|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+xThere is a load of stuff on Unlock about disclosure and DBS already. Put simply, a volunteering role is no different to a paid job, in terms of the rules. How those rules will be applied is another matter. Will always come down to the employer's attitude in the end. Volunteering is often seen by ex-offenders as an 'easier' way of getting back into work, than applying for a paid job. I think the perception is that voluntary organisations will be more willing to take on ex-offenders, because the roles are unpaid, and it therefore doesn't matter so much to them as it does to an employer who is paying somebody to work for them. Also, for ex-offenders who haven't worked for a long time, volunteering will be recommended by probation or the jobcentre as a way of getting back into that work routine. They also think that voluntary organisations will be 'less fussy' about the person having no recent work experience, than an employer who is recruiting for a paid job and on the whole I think they are right about that. What irks me about the conversation regarding ex-offenders and work, is that it too often assumes they are all in the same position and are going to be treated exactly the same, regardless of their offence. We all know that this is simply not the case and that an employer, who will gladly give an ex-burglar a 'second chance', won't extend the same helping hand to an ex-SO. The level of prejudice towards, and therefore willingness to employ, SOs is entirely different to other groups of offenders. Don't get me wrong. I know ALL ex-offenders will be discriminated against, but SO face an extra level of discrimination, that isn't always acknowledged. In my 'favourite' Red Top, the Sun, recently there was an article about SO being employed as care workers. The article stated that, despite the fact that these roles involved working with vulnerable adults, and despite the fact that an enhanced DBS check would be required, the employers were still willing to hire SOs, just because that sector is so desperate for people. They just can't find anbody else willing to do those jobs, so even though they knew all about the person's convictions and had the DBS results in front of them, they still hired them. It is always the employers decision, at the end of the day. So, no matter what the DBS check comes back with, if the employer is desperate enough they will still hire you. Gives hope to us all. Lol. All of these employment decisions should involve a proper risk assessment, or a care home will have to answer to the CQC. Let's say that the prospective employee was convicted of downloading/possession of indecent images. If they're not on the Adults' Barred List, then they can be considered for work in adult care. Hi You will know I bow to alot of your words but I will always speak up when persons say/suggest that convictions involving images is somehow a lower class of offence. Individuals involved in a group offence are convicted under the law even though they may not of actually committed the primary offence. To me, though the "viewer" may not have had physical contact, they are implicit in the creating of the victim by creating the demand and so should be dealt with in the same manner of the individual taking the picture. I did not make the lady in my offence a prostitute nor was I part of any group/gang etc, but I was punished / regarded as if I did though the individual(s) who did were not prosecuted. You know I mean no offence to anyone by my words. As an offender, I know that it's impossible to argue against the orthodox view, because people don't want to listen. Anything I say will be instantly dismissed as cognitive distortions on my part, or just me trying to minimise or deny my own offence. For that reason, I defer to an academic: Carissa Byrne Hessick, who works at the University of North Carolina and writes about this issue. In her article, published in the Washington University Law Review, she covers the 'creating a demand' argument and much else. Unlike an offender, she cannot be accused of having a vested interest in denying the offences, so perhaps her opinion will receive a fair hearing. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=law_lawreview Hi Thank you for the link and I will read the report - I am assuming it is is regard to my reply to ABS2014 on images - where I feel distance does not mitigate any responsibility because the demand can / does create/support the offence. I always keep an open mind on anyone's offence.