|
lotsofquer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 119,
Visits: 3.4K
|
I know I’m getting ahead of myself here given where I am in the process however I’ve read a number of forum posts and articles on both Unlock, Narco and elsewhere on disclosure of unspent convictions and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and was a bit curious about it all. Everywhere I’ve read says you “ legally have to disclose unspent convictions if asked” (and spent ones for certain roles that require a standard or enhanced DBS check) and all mention the ROA 1974 act (and it’s subsequent updates). I took some time and read the ROA act and could not find anywhere that says ‘you must disclose unspent convictions’. In fact the word ‘unspent’ does not appear in the text at all. Nb I did not read through schedule 1 Service disciplinary convictions (relates to army, air force, navy and armed forces acts), schedule 2 Protection for spent cautions or schedule 3 Protection for spent alternatives to prosecution Scotland. The act itself appears to simply be about rehabilitation periods (e.g. when an offence is considered spent) and that any relevant person disclosing a spent conviction is guilty of an offence. I may be missing something completely obvious or there may be another law somewhere which means that you do have to legally disclose (although I couldn’t find one when I did search). The only information I could find that doesn’t state you have to legally disclose is on the Open University website ( https://help.open.ac.uk/disclosing-a-criminal-record-when-applying-for-jobs) which under the heading “ If asked, why should you consider declaring your criminal record?” says “T his is essentially down to honesty, transparency and trust. You’ll only need to declare your record if an employer asks you, but if you fail tell the truth about your record when asked and your employer learns about it at a later date, you’re at risk of losing your job and potentially being prosecuted.
Furthermore, if you’re on licence at the time and fail to disclose information to the employer, you may be recalled back to prison.” If I haven’t missed anything and putting aside police/probation forced disclosures and potentially those on license (I don’t know what the law – if any – or license and/or notification conditions say about this) it would seem that there is not actually a legal requirement to disclose. It seems that it’s basically an honesty thing and if you don’t disclose and are subsequently found it you could be dismissed (at least for the first 2 years – after which you have much more rights/protections as an employee). - Obviously if you say no (and have unspent convictions) and then the (potential) employer does a basic DBS check then you are found out.
- If they don’t do a check however or if you refuse permission for them to do a check then it doesn’t seem based on what I’ve read that it’s a problem legally. I realise that the employer may not trust you at the point they found out as you haven’t told the truth.
- If however you say no record and no you cannot do a DBS check and can successfully argue that you don’t believe in DBS checks e.g. my ability to do the job/have the job offered are not dependant on a criminal record should I have one. Or Why does it matter if I have a criminal record when given that I’m not in prison means that the law has said I’m safe to be in society and that if it was a specific regulated role applied for (financial, vulnerable adults, children, police etc) then you’d be doing a standard, enhanced or barred lists check. Or I have a family member who has a criminal record and I know how hard it is for them to get work when they are asked to do a DBS check which is why I don’t believe in them.
If you do refuse to give permission for a check then it’s likely possible that you won’t be offered the role or that any offer is withdrawn of course. However if you can successfully argue that the role really doesn’t require a check or the reasons why you don’t believe in such checks yet your skills and experience clearly met/exceed the role requirements then potentially you have a job while not disclosing. Obviously, I could be missing something altogether here and I’m not advocating for anyone to lie on a job application but rather more interested in what the actual legal position is regarding disclosure. Also interested to hear if anyone has gone down the route of saying no to the box and what happened afterwards (good or bad).
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+xI know I’m getting ahead of myself here given where I am in the process however I’ve read a number of forum posts and articles on both Unlock, Narco and elsewhere on disclosure of unspent convictions and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and was a bit curious about it all. Everywhere I’ve read says you “ legally have to disclose unspent convictions if asked” (and spent ones for certain roles that require a standard or enhanced DBS check) and all mention the ROA 1974 act (and it’s subsequent updates). I took some time and read the ROA act and could not find anywhere that says ‘you must disclose unspent convictions’. In fact the word ‘unspent’ does not appear in the text at all. Nb I did not read through schedule 1 Service disciplinary convictions (relates to army, air force, navy and armed forces acts), schedule 2 Protection for spent cautions or schedule 3 Protection for spent alternatives to prosecution Scotland. The act itself appears to simply be about rehabilitation periods (e.g. when an offence is considered spent) and that any relevant person disclosing a spent conviction is guilty of an offence. I may be missing something completely obvious or there may be another law somewhere which means that you do have to legally disclose (although I couldn’t find one when I did search). The only information I could find that doesn’t state you have to legally disclose is on the Open University website ( https://help.open.ac.uk/disclosing-a-criminal-record-when-applying-for-jobs) which under the heading “ If asked, why should you consider declaring your criminal record?” says “T his is essentially down to honesty, transparency and trust. You’ll only need to declare your record if an employer asks you, but if you fail tell the truth about your record when asked and your employer learns about it at a later date, you’re at risk of losing your job and potentially being prosecuted.
