a very stupid person facing a term of imprisonment.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents

If you find time check out the Fraud Act 2006 -

Please read the act, and re-read it to you fully understand.

Obtaining a so called "pecuniary advantage", has disappeared, this term is now as old as the ark.


This does not change my argument. I was not referring to the old statutory offence. The position remains that you cannot be convicted of fraud where the misrepresentation is immaterial to the decision on whether to employ you.

Q3 said...
Even if NO loss is made and NO gain is made, it is still an offence under the various parts of the fraud act.


That is exactly the point. Please go back and re-read my posts above. You're confusing the concepts of whether there is a gain with whether the act in itself is dishonest. These are different questions. I have no doubt that fraud is fraud regardless of personal loss or gain. That's always been the position. Equally, I don't doubt that there will be buried in there some 'catch-all' provision that would, in theory, allow a prosecution even in the circumstances I have described. What we are talking about here is what is condonable, as this relates to what happens in practice as opposed to what is contained in books and statutes. I have never heard of a cleaner being prosecuted because he or she lied about his or her criminal record. On the other hand, I have heard of cases where someone with, say, an unspent conviction for dishonesty is prosecuted for lying about a record where a reasonable person would know in advance that the decision to employ would not have been made had the record been known about - for instance, in jobs to do with accounting or positions that are financially-sensitive.

Please don't call me an "idiot" or any other name. I have not called you names. It is against the terms of use of this site, and if you repeat it, I will report it. I will not be abused on here.

Q3 said...
I am not a cartoon mouse, with a girlfriend call Minnie, and have no need to lie, I am just a member of Joe Public, who was arrested, charged and dragged through the courts on points of law, covered by the Fraud Act 2006. (I didn't tell little lies, I told the truth, but check out the act, there COULD have been a loss)

IF anybody on here wants to say "little lies" to gain employment, then good on them.

IF anybody on here wants to refuse to disclose any crime because they decide it's not relevant to the position then good on them.

If the term " HAVE YOU BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME" crops up on an application form that anybody on here wants to fill out you in the future, think long and hard before you tick NO.


You can do what you want to do in your own best judgement. My issue with you here - and with Ian - is you are clouding the true position through exaggerations, pseudo-myths, and misconceptions.

Post Edited (RichardH) : 18/08/2013 13:46:17 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Er... because you seem to think that intelligence on someone's past cannot be accessed unless done officially, that only the DBS have access to the PNC. You also seem to believe that there has been no instances of a CRB/DBS check being done without consent.


No, I don't think these things.

I have never said these things.

I have never stated these things on here.

I have never implied these things.

I have never believed these things.

You're just reading into my posts beliefs and opinions that aren't there.

Foxtrot said...
You are aware of the recent story of the RSPCA having access to criminal records?


Yes, and?

Foxtrot said...
I know this is all new to you, but please give us a little credit. I don't proclaim to be a master criminal, but I have been in the CJS for 10 years now and can tell you some proper horror stories of abuse of confidentiality and trust.


Again, what has that got to do with what we are discussing?
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
To really scare you, other organisations that have access to the PNC include HMRC, DWP, DVLA, The Charity Commission, and even Royal Mail. The most frightening is that beacon of competence G4S has access.


Does everyone in these organisations have that access? Even the tea boys? What about the office juniors? And that busty lass on work experience...does she have access too?
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


“All checks comply with the law and are carried out with the full knowledge and authorisation of all applicants.”  And if you don’t agree you don’t get the job and if something comes back they suddenly decide you’re not unsuitable after all and the offer is withdrawn – not because of what was discovered, surely not, and you’ll never prove that was the reason.


Who was it on this forum ages ago who tried for – I think it was KFC, but one of those types of places anyway and attempted to fill out their application form online. As soon as you answer ‘yes’ to the question it knocks you back to the beginning of the page! We all thought it was hilarious at the time, but it was a macabre forced sort of humour. Who in their right minds wants to put themselves through the Morrison’s meat grinder, or the thousands like them?!


The point is Richard. most of what people say on here are things based on personal experience, not what we think of or stuff we got off the internet. Your arguments make sense theoretically, but not in practice and thats where you fall apart. You still haven't been sentenced yet and you're giving everybody your views on post conviction life and what it's like for people? You got this 'knowledge' from where? You think Richard - we know!   

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Accessing the PNC does not require a DBS to be linked to that search. Methinks you are tying yourself up in knots.


I repeat, I know what the difference is between the PNC and the DBS. You are talking about people who are corrupt. There is no accounting for that. Accessing the PNC without proper cause is, in and of itself, a criminal offence. There have been police officers prosecuted for it.

You list organisations that have access to the PNC, but not everyone in those organisations will have access, right? So even where there are access privileges for a non-police organisation, it will be mainly for investigative functions.

I agree that, in principle, G4S, the RSPCA and the Charity Commission, and similar, should not have access, but to what extent do they have access? What controls are in place? What is the purpose of access?

Post Edited (RichardH) : 18/08/2013 13:58:51 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

IanC said...
“All checks comply with the law and are carried out with the full knowledge and authorisation of all applicants.” And if you don’t agree you don’t get the job and if something comes back they suddenly decide you’re not unsuitable after all and the offer is withdrawn – not because of what was discovered, surely not, and you’ll never prove that was the reason.

Who was it on this forum ages ago who tried for – I think it was KFC, but one of those types of places anyway and attempted to fill out their application form online. As soon as you answer ‘yes’ to the question it knocks you back to the beginning of the page! We all thought it was hilarious at the time, but it was a macabre forced sort of humour. Who in their right minds wants to put themselves through the Morrison’s meat grinder, or the thousands like them?!

The point is Richard. most of what people say on here are things based on personal experience, not what we think of or stuff we got off the internet. Your arguments make sense theoretically, but not in practice and thats where you fall apart. You still haven't been sentenced yet and you're giving everybody your views on post conviction life and what it's like for people? You got this 'knowledge' from where? You think Richard - we know!


AGAIN, you're missing the point. You're really struggling to grasp this aren't you?

In simple terms - It depends on the relevancy of the conviction to the job at KFC. The problem with the example given above is that the person was not 'thoughtfully expedient'. As you say, they just ticked 'Yes' without thinking about whether disclosure was warranted. They adopted the 'blind obedience' approach and got knocked back. Is that a surprise? No, but it doesn't have any bearing on what I am saying.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Ian,

To a large extent, we are more or less saying the same thing, just using different language and emphases, and there's a danger we're just going to go round in circles, so I'll leave this as my last comment (I hope).

I'm not saying that people should follow laws blindly. Obviously law is a social construct and to an extent it's just a made-up fiction to keep people in line. However, this is not a forum for the discussion of moral philosophy. The context of this discussion is that we are on a forum for 'reformed offenders'. If you are reformed, then you can't also advocate breaking the law in serious ways like committing fraud. There is a choice. No offence, but your choices suggest you are not reformed and maybe you don't belong here.

The problem, as I see it, is that you are making a valid point but then taking it too far and exaggerating. This is partly due to your background in that you spent a long time (too long) in prison after committing very serious offences. By the time of your release, society had become much more prurient and restrictive about people with past indiscretions, and so you had to move abroad, and you chose Thailand. Most of us here are in a more down-to-earth position and don't need to go to these lengths.

You say it's a choice between declaring or staying on the dole. That's not true. You're presenting a false dilemma.