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 719,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+xThere is a load of stuff on Unlock about disclosure and DBS already. Put simply, a volunteering role is no different to a paid job, in terms of the rules. How those rules will be applied is another matter. Will always come down to the employer's attitude in the end. Volunteering is often seen by ex-offenders as an 'easier' way of getting back into work, than applying for a paid job. I think the perception is that voluntary organisations will be more willing to take on ex-offenders, because the roles are unpaid, and it therefore doesn't matter so much to them as it does to an employer who is paying somebody to work for them. Also, for ex-offenders who haven't worked for a long time, volunteering will be recommended by probation or the jobcentre as a way of getting back into that work routine. They also think that voluntary organisations will be 'less fussy' about the person having no recent work experience, than an employer who is recruiting for a paid job and on the whole I think they are right about that. What irks me about the conversation regarding ex-offenders and work, is that it too often assumes they are all in the same position and are going to be treated exactly the same, regardless of their offence. We all know that this is simply not the case and that an employer, who will gladly give an ex-burglar a 'second chance', won't extend the same helping hand to an ex-SO. The level of prejudice towards, and therefore willingness to employ, SOs is entirely different to other groups of offenders. Don't get me wrong. I know ALL ex-offenders will be discriminated against, but SO face an extra level of discrimination, that isn't always acknowledged. In my 'favourite' Red Top, the Sun, recently there was an article about SO being employed as care workers. The article stated that, despite the fact that these roles involved working with vulnerable adults, and despite the fact that an enhanced DBS check would be required, the employers were still willing to hire SOs, just because that sector is so desperate for people. They just can't find anbody else willing to do those jobs, so even though they knew all about the person's convictions and had the DBS results in front of them, they still hired them. It is always the employers decision, at the end of the day. So, no matter what the DBS check comes back with, if the employer is desperate enough they will still hire you. Gives hope to us all. Lol. All of these employment decisions should involve a proper risk assessment, or a care home will have to answer to the CQC. Let's say that the prospective employee was convicted of downloading/possession of indecent images. If they're not on the Adults' Barred List, then they can be considered for work in adult care. Hi You will know I bow to alot of your words but I will always speak up when persons say/suggest that convictions involving images is somehow a lower class of offence. Individuals involved in a group offence are convicted under the law even though they may not of actually committed the primary offence. To me, though the "viewer" may not have had physical contact, they are implicit in the creating of the victim by creating the demand and so should be dealt with in the same manner of the individual taking the picture. I did not make the lady in my offence a prostitute nor was I part of any group/gang etc, but I was punished / regarded as if I did though the individual(s) who did were not prosecuted. You know I mean no offence to anyone by my words. As an offender, I know that it's impossible to argue against the orthodox view, because people don't want to listen. Anything I say will be instantly dismissed as cognitive distortions on my part, or just me trying to minimise or deny my own offence. For that reason, I defer to an academic: Carissa Byrne Hessick, who works at the University of North Carolina and writes about this issue. In her article, published in the Washington University Law Review, she covers the 'creating a demand' argument and much else. Unlike an offender, she cannot be accused of having a vested interest in denying the offences, so perhaps her opinion will receive a fair hearing. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=law_lawreview
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+xThere is a load of stuff on Unlock about disclosure and DBS already. Put simply, a volunteering role is no different to a paid job, in terms of the rules. How those rules will be applied is another matter. Will always come down to the employer's attitude in the end. Volunteering is often seen by ex-offenders as an 'easier' way of getting back into work, than applying for a paid job. I think the perception is that voluntary organisations will be more willing to take on ex-offenders, because the roles are unpaid, and it therefore doesn't matter so much to them as it does to an employer who is paying somebody to work for them. Also, for ex-offenders who haven't worked for a long time, volunteering will be recommended by probation or the jobcentre as a way of getting back into that work routine. They also think that voluntary organisations will be 'less fussy' about the person having no recent work experience, than an employer who is recruiting for a paid job and on the whole I think they are right about that. What irks me about the conversation regarding ex-offenders and work, is that it too often assumes they are all in the same position and are going to be treated exactly the same, regardless of their offence. We all know that this is simply not the case and that an employer, who will gladly give an ex-burglar a 'second chance', won't extend the same helping hand to an ex-SO. The level of prejudice towards, and therefore willingness to employ, SOs is entirely different to other