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?

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)

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.

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.

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.

My own statement was:-



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.

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.



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)

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?

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



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.



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.



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)

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.



Yes, and?



Again, what has that got to do with what we are discussing?