It's actually a choice between having realistic goals or staying on the dole.

I'd like to lose 30 pounds and marry an Argentinian supermodel, but it ain't going to happen. It's not a realistic goal. I have to adjust my expectations and my goals to reality. That's not defeatism, it's just...well...reality.

Likewise, if I have a conviction for dishonesty offences, I'm not going to be able to work as a bank manager.

Imagine if I come on this forum and complain: "Now look here everybody, my conviction for [theft/fraud/armed robbery] was [five/ten/twenty] years ago and I've changed and I'm now honest and this isn't fair]". Of course, I'm exaggerating a little for effect, but this is more or less what seems to be the fodder here, day in, day out. It's obvious what the problem is. In most cases, it's not that there aren't the economic opportunities. That's not the real problem. The problem is that people here have the wrong attitudes, i.e. an attitude of dependency. This dependency psychology is being cultivated and encouraged, I am sorry to say, by the very people who are supposed to be helping. Instead of making the best of it, we are being asked to blame somebody else, or give up and start committing crimes again.

You seem to be suggesting that what I should do is lie about it (we'll put aside any disclosure issues here). I would say that's OK, if that's my choice. Whether it's in the UK or elsewhere, if I am now honest and want to make a new start, then it's morally defensible. But if I am caught out and then end up in trouble again, I only have myself to blame because I did have a choice. I had the option of not lying and instead pursuing a job or career where I did not have to breach anyone's trust and compromise anyone else's career or livelihood through my own selfishness. Everyone has that choice, and how we make that choice is the real test of whether we truly belong here or whether we are, in fact, still criminals.

Of course, none of this is fair, but I am assuming that our purpose is not to discuss whether things are fair, but how things actually are.
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


Ader


Not heard anything about these new certificates coming into force, but I wouldn’t be surprised for places like the U.S, Europe and Australia/Canada – the politically correct places. I was asked for one a couple of times and found my own (legal) way around it, but it’s not a thing you come across often. I think what people often focus on are themselves without talking into account that you’re one of millions and to be honest, governments rely more on the somewhat dozy types who insist on telling every Tom, Dick and Harry about themselves and then complain because everyone knows. Appearance is everything and you will usually be taken at face value. After a while, you will come to accept what you are and it’s then that the present takes over from the past and it all sort of slides into history.   


Richard


Well, I think we agree that life goes on, but what I’m saying is that it doesn’t move far enough in the right direction for me so I give it a gentle push? When I go to bed at night I sleep easily and so does everyone else who I’ve come into contact with that day. That’s my reform.


You might not be able to lose 30Ibs and marry an Argentinian super model, but I will and have become a professional, have a middle class lifestyle and I am not restricted by the ROA in what I can do and am capable of. That’s the difference between us Richard – if I think I’m capable of doing something I’ll go for it and try. You on the other hand will wait for someone to tell you if you are allowed to.


Now, if you don’t need to go to the lengths of emigrating to realize a dream, you stay and wait for it to get better. I set both the goals and standards for my own life, not others. I don’t commit fraud and wouldn’t encourage it but you seem to think I do, I just don’t declare which is not fraud for gain, but a lie to achieve. Just as you’ve said you’d lie for a supermarket job, but not for something bigger.


To say to someone, “Oh well, just make the best of it” or, “Just keep trying” is about as useless as it gets, don’t you think? What advice would you give Richard? “Well, we’ve just got to, you know, persevere, you know, just accept things?” You accept them Richard; I’m not a first time offender and my eyes are blue, not green. I can assure I am reformed, not maybe in the sense you would like me to be, but I can also assure you I haven’t re-offended for decades, hurt anyone by my actions and contribute to society.


That’s what the forum is for Richard, not a collection of individuals who sit quietly, gather dust and stagnate and quiver at the thought of actually doing something. So far I’ve achieved everything I set out to do and I did that not by doing what I’m told. My moral philosophy has worked for me, has yours worked for you?


Off on a tangent. Because of where I am, I’m now thinking of going into a p/t export business. I’ve just sold a product in Thailand for 500% profit and need to set up a webpage and hopefully double that. In HTML? I’ve no idea, what’s that? Yet there are a lot of people here far more knowledgeable than me about these things – if it’s allowed. I simply talk about things I’ve done and that have worked for me. We all need ideas Richard and we use them as a menu; we pick and choose our way through life. I gather from your original thread you’re somewhat new to our ranks – welcome aboard and tell me the same thing you’re telling me now in a decade. :-)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

IanC said...
OK, I’ll say it again, don’t use fraud to move on, but use your discretion about telling people about your past because someone else says you deserve to be at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. In the world of the CJS which you are about to enter, you will find that everything is not as black and white as you now imagine.


Good - but you did mention things previously that would be fraud. That's what I was criticising you about. I am not going to go back and quote you on it. Anybody who has read your posts knows I am telling the truth, but given your statement above, it's no longer an issue.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
Oh they can, believe me! All that spent means is that you are lawfully allowed to tick 'no' on the application form. Nothing will be wiped from the PNC. Of course it would take a bent copper to disclose that to a 'employer' friend, and we all know that there are no coppers in existence who are willing to bend the law is there? eyes


My own statement was:-

RichardH said...
Yes, that is the whole point of the ROA and that is what it does. No-one can find your unspent convictions on the PNC unless it is a role for which a DBS check is permitted, and even then only if you agree to the check. So there is no breach of data protection or privacy.


That is a factual statement. You have to consent to a DBS check, whether it is Basic, Standard or Enhanced. So there is no breach of data protection and no breach of privacy.

You talk about 'bent coppers', but that's immaterial to this discussion. There's no accounting for corrupt and dishonest people who work in authority. The position remains as I have stated it.
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

IanC said...
Your theoretical position on reform is admirable and it’s just what it says in the blurb, but unfortunately practice raises its ugly head and for many it’s either self-employment or a lifetime of dole queues. That’s fact Richard. It may not sound nice, it may not be what the government says, it may not fit in with the ideas of rehabilitation, but that’s the reality. If it were as simple and as straight forward as you imagine it is, there would be no need for a forum like this.


You say: "FOR MANY it is either self-employment or a lifetime of dole queues". So clearly not for ALL. In fact, we are very likely dealing here with a small minority.

I would suggest that those 'many' consist of:-

1. Extreme cases, where the person has been in prison for a very lengthy period of time or has convictions for sex offences and is subject to debilitating civil restrictions.

2. People with significant mental or psychiatric issues that would make it difficult for them to integrate into a workplace.

3. Whingers, whiners and complainers who can't take responsibility for their own actions and just want to play the victim.

4. Lazy people who would rather use their conviction as an excuse to remain on benefits.

5. People with a dependency attitude who are indulged by the state agencies, who regard them as 'vulnerable', 'challenging', 'at risk', 'clients', etc.

IanC said...
I don’t ask you or anybody else to do what I did, but if I took your position I wouldn’t be where I am now. That’s the bottom line Richard; if you’re sentenced to a period in jail, when you come out you do what I did using your outraged position on morality and tell me how you did it.


I am not taking an "outraged position on morality". I am talking about common sense.

Post Edited (RichardH) : 18/08/2013 13:23:54 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Foxtrot said...
The PNC and DBS are different things. The PNC can be accessed by any copper, even over their radios. The copper doesn't even need to be bent, as many no doubt believe they can access it at whim. A spent conviction does not 'drop off' the PNC, although there has of course been some past instances of stepping down, and of course the proposed 'filtering' gumph.