groups of offenders. Don't get me wrong. I know ALL ex-offenders will be discriminated against, but SO face an extra level of discrimination, that isn't always acknowledged. In my 'favourite' Red Top, the Sun, recently there was an article about SO being employed as care workers. The article stated that, despite the fact that these roles involved working with vulnerable adults, and despite the fact that an enhanced DBS check would be required, the employers were still willing to hire SOs, just because that sector is so desperate for people. They just can't find anbody else willing to do those jobs, so even though they knew all about the person's convictions and had the DBS results in front of them, they still hired them. It is always the employers decision, at the end of the day. So, no matter what the DBS check comes back with, if the employer is desperate enough they will still hire you. Gives hope to us all. Lol. All of these employment decisions should involve a proper risk assessment, or a care home will have to answer to the CQC. Let's say that the prospective employee was convicted of downloading/possession of indecent images. If they're not on the Adults' Barred List, then they can be considered for work in adult care. Hi You will know I bow to alot of your words but I will always speak up when persons say/suggest that convictions involving images is somehow a lower class of offence. Individuals involved in a group offence are convicted under the law even though they may not of actually committed the primary offence. To me, though the "viewer" may not have had physical contact, they are implicit in the creating of the victim by creating the demand and so should be dealt with in the same manner of the individual taking the picture. I did not make the lady in my offence a prostitute nor was I part of any group/gang etc, but I was punished / regarded as if I did though the individual(s) who did were not prosecuted. You know I mean no offence to anyone by my words.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+xThere is a load of stuff on Unlock about disclosure and DBS already. Put simply, a volunteering role is no different to a paid job, in terms of the rules. How those rules will be applied is another matter. Will always come down to the employer's attitude in the end. Volunteering is often seen by ex-offenders as an 'easier' way of getting back into work, than applying for a paid job. I think the perception is that voluntary organisations will be more willing to take on ex-offenders, because the roles are unpaid, and it therefore doesn't matter so much to them as it does to an employer who is paying somebody to work for them. Also, for ex-offenders who haven't worked for a long time, volunteering will be recommended by probation or the jobcentre as a way of getting back into that work routine. They also think that voluntary organisations will be 'less fussy' about the person having no recent work experience, than an employer who is recruiting for a paid job and on the whole I think they are right about that. What irks me about the conversation regarding ex-offenders and work, is that it too often assumes they are all in the same position and are going to be treated exactly the same, regardless of their offence. We all know that this is simply not the case and that an employer, who will gladly give an ex-burglar a 'second chance', won't extend the same helping hand to an ex-SO. The level of prejudice towards, and therefore willingness to employ, SOs is entirely different to other groups of offenders. Don't get me wrong. I know ALL ex-offenders will be discriminated against, but SO face an extra level of discrimination, that isn't always acknowledged. In my 'favourite' Red Top, the Sun, recently there was an article about SO being employed as care workers. The article stated that, despite the fact that these roles involved working with vulnerable adults, and despite the fact that an enhanced DBS check would be required, the employers were still willing to hire SOs, just because that sector is so desperate for people. They just can't find anbody else willing to do those jobs, so even though they knew all about the person's convictions and had the DBS results in front of them, they still hired them. It is always the employers decision, at the end of the day. So, no matter what the DBS check comes back with, if the employer is desperate enough they will still hire you. Gives hope to us all. Lol. Hi I suppose after circa 2000 applications and never applying for a role were I knew my offence would bar me or DBS check is mentioned; Note I held "top secret" security clearance and informed if the "business" would put the case forward should be given again. I suppose I am bias in the belief of discrimination against offenders and especially SO. As mentioned in my other posts, I have had offers but they have been rescinded once declaration has been made. Though sympathy has been stressed when I have actually emphasised the actual details of the offence, it is often the businesses HR policies that are the issue. As I have also mentioned SO's are classed as the same way but violent offenders / drugs dealers are categorised to different levels to society and accepted more easily by them. This to me is not logical as these sort of offences can cause more damage both physically and emotionally than in my case and often involve vulnerable individuals. For example as anyone heard of a register recording where drug dealers who utilize / sell to children being in place? I appreciate the "system" says religion and voluntary work is seen as positive but again in my experience these roles application forms still expect you to detail your offence or disclose at interview. In a small town / village word soon gets around as data protection is not a concept understand or audited by some. Will keep believing I will get a job.