theForum

Perceiving spent-ness as exoneration (e.g. for delistings)?


https://forum.unlock.org.uk/Topic27090.aspx

By Harmless - 9 Feb 20 3:06 PM


Changes made last year to the ROA in Scotland, have halved the amount of time it will take for my convictions to become spent, from 10 down to 5 years.

As a consequence my 2016 conviction will be spent next year, five years earlier than it would have been.

The thing is, I've seen next to no news about this ROA change in the mainstream media (probably because its main effect has been merely to roughly align Scotland with England). It strikes me as possible therefore that, for the most part, the media are staffed mainly by people who haven't heard of these changes (there are 1 or 2 stories in the whole of the online media and none are top stories).

Moreover, most online research into the Scottish ROA still shows the old figures, all the way up to sources dated 2019. Even searching for info specifically regarding those specific 2019 reforms turns up very little in the way of new figures. One way or another, it is very hard to stumble upon the new figures using Google, even if you use government sources (although the new info is there so it's not a watertight situation).

So this has got me wondering if there is any special benefit to being in possession of a blank basic criminal record certificate halfway through what recent sources -- many of which have yet to be superseded -- still say is the rehabilitation period in Scotland? 

Because that is what an innocent or exonerated person would have

In particular I was thinking that the next year or so might be a useful window of time in which certain parties (the press for example) could be carefully induced to assume that my conviction has been quashed or undone, or never happened to begin with, or could never have applied to me to begin with.

E.g. The online clickbaity news article about me has already been relegated to the archive part of the paper's website and, is on page 2 of Google, probably getting only several hits per year. The paper is probably not at all protective of it and would require minimal inducement to get rid of it, but it's still an axe over my head and I'm given to understand that spentness of a conviction is not enough to get an article removed.

So is there a way of presenting spent-ness (e.g. to Google or the Papers) in such a manner as to be be naturally perceived as exoneration, under the present circumstances? E.g. through use of ambiguity? If anyone demands some exoneration paperwork they're going to be gutted.
By AB2014 - 10 Feb 20 9:34 AM

Harmless - 9 Feb 20 3:06 PM

Changes made last year to the ROA in Scotland, have halved the amount of time it will take for my convictions to become spent, from 10 down to 5 years.

As a consequence my 2016 conviction will be spent next year, five years earlier than it would have been.

The thing is, I've seen next to no news about this ROA change in the mainstream media (probably because its main effect has been merely to roughly align Scotland with England). It strikes me as possible therefore that, for the most part, the media are staffed mainly by people who haven't heard of these changes (there are 1 or 2 stories in the whole of the online media and none are top stories).

Moreover, most online research into the Scottish ROA still shows the old figures, all the way up to sources dated 2019. Even searching for info specifically regarding those specific 2019 reforms turns up very little in the way of new figures. One way or another, it is very hard to stumble upon the new figures using Google, even if you use government sources (although the new info is there so it's not a watertight situation).

So this has got me wondering if there is any special benefit to being in possession of a blank basic criminal record certificate halfway through what recent sources -- many of which have yet to be superseded -- still say is the rehabilitation period in Scotland? 

Because that is what an innocent or exonerated person would have

In particular I was thinking that the next year or so might be a useful window of time in which certain parties (the press for example) could be carefully induced to assume that my conviction has been quashed or undone, or never happened to begin with, or could never have applied to me to begin with.

E.g. The online clickbaity news article about me has already been relegated to the archive part of the paper's website and, is on page 2 of Google, probably getting only several hits per year. The paper is probably not at all protective of it and would require minimal inducement to get rid of it, but it's still an axe over my head and I'm given to understand that spentness of a conviction is not enough to get an article removed.

So is there a way of presenting spent-ness (e.g. to Google or the Papers) in such a manner as to be be naturally perceived as exoneration, under the present circumstances? E.g. through use of ambiguity? If anyone demands some exoneration paperwork they're going to be gutted.



It's always worth following Unlock's general advice about this, as the principles apply across the UK. Once your conviction is spent, you can start approaching websites to take down any references. Some might, some won't, but at least you've followed the procedure. Then you can approach search engines, on the basis that your conviction is spent. If they won't comply, then you can approach the Information Commissioner's Office - Scotland.