I know the PNC and the DBS are separate things - but what has that, or anything you have to say here, got to do with what we are discussing?
By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

I've been reading through this thread.

I agree with almost everything IanC says. This is exactly the attitude needed by those with convictions. I say 'almost' because I disagree with IanC slightly on one narrow, but important, point. I do think you need to adhere to the laws of whichever country you are in. For instance, if you are in the U.K., you should not lie on an insurance form or a job application form, as that could land you in further trouble with the law, and some who do this will be caught. That is a lesson everyone on here should have already learnt. Aside from that one issue, I agree with IanC that we have to build our own lives, not rely on governments of different political colours or official people.

In my view, that means when the law or some rule or regulation presents an obstacle, we need to find a way around this to achieve our goals, without breaking the law. That in turn requires that each of us is clear in our own minds about what our individual goal is, that the goal is realistic, and that there is a lawful and ethical way to circumvent any difficulties in achieving that goal.

For instance, it's probably no good wanting a job or career that requires disclosure if a criminal record is likely to disqualify you, and putting all your hope and energy into pursuing such a goal will be futile as well as psychologically and emotionally damaging. But maybe you could think about pursuing the same job (or same type of job) in a different country, maybe using the UK qualification or having obtained an equivalent foreign qualification? That's roughly what IanC has done.

Alternatively, if you want to stay in the UK, you could pursue a different job that is closely-related to your first choice, but does not require disclosure or requires a lesser standard of disclosure. Self-employment is also an option in the UK and elsewhere, maybe using skills you have already obtained. You could also research whether your first choice of career might allow immediate self-employment provided you obtain the necessary qualifications. I'd certainly like to see a special section on the Forum here about self-employment, so that others can discuss that option, and I wonder if Unlock could arrange that?
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


Q3


No problem. We all have ideas and ways we’ve done things. Some we agree with, others we don’t, but if someone has jumped a hurdle it’s interesting to know how and the consequences. You can’t write off whole countries as a destination based on stories from the internet. The U.S for example is one big horror story if we listened to the news and I’ve never been there, but I’m sure there are opportunities there and the people, (less the officials), are perfectly nice and the lifestyle is OK. As foreigners, in many countries many of the everyday restrictions don’t apply and as our knowledge and skills are wanted we tend to have a better time of it than the locals – in many places, thankfully. It’s got to be better than banging your head against a wall in the UK?


RP


China is generally 1984 Orwell gone mad and then some. Thankfully, most of it doesn’t apply to the foreigners and all have a ‘leader’ who sorts out the problems. The internet is no problem; yes, Youtube, facebook, twitter are blocked, but not for foreigners who use free VPN’s – it’s their own populations who get blocked. Fortunately there are 1.3 bn people in China and everyone wants to learn English, so not only are there lots of jobs available, the salaries are quite high too.


Chinese schools generally require two years experience, minimum, unless it’s for private places like EF and Wall Street, (places to definitely avoid)! If you haven’t taught for years you know yourself it will show and so my tip was to get some update experience in Thailand and then move on. China also operates on levels of education, degree minimum, then postgrad . . . it reflects in your salary. So no recent experience with a bog standard degree WILL get you a job, but it WILL be poorly paid. The first question you WILL be asked is, where have you worked (teaching) and often, why did you leave? Yes you’re right, for work Thailand is just about played out now and just about everyone I know is moving on. I meet people from the UK, the U.S and all over; the underlying consensus is that a well paid job is now at the top of everyone’s priorities and if you can weather out the economic western disaster elsewhere, why not? China is still a developing country and you can’t wipe out half a decade of political mis-management overnight – socially it’s still a hundred years behind the west, but surging forward and for all it’s faults, (and it does have many), it’s not the East that is stopping you working, but the great enlightened west?  


Richard


It sounds nice in theory, but the people who make these laws in the UK make sure the loopholes are well and truly closed. That means one section of society telling another how they are going to live. 'Trouble' to me would be not being able to work, often for the rest of your life, because someone else will stop you doing so. I’m not Jewish, but if the law said I would have to wear a yellow star I’d refuse to do so as well. I’m all for obeying laws; we all have to pay taxes, behave and there are penalties for not doing so and if we disobey that then we’re (quite rightly) punished – but the punishment has to stop eventually. You can’t say to someone, “you will never work again”, it’s just not right. Perhaps I see things a different way, but you can no more stop me working, as you can telling me I couldn’t go to the pictures, or drive a car . . . I just won’t obey and I do think the government play on this fear of authority and everyone doing what they’re told. It only works if people obey, if you refuse it looses its power over you. To each his own though, but if we’re all agreed that the government is restrictive, I don’t encourage them by playing along with it.

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

IanC,

I think we agree almost completely about all this, in that people with convictions need to find their own way in life, not play the official game, and not rely on government people. That's all fine and agreeable to me. But it doesn't follow from this that we should encourage these same people to go on breaking the law and take other unethical shortcuts around the blockages. That's the difference between us. It's a small, narrow, difference, but it's important.

And if we are going to have a serious, adult discussion about this, then you need to try and avoid distorting my position by using 'false dilemmas' and presenting the extreme version of my argument. We're not talking about the difference between 'working' or 'not working'. Most people on here, I think, could obtain employment or find a way round the blockages if they were resourceful enough. From what I can see, the problem here is, largely, one of attitude. I'm not saying that anyone should follow rules blindly - a kind of extreme legal positivism - but what I am saying is that the unreasonableness or unfairness of a rule does not, in itself, excuse or justify anyone breaking it. The way to deal with it is to be clear about what your goal is, make sure you are being realistic, and then identify a way forward that achieves what you want in a way that won't get you into any more trouble.

Of course, there is a legitimate discussion to be had about the relative weight and importance of different rules in practice. If I was going for a job in a supermarket stacking shelves, I think I would be justified in lying and it's very unlikely anyone would bother about it, even if the lie was discovered. But if I want a job involving a higher level of trust and responsibility, then I would have to give the situation more thought and come up with a way of achieving my ambition without compromising my integrity. That's a basic lesson that each of us on here has had to re-learn, is it not? I for one don't want to have to learn that lesson again.

Where we differ, really, is that I believe it is possible to pursue life, liberty and happiness, so to speak, in a way that is lawful, legal and ethical. Now, I haven't been on this Forum long, but like you, I can see an immediate problem that there are people here who spend their time moaning and complaining about their situation rather than seeking to find a way through. So we agree on the most important point, it's just that I think the way through doesn't have to involve risking another conviction.

Obviously, there will be situations where breaking the law is condonable - I have given one example above - and depending on the cultural conditions of the particular country, the line of what is socially-acceptable can be drawn in different places. You say it's different outside the UK. That's fine and I may look into it myself. But lying on an insurance form, fabricating references, making-up university degrees....??? Sorry but I cannot condone that, no matter what the country or the situation. That's too much.

Post Edited (RichardH) : 12/08/2013 14:37:02 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


Richard,


I certainly wouldn’t encourage people to do anything, but I would present reasons for doing so and discuss the ethics or consequences of either of those actions.