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+xThere is a load of stuff on Unlock about disclosure and DBS already. Put simply, a volunteering role is no different to a paid job, in terms of the rules. How those rules will be applied is another matter. Will always come down to the employer's attitude in the end. Volunteering is often seen by ex-offenders as an 'easier' way of getting back into work, than applying for a paid job. I think the perception is that voluntary organisations will be more willing to take on ex-offenders, because the roles are unpaid, and it therefore doesn't matter so much to them as it does to an employer who is paying somebody to work for them. Also, for ex-offenders who haven't worked for a long time, volunteering will be recommended by probation or the jobcentre as a way of getting back into that work routine. They also think that voluntary organisations will be 'less fussy' about the person having no recent work experience, than an employer who is recruiting for a paid job and on the whole I think they are right about that. What irks me about the conversation regarding ex-offenders and work, is that it too often assumes they are all in the same position and are going to be treated exactly the same, regardless of their offence. We all know that this is simply not the case and that an employer, who will gladly give an ex-burglar a 'second chance', won't extend the same helping hand to an ex-SO. The level of prejudice towards, and therefore willingness to employ, SOs is entirely different to other groups of offenders. Don't get me wrong. I know ALL ex-offenders will be discriminated against, but SO face an extra level of discrimination, that isn't always acknowledged. In my 'favourite' Red Top, the Sun, recently there was an article about SO being employed as care workers. The article stated that, despite the fact that these roles involved working with vulnerable adults, and despite the fact that an enhanced DBS check would be required, the employers were still willing to hire SOs, just because that sector is so desperate for people. They just can't find anbody else willing to do those jobs, so even though they knew all about the person's convictions and had the DBS results in front of them, they still hired them. It is always the employers decision, at the end of the day. So, no matter what the DBS check comes back with, if the employer is desperate enough they will still hire you. Gives hope to us all. Lol. All of these employment decisions should involve a proper risk assessment, or a care home will have to answer to the CQC. Let's say that the prospective employee was convicted of downloading/possession of indecent images. If they're not on the Adults' Barred List, then they can be considered for work in adult care.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 719,
Visits: 5.3K
|
There is a load of stuff on Unlock about disclosure and DBS already. Put simply, a volunteering role is no different to a paid job, in terms of the rules. How those rules will be applied is another matter. Will always come down to the employer's attitude in the end. Volunteering is often seen by ex-offenders as an 'easier' way of getting back into work, than applying for a paid job. I think the perception is that voluntary organisations will be more willing to take on ex-offenders, because the roles are unpaid, and it therefore doesn't matter so much to them as it does to an employer who is paying somebody to work for them. Also, for ex-offenders who haven't worked for a long time, volunteering will be recommended by probation or the jobcentre as a way of getting back into that work routine. They also think that voluntary organisations will be 'less fussy' about the person having no recent work experience, than an employer who is recruiting for a paid job and on the whole I think they are right about that.
What irks me about the conversation regarding ex-offenders and work, is that it too often assumes they are all in the same position and are going to be treated exactly the same, regardless of their offence. We all know that this is simply not the case and that an employer, who will gladly give an ex-burglar a 'second chance', won't extend the same helping hand to an ex-SO. The level of prejudice towards, and therefore willingness to employ, SOs is entirely different to other groups of offenders. Don't get me wrong. I know ALL ex-offenders will be discriminated against, but SO face an extra level of discrimination, that isn't always acknowledged.
