theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


Second reading in the House of Lords to amend the ROA


Second reading in the House of Lords to amend the ROA

Author
Message
Neo Matrix
Neo Matrix
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40, Visits: 110
BenS - 17 Aug 18 10:36 AM
[quote]
GaryTS - 17 Aug 18 9:59 AM

Would it not raise alarm bells with the employer if you were to challenge this matter directly? Surely they would ask or be thinking at the very least. "If you got nothing to hide why are you bothering challenging this?"
Hi Neo,

I haven't done it myself, but it seems like the DBS have consciously set up a procedure whereby if you challenge it, the employer doesn't know you've challenged it.

According to the Unlock information, you send off the illegal DBS form with your work as if nothing is amiss, then as soon as you've put it in the post, you write an email to the DBS to challenge it. The DBS then raise it with the employer. Maybe the DBS phrase it in a way that makes it look like the DBS itself wants to check with the employer whether they're really allowed to do the standard/enhanced DBS, rather than making it look like you have challenged it? I don't know. I wonder if anyone on here has any experience of doing this.

Hi Ben

that makes sense if it is in fact the way you mention, If that is the case then 100% people should be challenging these matters at every opportunity available.

Yes i would like to hear from anyone who has experience with this matter.

thanks again for your input.

Neo
BenS
BenS
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 304, Visits: 2.9K
[quote]
GaryTS - 17 Aug 18 9:59 AM

Would it not raise alarm bells with the employer if you were to challenge this matter directly? Surely they would ask or be thinking at the very least. "If you got nothing to hide why are you bothering challenging this?"
Hi Neo,

I haven't done it myself, but it seems like the DBS have consciously set up a procedure whereby if you challenge it, the employer doesn't know you've challenged it.

According to the Unlock information, you send off the illegal DBS form with your work as if nothing is amiss, then as soon as you've put it in the post, you write an email to the DBS to challenge it. The DBS then raise it with the employer. Maybe the DBS phrase it in a way that makes it look like the DBS itself wants to check with the employer whether they're really allowed to do the standard/enhanced DBS, rather than making it look like you have challenged it? I don't know. I wonder if anyone on here has any experience of doing this.
Neo Matrix
Neo Matrix
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40, Visits: 110
BenS - 17 Aug 18 8:51 AM
GaryTS - 16 Aug 18 4:43 PM

Even once your convictions are spent if you want a decent job and even some unskilled basic jobs the employer will always find out because of the standard DBS check so you cant win because your convictions will come up anyway.

The vast majority of unskilled jobs will not have a standard DBS check. And an employer can't do one without you knowing because it will be sent to your home address, unless you have signed a waiver allowing it to be sent to the employer.

In a menial/unskilled role, the only time you'll have anything other than a basic DBS check is if you work in a environment such as a school or hospital.

Work in a shop, a factory, in construction (unless the project is in a school etc.) - no standard DBS check. All spent convictions will be invisible on a basic DBS check. Even skilled and semi-skilled roles in the majority of offices are not eligible for anything more than a basic DBS check.

If an employer (or prospective employer) is asking you for a standard or enhanced DBS check when you think they're ineligible to obtain this information, you can challenge it directly with the DBS without the employer knowing https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/challenging-an-ineligible-dbs-check-2/

Hi Ben

thanks again for your insight, its through people like yourself that the slightly uneducated people such as myself around these sort of issues learn invaluable information.

Would it not raise alarm bells with the employer if you were to challenge this matter directly? Surely they would ask or be thinking at the very least. "If you got nothing to hide why are you bothering challenging this?" 

interesting.
BenS
BenS
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)Supreme Being (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 304, Visits: 2.9K
GaryTS - 16 Aug 18 4:43 PM

Even once your convictions are spent if you want a decent job and even some unskilled basic jobs the employer will always find out because of the standard DBS check so you cant win because your convictions will come up anyway.

The vast majority of unskilled jobs will not have a standard DBS check. And an employer can't do one without you knowing because it will be sent to your home address, unless you have signed a waiver allowing it to be sent to the employer.

In a menial/unskilled role, the only time you'll have anything other than a basic DBS check is if you work in a environment such as a school or hospital.

Work in a shop, a factory, in construction (unless the project is in a school etc.) - no standard DBS check. All spent convictions will be invisible on a basic DBS check. Even skilled and semi-skilled roles in the majority of offices are not eligible for anything more than a basic DBS check.