I also don’t think it’s an extreme to say that if you declare you’re not likely to be in any kind of decent employment. Hence people complaining that they keep getting rejected? I’m afraid resourcefulness doesn’t really come into, being CRB/DBS checked has much more of an effect. I’m also sure that racism in its day was unfair, as was homophobia . . . I didn’t blindly follow any of that either, just because it was the law. People make laws and laws are changed – I follow my own ethical standards, others are free to follow theirs.


“If I was going for a job in a supermarket stacking shelves, I think I would be justified in lying and it's very unlikely anyone would bother about it, even if the lie was discovered.” An about turn? Yes, your employer probably would be bothered and you’d probably be sacked. I don’t change Richard, I stick to my own standards and disobey that which harms me – I don’t cherry pick. I obey the speed limit, but I disobey a law which tells me I won’t be able to work because of my past, ever, or that my car insurance premium is treble because I stole a packet of crisps six years ago.


I did regularly lie on insurance forms. I did that because it’s unjust, profit seeking and even the government have now slightly changed that in the recent LASPO. It’s just that I was not declaring before it became law. Fabricating references/CV? I believe the figure in the UK is something like 50% in a recent employers survey? I did actually say not to make up false University degrees and there are places that do them in Bangkok which I specifically said to avoid.


No one, unless they’re doing it for criminal reasons gets a conviction for not disclosing. They are often simply sacked. No employer to date has been fined as far as I know for running illegal checks. Each to his own Richard, struggle through, disclose, declare, play the game – I’m happy where I am, hope you’re happy with no problems also. :-)

By Anonymous - 7 Aug 13 4:51 PM

Ian,

There's a difference between breaking the law and finding a way round things. Yes, sometimes the 'difference' is small or slight; sometimes the difference is very big, but it's a slipperly slope and this is how someone of good character slides into serious dishonesty. It starts with a little lie that no-one will notice and which, after all, has a good motive, then the lies start to become bigger, until...

Lying concerning a historic conviction to obtain a job for which the conviction doesn't matter anyway is neither morally nor legally problematic. So there's no 'about turn' on my part. You could lie when applying for the supermarket job (or something similar) and no-one would take issue with you legally - even if the conviction is unspent - and the company would also be on thin ice if it later tried to dismiss you for that reason. Yes, they might dismiss you later, but even if they did, the point remains that you will still have obtained (and presumably, sustained) employment, and so my argument holds even in that unfortunate scenario.

On the other hand, lying when the conviction is relevant to the job or application or whatever, is flatly against the law. It is fraud, plain and simple. I agree there will be cases where it is morally defensible. I am not getting on my high horse here. We are all over-21, so we can all make our own decisions in each situation, but the point I am making here is that it is never necessary to do this. It is always a choice. By posting here in that vein, you are encouraging people to lie and commit offences, no matter what spin you put on it. You are also wrong when you keep saying that it's not an offence. I repeat: if the disclosure would be material to the job or application, and if you are asked and lie, then that is fraud.

However, I do agree with most of what you say about general attitude, it's just that I think we shouldn't take that perfectly valid and important point and then use it to present an exaggerated picture, either positive or negative. Prisons are full of people who have very good understanding of things in life, but then when asked why they offended, they say: "And so I felt justified in lying about X, Y or Z."

As far as I am concerned, the root of this is very simple. If a conviction bars me from X job or Y career, then I must find something where my conviction does not bar me and where there is a reasonable chance of employment or viable self-employment. If you begin from that perspective, then the world starts to open up a little and there's no need to significantly lie or break the law. The problem is (and I suspect you'd agree with me on this) most people on here are starting from the opposite position of: I want to do X or Y and my conviction bars me from it, and that's not fair. If you keep banging your head against a brick wall then the result is predictable.
By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


I’ll agree with you when you imply that lieing to obtain employment for fraud or personal gain is dishonest and there is a law against it. Yet to have to lie to simply be able to work and earn a living can’t be right either and for many it really is that simple. Of course it is never necessary to lie, but the consequences are long term, even a life term, of unemployment.


There is no spin on my part. Obey LASPO, disclose, obey the law to the letter and . . . you’ll probably end up long term unemployed like many on the forum. Of course, you can always continue trying, get letters of reference from a probation officer; but you know, in the middle of the worst recession (some might say ever), mass cheap labour and a collapsing economy, people don’t need added burdens. There are people here who can’t even get a voluntary job sweeping the streets because of a past record and that is simply not on.


Now if you want to obey to the strict letter of the law, then that’s what you must do. I do start from the position of “this is what I want to do” and not, “Am I allowed to do this’? (As an aside, if I disclosed, I wouldn’t even get near a job). Included in that is can I do the job? Do I have the qualifications? If the only reason that I can’t get the job is because of my past, then that is a social restriction masquerading as the law. I refuse to obey laws that oppress me, (sounds sort of 1960’s that doesn’t it), but I don’t give a toss about laws to be honest and emigrated to get away from them. I went straight to improve myself, social conscience and stuff, shame . . . but if the end result is a lifetime of unemployment at the bottom of the economic and social ladder, what was the point?


I do see your point about being honest, but there’s a point where honesty turns into stupidity. I gave up hoping and banging my head against a brick wall and did something about it. Others are able to choose for themselves. My morals are pretty good now as is my social standing and I contribute to the society that I live in. Now that to me and everyone else does more good than my holding my head up down the Job center in the UK. :-) 


The bottom line Richard is you do it your way and I'll do it mine and everyone else can take their pick. The difference is that I will never (fingers crossed), be on here telling the world how hard life is and complaining. I found my niche in life, it's what I wanted and if I had to tell some porkies along the way to do it I won't lose any sleep over it.        

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Thanks  


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 10/08/2013 21:06:20 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Thank-you for your reply FT


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 10/08/2013 21:21:38 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

All the very best and good luck RP, I sincerely hope that you find something my friend, as you sound like a good person !.


 

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Thanks everyone !


 

Post Edited (Q3) : 10/08/2013 23:17:28 (GMT+1)

By Anonymous - 5 Sep 10 3:02 AM


Missed whatever was said (and deleted), as your evening is my early hours of the morning. Sometimes we take things back and on second thoughts delete what we’ve said, but I wonder why you need to constantly post and delete Q3? Your choice of course, just wondering.


You have to forgive people for the cynicism Q3, we’ve heard a lot of it before. For a lot of people post conviction life is difficult and especially in the UK. The mindset is that this is the law, but I’ve always reiterated that it only applies to the UK. The UK has some of the most restrictive laws in Europe and once away from them, life generally becomes much easier. I for instance would be shocked if I found an application form here which asked for previous convictions. I also buy my insurance here based on current and predictable risks; what happened twenty years ago, or even yesterday has no bearing on it. My employment depends on my ability to do the job, nothing else. My life here is what I make it and not what the government thinks it should be.


Would my life be as successful in the UK in this recession? Absolutely not. I’d manage, I wouldn’t declare, I’d struggle along looking over my shoulder and I’d get by and so my posts reflect that and tell people not to be discouraged by the UK and that life isn’t the same elsewhere. TV licences, fishing permits, disclosure . . . you’ve got to tell everyone else about your past because someone else told you to; it’s completely alien to much of the rest of the world. Economically too, the UK looks like it’s on its last legs?