In my 'favourite' Red Top, the Sun, recently there was an article about SO being employed as care workers. The article stated that, despite the fact that these roles involved working with vulnerable adults, and despite the fact that an enhanced DBS check would be required, the employers were still willing to hire SOs, just because that sector is so desperate for people. They just can't find anbody else willing to do those jobs, so even though they knew all about the person's convictions and had the DBS results in front of them, they still hired them. It is always the employers decision, at the end of the day. So, no matter what the DBS check comes back with, if the employer is desperate enough they will still hire you. Gives hope to us all. Lol.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+xThe moniker 'SO' does breed the harshest and, largely, unjustified assumptions. There are very few opportunities for an explanation of events as the consenus of our supposed 'liberal' society is always to damn. Red tops are the best at that. To drag it back to the opportunity (scant availability for those tarred with the aforementioned brush) of volunteering with non-profit organisations then many will always take the option of legal discrimination over a valid risk assessment. From para 51 of the Supreme Court judgment: "First, it is entirely appropriate that the final decision about the relevance of a conviction to an individual’s suitability for some occupations should be that of theemployer. Only the employer can judge whether the particular characteristics of the particular job make it inappropriate to employ the particular ex-offender. Very often,this will be a judgment that the employer makes in the course of discussion with the candidate in the light of what is disclosed. The employer will bear the responsibility for the consequences of its choice, and in sensitive appointments the responsibility may be a heavy one." But the legal loophole still exists and the disproportionate application of that right by different charities is the basis of this thread. Hi Very often,this will be a judgement that the employer makes in the course of discussion with the candidate in the light of what is disclosed.
The discrimination often starts BEFORE the employer interview:
The Recruitment Agency.
They will ask questions and if disclosure is required will block your CV from going to the employer by various means.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+xThe moniker 'SO' does breed the harshest and, largely, unjustified assumptions. There are very few opportunities for an explanation of events as the consenus of our supposed 'liberal' society is always to damn. Red tops are the best at that. To drag it back to the opportunity (scant availability for those tarred with the aforementioned brush) of volunteering with non-profit organisations then many will always take the option of legal discrimination over a valid risk assessment. From para 51 of the Supreme Court judgment: "First, it is entirely appropriate that the final decision about the relevance of a conviction to an individual’s suitability for some occupations should be that of theemployer. Only the employer can judge whether the particular characteristics of the particular job make it inappropriate to employ the particular ex-offender. Very often,this will be a judgment that the employer makes in the course of discussion with the candidate in the light of what is disclosed. The employer will bear the responsibility for the consequences of its choice, and in sensitive appointments the responsibility may be a heavy one." But the legal loophole still exists and the disproportionate application of that right by different charities is the basis of this thread. But on the other hand, that ruling was about filtering. So, it relates specifically to standard and enhanced DBS checks. Obviously, if your conviction isn't spent, then for many offences it won't make any difference.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
30sell
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2,
Visits: 16
|
The moniker 'SO' does breed the harshest and, largely, unjustified assumptions. There are very few opportunities for an explanation of events as the consenus of our supposed 'liberal' society is always to damn. Red tops are the best at that. To drag it back to the opportunity (scant availability for those tarred with the aforementioned brush) of volunteering with non-profit organisations then many will always take the option of legal discrimination over a valid risk assessment. From para 51 of the Supreme Court judgment:
"First, it is entirely appropriate that the final decision about the relevance of a conviction to an individual’s suitability for some occupations should be that of theemployer. Only the employer can judge whether the particular characteristics of the particular job make it inappropriate to employ the particular ex-offender. Very often,this will be a judgment that the employer makes in the course of discussion with the candidate in the light of what is disclosed. The employer will bear the responsibility for the consequences of its choice, and in sensitive appointments the responsibility may be a heavy one."
But the legal loophole still exists and the disproportionate application of that right by different charities is the basis of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x[quote]For example, when I told my PPU I was going to apply for a weekend role where I would escort prospective house buyers around empty houses on behalf of a Estate Agents - who had not asked for a declaration. My PPU said they would tell the Estate Agents. Their reason being, I could go to a house where a "child" might be by themselves. Hence my lengthy beginning to this reply and my formatting the word " empty" as I did.
This little anecdote is actually typical of the pointless difficulties created for SOs. This is why openness and honesty don't always pay.
Hi I agree with your thoughts but in reality as an EX-SO, we now have the burden of always presenting a "puritan behaviour" - a term of contempt assigned to by one's enemies - that is not required of other types of offenders. My belief in myself will never be diminished by those attempting to do so and that is why openness and honesty has and will always be a core part of my nature.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|