If an employer (or prospective employer) is asking you for a standard or enhanced DBS check when you think they're ineligible to obtain this information, you can challenge it directly with the DBS without the employer knowing https://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/challenging-an-ineligible-dbs-check-2/
Neo Matrix
Neo Matrix
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40, Visits: 110
east72 - 16 Aug 18 4:23 PM
Did anything come from all this? i have read and can see how removing life long disclosures can help people who made a mistake move on, i mean someone who say assaults someone on a drunk Saturday night aged 20 gets 4 years 2 month sentence still has to disclose this to insurance companies etc when they are 80 years old and unable to even walk let alone attack anyone is crazy. I was in prison at the time the last bill was announced so the prison times had it all over the paper and everyone was working out when they would be free of disclosure, us who had over 4 years looked in dismay. I don't believe in Europe they have such a system. as you all know enhanced checks will show if people try and get jobs in areas they should not so why cant the government just give people a chance to move on. Even 10 years crime free shows someone has learnt a lesson and wants to be a person and join th community with a job and a home .

I do not think anything else has come from this from what i recall. I know unlock and Chris are working on stuff which they have documented on their websites but more people need to back it and stand up because there is power in numbers. We just got to keep fighting for us to be able to move forward in life. Alot of employers are missing out on such amazing talent all because some of us made a mistake or two in the past.

I believe that if you have committed a crime and have successfully waited out the rehab period and have not committed another crime since (no matter the disposal) I feel that employers should not be allowed to know about it unless it relates specifically to the job and safeguarding issues.

But other than that we should be able to move forward without this everlasting stigma.  
Neo Matrix
Neo Matrix
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)Supreme Being (6.4K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40, Visits: 110
Normallife - 13 Aug 17 1:38 PM
Nothing will change for a long time, having already implemented the 2014 changes. It shows the mindset though of the British with our backwards criminal justice system- we're so paranoid about re-offenders and public safety. In Europe- they only do background checks when it's necessary- such as when working with children or in finance. There's no bullshit spent and unspent.

In my opinion, in the UK they should just chuck out the spent/unspent convictions and refrain employers from asking the question: do you have any unspent convictions? 
Because let's be honest- most decent jobs these days are entitled to standard and enhanced checks- which will reveal convictions- however even just basic jobs you need to disclose unspent convictions. I believe employers should not have access to that information if you've served your sentence. Why should someone seeking to do some low end basic job need to disclose whether they have convictions if there is no risk to public safety with that job?

It's just an excuse for employers to get as much information as possible- and let's be honest- employers are risk-averse! The unspent convictions question only serves to hold people back seeking to get a basic job!

I suggest: Keep enhanced and standard checks. Abolish basic checks and the whole spent/unspent conviction question which apply to many jobs.
I recommend instead of unspent convictions question: employers should be entitled to ask the question: Are you currently serving a sentence on probation? This would fit in with the concept of once you've served your sentence, you're free.

What difference does it make if my conviction is unspent, and then in one years time it's now spent and I don't have to disclose? I still want to apply for that same basic job, has my risk over night suddenly plummeted to the point where I don't have to disclose it anymore? Basic jobs- there should no questions about unspent convictions, period!

Mate you are spot on here.

I did not see your post before but i mentioned something along these lines in one of my posts on another thread.

I cannot see anything happening or changing anytime soon because of the 2014 changes.

I do agree that something needs to be done and improvements need to be made.

We should all get together agree on a petition and lodge it online the gov website and try to make a stand.

Even once your convictions are spent if you want a decent job and even some unskilled basic jobs the employer will always find out because of the standard DBS check so you cant win because your convictions will come up anyway. They say you have more legal power behind you in this case because they cant discriminate against someone with spent convictions but its obvious they do and will do every time unless they are sympathetic like the chap from the other thread who has a criminal background himself.

 I am beginning to learn that its a no win situation. I am lucky enough to have a job at the moment but i know 100% and my managers 100% acknowledge that i am capable of far better but my past is preventing me from being able to better myself which is really depressing. I know i put myself in the situation i am in today but i just wish more employers were sympathetic and acknowledge we are all human. 

We can only pray for change to legislation in the future.

Other alternative is to go self employed or start your own business but with high start up costs involved sometimes and more often than not its impossible.

Fingers crossed. 
east72
east72
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)Supreme Being (7.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 71, Visits: 1.7K
Did anything come from all this? i have read and can see how removing life long disclosures can help people who made a mistake move on, i mean someone who say assaults someone on a drunk Saturday night aged 20 gets 4 years 2 month sentence still has to disclose this to insurance companies etc when they are 80 years old and unable to even walk let alone attack anyone is crazy. I was in prison at the time the last bill was announced so the prison times had it all over the paper and everyone was working out when they would be free of disclosure, us who had over 4 years looked in dismay. I don't believe in Europe they have such a system. as you all know enhanced checks will show if people try and get jobs in areas they should not so why cant the government just give people a chance to move on. Even 10 years crime free shows someone has learnt a lesson and wants to be a person and join th community with a job and a home .
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 605, Visits: 4K
Normallife - 13 Aug 17 1:38 PM
Nothing will change for a long time, having already implemented the 2014 changes. It shows the mindset though of the British with our backwards criminal justice system- we're so paranoid about re-offenders and public safety. In Europe- they only do background checks when it's necessary- such as when working with children or in finance. There's no bullshit spent and unspent.