If you have managed to get on your feet after a conviction in the UK, then good luck to you and I’m glad you’ve made it. I know people here in Asia who have past convictions and they’ve made it too, but I’ve yet to meet anyone who is restricted in what they can do and it’s all down to individual ability. I’ve always thought that the best person gets the job and I’ve no problem with that. If I’m beaten at the finishing line by someone who is more qualified or more able than I am I’ve no problem with that. I do have a problem being forced to go cap in hand to earn a living and told to disclose my past because someone else tells me that it’s for my own and societies good. It’s not and I refuse to do it and hence I am where I am. (Stick that in your LASPO Cameron)! :p        

By Anonymous - 12 Apr 13 3:50 PM

Thanks Ian.

I really apologise if the banter became somewhat heated !

It obvious that I have a lot to learn, and I realise that my opinions may be a little left of field.

I wish you and your extended family all the best mate.

Q3


 

By Ader1 - 1 Sep 11 2:36 PM

Ader1 said...
After returning from my stint abroad, I can remember reading that for example Thailand and I think other places too had started insisting on Subject Access certificates (are they called certificates?) in order to teach there. Of course, the Subject Access certificates show absolutely everything the PNC holds on you. I'd like to know if any of you know what the situation is like now especially with regards to China?


This is what I said in my original post. I didn't particularly want to go back to Thailand to work. I was there some ten years ago. Fascinating place, people and cuisine. If it was 1995 then I would consider Thailand again but I just get the feeling that it's saturated with westerners. I visited China fairly recently, and I came across people in large 'second tier' cities who I don't think had met a white person before. I got the impression there were more possibilities. But the downside was the almost oppressive (at times) big brotherness. I don't know if it's the case all over China but I was for example using internet cafes then all of a sudden, I was stopped because the police had been around and had insisted that all internet users had to have a Chinese ID card and number. But I did find another place which was willing to bend the rules and allow be to use their computers. Also, many web sites aren't available in China eg Facebook; Twitter and blog sites. But there are ways of circumventing those limitations using VPN software I think they call it. But China is quickly changing and reforming and hopefully will become a freer place. The US and UK seem to be moving in the opposite direction.


"Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is." - Solzhenitsyn

By Ader1 - 1 Sep 11 2:36 PM

I've just been reading on a Chinese forum a thread about 'Criminal Convictions' and that some employers were looking for criminal record checks. Somebody provided this link: https://www.acro.police.uk/uploadedFiles/ACRO%20Police%20Certificates%20FAQs%20-%20August%202013.pdf

But these aren't meant for employers but for immigration purposes to certain countries like Canada, Australia and even holidays to the US. Do you know anything about this IanC? I know there's a lot of crap on the web. How about Subject Access certificates being requested by some employers in Thailand? I did see it on a Thai forum before. Again these are not meant for employers but for the 'subject' to find out what information the police have on them on their computer.


"Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is." - Solzhenitsyn

Post Edited (Ader1) : 13/08/2013 13:39:11 (GMT+1)

By Ader1 - 1 Sep 11 2:36 PM

Thank you IanC. And good luck with your on-line business. I don't know if you return to the UK much but a friend of mind who lived in Thailand used to return with lots of cheap clothes and sell them once home. Anyway, would it be possible to put the commerce stuff in another thread? I'm interested to read it but this is thread is about teaching abroad.


"Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is." - Solzhenitsyn

By Ader1 - 1 Sep 11 2:36 PM

RichardH said...

The problem is that there is nothing on this Forum that actually helps people practically. I have been looking through the website and the forum. The Unlock publications are excellent, but the advice on here is normally incomplete or wrong. Speaking as someone 'new' to this (as people here say), I don't find any of this helpful. It just seems that most people here want to discuss their difficulties or the general difficulties, rather than discussing solutions.



Maybe you could start a thread RichardH about discussing possible solutions? I think you mentioned before starting one on Self-employment. I don't think it's impossible or maybe even difficult for someone with convictions to get employment except for in 'extreme' cases as you gave examples of earlier. But, getting employment which is anything other than pretty menial and manual work might be another matter. I've spent that last 10 years or so in several soul destroying jobs and now I really would like to do something a little more meaningful where you aren't treated like the expendable employee that you are. Do you have any plans for when all this is over for you? Maybe you could start another thread? And I sincerely hope things don't turn out for the worst for you. I think it's great to have you on here.


"Everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is." - Solzhenitsyn

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM

Big willy contest anyone?


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




Q3 said...

 

 

1. I am not working on a building site, as a "security guard", and I certainly do earn more than the minimum wage thankfully.

2. My job title is "section leader" and whilst in the Military, I reached "Staff Sergeant", both examples of my "leadership qualities".

3. I have no control over the UK government. I do not vote for ANY political party. (That is my choice).

4. I have visited Thailand 3 time's on operational duties, I stayed in the Chiang Rai area on the Burmese Border (Golden Triangle Territory)

5. I have visited Bangkok, Khon Kaen, and Laos, I didn't go looking for smut...

6. Everywhere in the world has " Illegal Guns" however, Thailand has 6.2 million LEGAL gun licences, slightly different.

7. I personally would have no problem walking round any major UK city at night, however "Why would I want to " ?.

8. I choose to live in a semi-rural location because I feel safer and secure there. This is my choice.

9. We all know that there are Red Light Districts everywhere in the world, so thanks for that !.

10. I cannot name a country without a government ? - Unless its a Military State, WE are all governed by somebody, that's life ?
Y'know Q3, 2 months ago you were posting asking for self employment ideas, and about how worried you were that your offences were still all over the internet, and how this was affecting you. It's good to know that you've so rapidly put all that behind you and risen to 'section leader'. roll


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




Q3 said...



And your point was ?

A lot of people research self-employment ideas ?

A lot of people are worried about their pasts on the net ?

You want to trawl through old postings, that's your choice, but stick to the forum posting or go elsewhere.

 



 

lol  Oh man.... like shooting fish in a barrel. lol


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




Q3 said...

 

 

If the term " HAVE YOU BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME" crops up on an application form that anybody on here wants to fill out you in the future, think long and hard before you tick NO.
That is precisely what ROA/LASPO allows you to do. In circumstances where the post is not exempt, if your offence spent, the law allows you to lie on the form. If any DBS check (which technically they shouldn't be applying for) then comes back showing details of your record and a job offer is then withdrawn, you are in prime position to claim discrimination, if you can be bothered with the hassle.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM

Interesting piece of news here. Not to do with TEFL, but as this is an active thread about disclosure:


https://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Morrisons-slammed-for-snooping-on-job-applicants-20130818080000.htm


 


"CONCERNS are being raised about the privacy of staff at a new supermarket being invaded after background checks were carried out on all employees with no reason for doing so.


All of the 295 staff working at the new Morrisons, due to open in Ampthill Road, Bedford, tomorrow morning, have been checked by the company to find out not only about any criminal convictions, but also reprimands, warnings and cautions for minor offences which would be categorised as spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.


Harmless though they may seem, privacy campaigners fear that the company is being overzealous with its checks by delving too deep into a person’s record by using an agency of the Scottish Government, Disclosure Scotland, even though they may only be stacking shelves.


In English law, the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), formerly the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), carries out checks on people who will be working with children or vulnerable adults or in situations where there is a high risk. Staff such as those working in the retail industry would not be eligible for such checks.


A spokeswoman for the DBS said: “The DBS does not provide a check that we can find or any kind of eligibility that a normal member of retail staff would have.”


Nick Pickles, director of privacy and civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: “Background checks are there to protect vulnerable people and children and shouldn’t be used routinely like this. A piece of paper is no substitute for proper judgement by a manager and it’s exactly the same safety-by-database approach that has been wholly counterproductive in recent years.


“Parliament changed the law on this last year to expressly limit the use of these checks and it raises questions about what is going on when Morrisons is using the Scottish Government’s system to check on English staff, where there is no question about the role being one that could pose a safety risk.”


A generic application form for any position with a Morrisons store tells the applicant that if they take up employment it ‘may be necessary for security purposes for Morrisons to carry out a credit reference check on senior, night and duty management, all cash office employees, warehouse, petrol and pharmacy management, checkout management and security and central salaried personnel.’


The form says nothing about ordinary floor or till staff being checked or anything about their previous convictions.


Morrisons told Bedfordshire on Sunday that the reason they insist all staff be subjected to the checks is because their customers expect it and that it is important they understand the background of the people they employ.


A spokesman for the supermarket chain said: “We undertake background checks to ensure our stores are safe places to shop and work. All checks comply with the law and are carried out with the full knowledge and authorisation of all applicants.”



Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM

The PNC and DBS are different things. The PNC can be accessed by any copper, even over their radios. The copper doesn't even need to be bent, as many no doubt believe they can access it at whim. A spent conviction does not 'drop off' the PNC, although there has of course been some past instances of stepping down, and of course the proposed 'filtering' gumph.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM



RichardH said...



But it isn't simple, is it. It depends on the relevance of the conviction. If, to a reasonable person, the conviction would be considered relevant to whether a job offer is made, then you have to tell the truth in that situation if you want to apply for the job. If it's a conviction that would not be considered relevant to the job offer, then that's different.

 

 

No... listen to the question - if the job is not likely to attract a DBS check (ergo, not one involving children or vulnerable people), would it be a condonable lie for that man to 'omit' his conviction in order to provide for his family, rather than live off the state?


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...


Here you show your true colours. I am not therefore obliged to take you seriously either. Running off to Thailand, fabricating references and so on is not advice/guidance I would be giving to other posters on here.
Now even I find that insulting, and I've had a dig at IanC in the past for 'fleeing', apologies for bringing that up. But IanC actually earned each and every one of those references through study, volunteering and downright sweat. Fabricating references? What a pranny you truly are.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...



AGAIN...

M.O.S.T. E.M.P.L.O.Y.E.R.S D.O.N.'T. D.O. C.R.I.M.I.N.A.L. R.E.C.O.R.D. C.H.E.C.K.S.

How many times? I mean, seriously, Jesus Christ...????????????
I would say that since over 3 million are done every year, most employers certain do request them.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM

IanC and the Fox... wasn't that some naff early 80's US series?


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...



I had access to the PNC in a low-level administrative job while working as a student.
They're even allowing students to access it!! freaked


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM

I think that judging by your first post on the forum, and the reference to your 'psychiatric issues', you will continue to live in innocent bliss until something nasty bites you on the bum. 


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...

 it would be a condonable lie.

So, if someone with an unspent conviction, with a family to feed and clothe, was asked if they had any convictions at a job interview that was not likely to be subject to a DBS check, would saying 'no' be a condonable lie?


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...

I've already answered this - have you been following the thread? Admittedly, a great deal has been discussed, so if you like, I could start a new thread in which I set out my position on this as clearly as I can, but I'm tired with this now.
No, I'm fine if you want to provide a simple yes or no.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...

 


- people who want to exorcise their frustrations by needling, insulting or abusing those who can cope and are able to give constructive advice.

Thank you.
I think perhaps you need to man up a little if you think this is tough - God knows how you would deal with a prison sentence. A bit more than 'needling' in there.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM



RichardH said...



What are you talking about now???

Is this a prison? No.

This is a forum for providing information to people with convictions.

How can you justify your behaviour? You act like you are dysfunctional, asking me to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over again, making the same invalid and irrelevant points that are just exaggerations of known facts, and you blame me and go psycho because I am trying to help by showing what the correct position is regarding disclosure.

Nothing personal - but you are one of several people on here who would be better off as a reader rather than a contributor. You're just clouding things with your conspiracy theories. Yes, there's some validity in the root points, but what people who come here need is clarity and constructive help, not wild ramblings about who has access to the PNC based on hysterical news stories. Sorry, but I don't need to have been here long to see this.

lol  Sometimes I love this forum, especially when you get one who thinks he knows about 'our' side of disclosure, the CJS and so forth without having any experience of it. Sure, it's not all 'ducking and diving' but it is certainly self preservation. A little lie here, a little omission there - whatever doesn't raise too many awkward questions.

 

Like I say, I've had it for 10 years, IanC's had, what, 40 odd years, and others have had whatever, but now we should be honoured to be in the presence of a first-time offender who hasn't even been sentenced yet. Obviously all that 'we' have experienced is made up, we dreamt it all, it's all an hysterical illusion more suited for the David Icke forum. My eyes have been opened.

 

roll 


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM

Seriously... am I missing something here? My sword is well worn from crossing with Ian, but I can't see where he is fabricating anything. As far as I can see, it's a mantra of 'if they don't ask, don't volunteer it'. That's not fabricating anything.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...



Yes, that is the whole point of the ROA and that is what it does. No-one can find your unspent convictions on the PNC unless it is a role for which a DBS check is permitted, and even then only if you agree to the check. So there is no breach of data protection or privacy.
Oh they can, believe me! All that spent means is that you are lawfully allowed to tick 'no' on the application form. Nothing will be wiped from the PNC. Of course it would take a bent copper to disclose that to a 'employer' friend, and we all know that there are no coppers in existence who are willing to bend the law is there? eyes


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM



RichardH said...

... but the information is not being shared around routinely.

 

Your evidence is....?


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...
If people are corrupt, there is no accounting for that. It's just a facet of life. The point is that it will not affect us most of the time and it is not worth worrying about. It may be that the use of the PNC expands, but so far it hasn't expanded beyond fairly limited usage in non-police organisations, in all cases for investigative or security purposes, so there is no point in basing our discussion on this. It's paranoia.
As I have said, it's not just a matter of being corrupt, but careless, or believing you have complete liberty to access the PNC for the most trivial or non-criminal purposes. It would be interesting to know exactly what was the reason for you having access, especially if you were not employed with the police. However, as it's come so late into the argument, it may be a little... shall we say... fanciful?


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...

Again, so what? Sorry, but I don't see the connection with this thread. This is not going to be relevant to most people's circumstances. Personnel/HR and managers/owners in most businesses never carry out criminal record checks and it never occurs to them to do so. That is FACT.
Well, it shows that those entrusted with ensuring all checks are audited don't seem to be bothered.
 

Never occurs to them? Are you having a laugh? It's drummed into them! Look at the 'Morrisons' example. "Because our customers expect it". Do they? I don't, my wife doesn't (I can't ask anyone else at the moment). That is FACT? Is it? Where?


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...

but the problem is, like IanC, you're exaggerating it to make a point that doesn't cohere with reality. It's annoying, because it's misleading and encourages a sense of paranoia that isn't warranted.
Doesn't cohere with your current or past reality, but that reality will be changing soon. Post prosecution, your life will change forever. Trust me. Why do you think the most active thread on here are about employment and disclosure problems?
 

The thread was talking about lying... post prosecution, your life will need to be one big lie, from talking to any new neighbours to explaining that odd gap in your CV.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...