In my opinion, in the UK they should just chuck out the spent/unspent convictions and refrain employers from asking the question: do you have any unspent convictions? 
Because let's be honest- most decent jobs these days are entitled to standard and enhanced checks- which will reveal convictions- however even just basic jobs you need to disclose unspent convictions. I believe employers should not have access to that information if you've served your sentence. Why should someone seeking to do some low end basic job need to disclose whether they have convictions if there is no risk to public safety with that job?

It's just an excuse for employers to get as much information as possible- and let's be honest- employers are risk-averse! The unspent convictions question only serves to hold people back seeking to get a basic job!

I suggest: Keep enhanced and standard checks. Abolish basic checks and the whole spent/unspent conviction question which apply to many jobs.
I recommend instead of unspent convictions question: employers should be entitled to ask the question: Are you currently serving a sentence on probation? This would fit in with the concept of once you've served your sentence, you're free.

What difference does it make if my conviction is unspent, and then in one years time it's now spent and I don't have to disclose? I still want to apply for that same basic job, has my risk over night suddenly plummeted to the point where I don't have to disclose it anymore? Basic jobs- there should no questions about unspent convictions, period!

I'd certainly agree with abolishing basic checks, and think of the money the government would save. If they're serious about reducing spending, of course. Maybe they think that punishing us all for a bit longer is worth the expense.Angry

=========================================================
Grrr! Aaargh!

Normallife
Normallife
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (3.2K reputation)Supreme Being (3.2K reputation)Supreme Being (3.2K reputation)Supreme Being (3.2K reputation)Supreme Being (3.2K reputation)Supreme Being (3.2K reputation)Supreme Being (3.2K reputation)Supreme Being (3.2K reputation)Supreme Being (3.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 17, Visits: 20
Nothing will change for a long time, having already implemented the 2014 changes. It shows the mindset though of the British with our backwards criminal justice system- we're so paranoid about re-offenders and public safety. In Europe- they only do background checks when it's necessary- such as when working with children or in finance. There's no bullshit spent and unspent.

In my opinion, in the UK they should just chuck out the spent/unspent convictions and refrain employers from asking the question: do you have any unspent convictions? 
Because let's be honest- most decent jobs these days are entitled to standard and enhanced checks- which will reveal convictions- however even just basic jobs you need to disclose unspent convictions. I believe employers should not have access to that information if you've served your sentence. Why should someone seeking to do some low end basic job need to disclose whether they have convictions if there is no risk to public safety with that job?

It's just an excuse for employers to get as much information as possible- and let's be honest- employers are risk-averse! The unspent convictions question only serves to hold people back seeking to get a basic job!

I suggest: Keep enhanced and standard checks. Abolish basic checks and the whole spent/unspent conviction question which apply to many jobs.
I recommend instead of unspent convictions question: employers should be entitled to ask the question: Are you currently serving a sentence on probation? This would fit in with the concept of once you've served your sentence, you're free.

What difference does it make if my conviction is unspent, and then in one years time it's now spent and I don't have to disclose? I still want to apply for that same basic job, has my risk over night suddenly plummeted to the point where I don't have to disclose it anymore? Basic jobs- there should no questions about unspent convictions, period!
AB2014
AB2014
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)Supreme Being (58K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 605, Visits: 4K
shamps - 7 Jun 17 10:48 PM
Hi all, 

First time joining the forums.  Hope I can share my thoughts and advice as well. 

Shame that Govt. has broken up for the GE - hopefully this will possibly gain traction once more.   I dont think that the proposals go far enough - the sentence and rehabilitation are one thing but the proposals need to ensure that a person is able to remove his/her digital footprint as well - easily and quickly. 

The DPA has exclusions which allow the press to report on convictions but the DPA does not specify that the press have to remove the story - the provisions of the GDPR will bring further enhancements under the right to erasure but even then, the press is not being forced to remove the digital versions of the stories.   

Hopefully we can push for legislative changes where someone requests the story to be removed. 

Well, full credit to Lord Ramsbotham - he's having another go, as reported on the main Unlock site here. Of course, the government can still block it, but with all their noises about encouraging employers to take on people with unspent convictions they might see it differently. Of course, giving financial incentives to employ ex-offenders sounds good in theory, but will probably lead to more employers asking for disclosure where they might not have before, and then once the financial incentive ends, getting rid of the ex-offender and taking on another one... and then another one... and then another one. The easier, cheaper way around this mess is to cut (or preferably do away with) rehabilitation periods. It would still keep all the other safeguards - standard and enhanced DBS checks and barring - but cost the government a lot less. If they're serious about reducing expenditure, of course.

=========================================================
Grrr! Aaargh!

GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search