It's not as simple as you think. You haven't given enough information. I need to know what the conviction is for and what the job is. That's the whole point, because this is all about the relevancy of the conviction to the employment decision. A lie in that context can only be condonable if the conviction would not be considered relevant to the employment decision by a reasonable employer. So, if the unspent conviction is for dishonesty and the reformed offender is applying for a role as an accountant, the criminal record would be considered relevant by a reasonable person to the employment decision, and so the applicant is at risk of breaking the law if, when asked, he fails to disclose. On the other hand, if the reformed offender with a dishonesty conviction is applying for a role as, let's say, a transport manager for an HGV company, it's very unlikely that the conviction could be considered relevant to an employment decision and so (all things being equal) the lie could be seen as condonable in those circumstances. If the lie is later discovered, the employee may find himself dismissed, but that is a separate issue of employment law. It would be highly difficult to sustain a criminal prosecution against him due to the 'reasonable belief' that existed on employment, which suggests there was no objective dishonesty, let alone a dishonest mind. You cannot be 'dishonest' in the criminal sense if the thing you are lying about is not material to the decision or transaction. The lie needs to be relevant to the 'transaction' or it does not touch on criminal law.

I hope that explains it a bit more, but if not, well, as I have stated above, I have work to do, so I cannot guarantee I will answer or reply to any more of these posts. By all means, I'll start a thread on this in maybe a week, when I have more time, and I will do my best to re-explain it all.
Nope. The job applied for carries no huge responsibility or trust (I would say an accountant would need to prove their honesty). Ok, for want of example, the job is at the local pub, pulling pints. The conviction is of no relevance, otherwise you're saying there is a hierarchy of offenders.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM

Q3... you want a big sorry?! There's a massive one in your last post.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...

You've just answered your own question.

 

I find it hilariously ludicrous that you won't swallow your pride and just say yes or no to that one scenario. This sort of attitude will do you no favours when they strip search you, demand an MDT or when the big guy with the swastika tattoo jumps the canteen queue.

 

"Have you taken any illegal drugs?"

 

"I refer you to my answer I gave last week, for it is not as simple as that as you have not explained what 'taken' means, nor do I know if any narcotics have since been decriminalised..... WHACK"


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...
When I said:




RichardH said...
You've just answered your own question.


I meant 'Yes'. If the conviction is irrelevant to the employment decision, then it follows that the applicant can safely lie.

 

turn hop roll yeah jumpin smilewinkgrin burger roll hop

 

We have lift off!!!


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...



Foxtrot said...





Let's Hope For His Sake He Get's HMP Ford...and I don't mean a 5 Door Focus.


Again, is there moderation on this forum or not? Aren't your posts in breach of forum rules? Isn't this supposed to be a forum to assist offenders?
mad  That's not my quote  mad


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM



RichardH said...



The 'General Conditions' under the Forum Rules state that you must not harass other members.

I wish to tell you that I consider references to what might happen to myself or others in prison as both offensive, hurtful and also amounting to harassment in that it is an off-topic subject that has no bearing on this thread and is simply designed to intimate and upset me.

You either desist from it or I will ask the owners of the site to do something about it.

I am not being hypersensitive. The Forum Rules are there for a reason. What you are doing is not helping understand any of the issues. It's just disruptive and bullying activity.

 

But you are being so hypersensitive. However, the truth is that you have been here a few days and you are telling those who have been through the CJS for up to 40 years that they don't know what they are talking about. Now that is offensive. You say you may get a prison sentence, but want to bury your head as to what that may just entail. Don't be fooled by the tabloids and their 'holiday camp' headlines. For me, prison was not a 'Hollywood' hell-hole, but I wasn't at a notorious prison (although one that Mr Kray graced), but it was still a traumatic experience, even more so for my family, my kids. Just awful.

 

So before you start sulking, think about what you have posted. 


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...

Yes, and what is your point? This assists my argument.
What, the argument about prosecutions? What I see is investigations that are clearly leading no-where


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...

You are implying in this thread that those organisations officially sanction the use of the information by everyone who works for them.
Er no, what I am saying is there is people within these organisations with access, the numbers of which is anybody's guess. Perhaps it's one very secretive worker, but my guess is that there will be many tiers of management and support staff with daily access. After your prosecution, you'll begin to realise all of this, and emerge from your sweet fluffy world a wiser man.
 

 


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...


It wasn't an argument about prosecutions. I said that police officers have been prosecuted for unauthorised access to the PNC. You then posted up a relevant story that confirmed the police investigate themselves for......unauthorised access to the PNC! So your link helps my argument. The story doesn't mention prosecutions, but that doesn't tell us there are no prosecutions. In fact, there are. The reason the police know about the unauthorised use of the PNC is that each and every PNC check is recorded, so there is an audit trail. You then say the investigations are "clearly" leading nowhere? What is your basis for saying this? Some of the officers were dismissed or suspended. It doesn't tell us anything else and it only deals with one police area. I'm not going to defend the police or the authorities, but my interest here is in facts and all I see is you exaggerating and reading your own prejudices into things.
Sigh...
 


 

 "The information handed over is subsequently going unaudited by the Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office (ACRO) – run by the Association of Chief Police Officers – who also charge for the access. This is despite the PNC User Manual specifically stipulating that auditing is required for organisations that have had access to ‘sensitive information".

 

I think the key phrase there is "who also charge for the access". As long as you pay, they don't give a toss who's accessing it.

 

Yes, it deals with one police area - there are 43 in England/Wales, so those 76 officers being investigated could easily equate to over 3,000 officers nationwide. And that's just the police - what about the other (more lax) organisations?


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...

Yes, and I have answered your question. Please go back and re-read it.
Is that a yes, it is condonable, or yes, you understand the question, but are too pursed-lipped to give a one word answer, preferring to act childishly?


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...



I have told you that the issue cannot be reduced to simple answers. It depends on the facts of the situation. I have given you an answer, based on the limited information you provided, and in the process I have attempted to explain the line of reasoning that needs to be adopted.

 
But it is simple. I'll try to expand - if an ex-offender, no matter what their conviction is for, applies for a job that is not likely to attract a DBS check, therefore not one of high responsibility or one working with children or vulnerable adults, omitted to inform the employer of his conviction, is that condonable.
 

It matters not what his conviction whether it is fraud, sexual or violent, as he trying to reform, has dealt with any underlying issues, is just trying to move on and he has a family to provide for. He doesn't want a lifetime on benefits, feeling ever more depressed. This job could make all the difference.

 

Should he disclose?


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...



Q3 said...
I don't like FT but, he has a point this time.

cry  I'm insulted.
 

 

 

 

 

 

:p roll :p


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM

Er... because you seem to think that intelligence on someone's past cannot be accessed unless done officially, that only the DBS have access to the PNC. You also seem to believe that there has been no instances of a CRB/DBS check being done without consent. You are aware of the recent story of the RSPCA having access to criminal records?


I know this is all new to you, but please give us a little credit. I don't proclaim to be a master criminal, but I have been in the CJS for 10 years now and can tell you some proper horror stories of abuse of confidentiality and trust.



Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM

To really scare you, other organisations that have access to the PNC include HMRC, DWP, DVLA, The Charity Commission, and even Royal Mail. The most frightening is that beacon of competence G4S has access. shocked


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM



RichardH said...



Foxtrot said...
Er... because you seem to think that intelligence on someone's past cannot be accessed unless done officially, that only the DBS have access to the PNC. You also seem to believe that there has been no instances of a CRB/DBS check being done without consent.


No, I don't think these things.

I have never said these things.

I have never stated these things on here.

I have never implied these things.

I have never believed these things.

You're just reading into my posts beliefs and opinions that aren't there.

 

 


RichardH said...
Yes, that is the whole point of the ROA and that is what it does. No-one can find your unspent convictions on the PNC unless it is a role for which a DBS check is permitted, and even then only if you agree to the check. So there is no breach of data protection or privacy.

 

 

Accessing the PNC does not require a DBS to be linked to that search. Methinks you are tying yourself up in knots.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM



RichardH said...



Foxtrot said...
To really scare you, other organisations that have access to the PNC include HMRC, DWP, DVLA, The Charity Commission, and even Royal Mail. The most frightening is that beacon of competence G4S has access.


Does everyone in these organisations have that access? Even the tea boys? What about the office juniors? And that busty lass on work experience...does she have access too?

 

 

A rather glib and desperate comment, but who knows? G4S in particular do not have the greatest record in competence.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM




RichardH said...
There have been police officers prosecuted for it.
lol lol lol lol
 


 

"Since 2009, a total of 76 officers in London have been investigated for misusing the Police National Computer (PNC), according to figures released under Freedom of Information laws."

 

"Two officers last year "resigned/ retired" following the investigation, according to the figures, and in 2011 two officers were dismissed without notice."

 

But prosecuted? lol


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Foxtrot - 6 Mar 12 8:26 PM



RichardH said...

You list organisations that have access to the PNC, but not everyone in those organisations will have access, right? So even where there are access privileges for a non-police organisation, it will be mainly for investigative functions.

I agree that, in principle, G4S, the RSPCA and the Charity Commission, and similar, should not have access, but to what extent do they have access? What controls are in place? What is the purpose of access?

 

Well obviously, in the same way that a bank security guard has no access to your account details.

 

But allowing ever more and more organisations and individuals access to such sensitive information makes controlling the confidentiality of that info increasingly difficult. Increasing the numbers who have access also makes any breach harder to trace.


Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

By Hobbit - 13 May 13 1:33 PM

Q3:

I am really glad if you are working be it in security or anywhere, it is good to see a positive move.

IanC:

You are proof anyone can overcome anything, and make a better life for yourself. I like to hear success stories since they are rare, I recall only a few weeks ago I read how a women in her 50s was unable to get a job in the care industry simply since she got caught speeding and got it recorded on the PNC record a decade ago, which then shows up on every enhanced dbs job check she goes for, she is still unemployed after after a decade.

I hope to one day get employment be it self employed or a job in Tescos, and start living and paying taxes and enjoying life again while proving the government and law which fails to protect or look after us is as useless as useless can be!
By Hobbit - 13 May 13 1:33 PM

An interesting take on China, yeah they are indeed "firewalled" in, lots of websites and internet is mainly blocked making it there own version of a controlled internet.

Still regardless where ever you can fit in and enjoy and make a life and money for yourself do it. UK is just a tiny spec of dust on the map. I still say you should go out there on a 30 day holiday, renew that Visa via a border run if you need to and see how life is out there at the moment.... even do some checking snooping around but remember your limited by whatever visa you have.
By Hobbit - 13 May 13 1:33 PM

Nice read up there IanC

Oddly I was looking to holiday there, It is good to hear you enjoy it over there and your right many people do seem to be keeping there British passports and frog leaping between Europe or Asia, and back again to the UK. Very important to keep that British passport!

I love Thai food but its sad to hear kfc/mcdonalds is expensive, I always heard that food and drink is cheap over there but when I googled around I noticed many people suggesting you need 40,000 -50,000 baht (over 1k I believe?) so sounded quite expensive all of a sudden.

I have heard in Thailand drugs is a big issue and have seen even one girl get caught with an joint on a documentary, landed in prison for weeks but lucky given a suspended sentence of 2 years.

Still sounds a lovely place to check out and work in, certainly may beat the dull grey clouds which mirrors the UK facial expressions at least !
By Hobbit - 13 May 13 1:33 PM

Agree with the thoughts above, I too have disconnected from social media apps and websites.... they only do more damage then good.

Even if one did NOT have a criminal record/convictions it can still do damage to you, perhaps its living a lie but every single person on this planet has secrets and lives a lie.

One has to respect privacy and honesty at the same time of course however the less people that know about ones background and past records the better I recently learned that the hard way.... you can not trust telling anyone about your convictions since we live in a world where peoples mouths can't stay shut.

I call it Damage control Smile
By Hobbit - 13 May 13 1:33 PM

Is not the whole point of ROA, once its spent we should never have to declare it so we no longer get discriminated for it.... and then they simply make a phone call or tap on a keyboard and find all your history and convictions on the PNC.

Its like a breach of data protection and privacy, I don't agree with the discrimination and the law doing nothing to put food or roof under our heads you just have to do what you gotta do within reason and the legal route.

Does not help we all have to wait till 67 (well most of us) till we can get state pension!
By Hobbit - 13 May 13 1:33 PM

My goodness reading the last 5 pages, I was thinking if this was the thailand or working abroad thread but was getting confused when I read Q3 saying
I am not a cartoon mouse, with a girlfriend call Minnie and trying to picture just that.

I do not need to add anything since its all been said perfectly by the regulars.
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM

Wow. A bit of a to-do.

Here's my view with four years of declarations under my belt. I will only disclose when I know I will be checked. Why? Because the person looking at your criminal record isn't likely to have any training in the matter and makes decisions on my life without a formal process to make those decisions. I don't like the sound of that conviction is enough to lose a job offer. The ROA doesn't apply unless your conviction is spent. So while in the unspent phase you're at the mercy of all and sundry.

RichardH - Have a look at this research paper for the effect a criminal record has on your life forum.unlock.org.uk/default.aspx?f=22&m=22493
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM

Well Richard the paper is based on people who have lived with the ROA. Until you're sentenced you won't know whether you're a 5, 7, 10 years or forever at the mercy of disclosure legislation.

But you'll be getting first hand experience of it soon and I wish you luck.
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM

I'm afraid the rules play a massive part in your life when you have a criminal record. What we're talking about is how to play by the rules or avoid them entirely. You've not yet had experience of a basic or DBS check yet with unspent convictions. Or the conversations with people in HR or insurance companies about how it happened. I don't think you realise the impact this will have on your life. Take the cotton wool out of your ears and put it in your mouth? In the nicest possible way of course.
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM

The roles I have always require a check as I work in financial services. And I get paid a lot of money. So no I don't want to waste my years of university education and experience to take a job that pays under £10 an hour so I don't have to disclose. I am not sure what you base your statement spelled out in capitals on? Do you have any data? It seems a lot of places do ask. Even supermarkets. Convictions can become spent but it's a minimum of five years to wait. You'll still be talking about your conviction way after the punishment ended.
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM

Total Applications to Disclosure Scotland
Year 2011-12
Total Applications Received 1,056,122
p. 8 "Conversation with Disclosure Scotland staff suggest that application requests originating in England and Wales account for up to 80% of the Basic application workload."
This is basic checks. www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SCCJR-ROA-Final-Report-26-June-2013.pdf
As Foxtrot says 2m more will show the entire criminal record, even if spent. 2 million roles that require high level checking? Seems unlikely. See, the playing field is not level.