Furthermore, if you’re on licence at the time and fail to disclose information to the employer, you may be recalled back to prison.” - Obviously if you say no (and have unspent convictions) and then the (potential) employer does a basic DBS check then you are found out.
- If they don’t do a check however or if you refuse permission for them to do a check then it doesn’t seem based on what I’ve read that it’s a problem legally. I realise that the employer may not trust you at the point they found out as you haven’t told the truth.
- If however you say no record and no you cannot do a DBS check and can successfully argue that you don’t believe in DBS checks e.g. my ability to do the job/have the job offered are not dependant on a criminal record should I have one. Or Why does it matter if I have a criminal record when given that I’m not in prison means that the law has said I’m safe to be in society and that if it was a specific regulated role applied for (financial, vulnerable adults, children, police etc) then you’d be doing a standard, enhanced or barred lists check. Or I have a family member who has a criminal record and I know how hard it is for them to get work when they are asked to do a DBS check which is why I don’t believe in them.
If you do refuse to give permission for a check then it’s likely possible that you won’t be offered the role or that any offer is withdrawn of course. However if you can successfully argue that the role really doesn’t require a check or the reasons why you don’t believe in such checks yet your skills and experience clearly met/exceed the role requirements then potentially you have a job while not disclosing. Obviously, I could be missing something altogether here and I’m not advocating for anyone to lie on a job application but rather more interested in what the actual legal position is regarding disclosure. Also interested to hear if anyone has gone down the route of saying no to the box and what happened afterwards (good or bad). The ROA does define when a conviction becomes spent, so the fact that "unspent" isn't defined doesn't mean it's not legally recognised. In this context, it is a conviction that hasn't become spent yet. It could be argued that if you lie about unspent convictions and get a job as a result of that, you've got it by fraud. Most companies don't want the publicity, though, so they just sack you for gross misconduct. The bottom line is that employers must have the right to do at least a basic DBS check, or the DBS wouldn't have the right to provide them. If you refuse to consent to a lawful check, they will say that your background checks weren't satisfactory and either withdraw the job offer or dismiss you. Unlock is clear about this, and they have always been trustworthy. Just because they don't supply a link to the relevant law, it doesn't make it untrue.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
lotsofquer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 119,
Visits: 3.4K
|
+x+xI know I’m getting ahead of myself here given where I am in the process however I’ve read a number of forum posts and articles on both Unlock, Narco and elsewhere on disclosure of unspent convictions and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and was a bit curious about it all. Everywhere I’ve read says you “ legally have to disclose unspent convictions if asked” (and spent ones for certain roles that require a standard or enhanced DBS check) and all mention the ROA 1974 act (and it’s subsequent updates). I took some time and read the ROA act and could not find anywhere that says ‘you must disclose unspent convictions’. In fact the word ‘unspent’ does not appear in the text at all. Nb I did not read through schedule 1 Service disciplinary convictions (relates to army, air force, navy and armed forces acts), schedule 2 Protection for spent cautions or schedule 3 Protection for spent alternatives to prosecution Scotland. The act itself appears to simply be about rehabilitation periods (e.g. when an offence is considered spent) and that any relevant person disclosing a spent conviction is guilty of an offence. I may be missing something completely obvious or there may be another law somewhere which means that you do have to legally disclose (although I couldn’t find one when I did search). The only information I could find that doesn’t state you have to legally disclose is on the Open University website ( https://help.open.ac.uk/disclosing-a-criminal-record-when-applying-for-jobs) which under the heading “ If asked, why should you consider declaring your criminal record?” says “T his is essentially down to honesty, transparency and trust. You’ll only need to declare your record if an employer asks you, but if you fail tell the truth about your record when asked and your employer learns about it at a later date, you’re at risk of losing your job and potentially being prosecuted.
Furthermore, if you’re on licence at the time and fail to disclose information to the employer, you may be recalled back to prison.” - Obviously if you say no (and have unspent convictions) and then the (potential) employer does a basic DBS check then you are found out.
- If they don’t do a check however or if you refuse permission for them to do a check then it doesn’t seem based on what I’ve read that it’s a problem legally. I realise that the employer may not trust you at the point they found out as you haven’t told the truth.
- If however you say no record and no you cannot do a DBS check and can successfully argue that you don’t believe in DBS checks e.g. my ability to do the job/have the job offered are not dependant on a criminal record should I have one. Or Why does it matter if I have a criminal record when given that I’m not in prison means that the law has said I’m safe to be in society and that if it was a specific regulated role applied for (financial, vulnerable adults, children, police etc) then you’d be doing a standard, enhanced or barred lists check. Or I have a family member who has a criminal record and I know how hard it is for them to get work when they are asked to do a DBS check which is why I don’t believe in them.
If you do refuse to give permission for a check then it’s likely possible that you won’t be offered the role or that any offer is withdrawn of course. However if you can successfully argue that the role really doesn’t require a check or the reasons why you don’t believe in such checks yet your skills and experience clearly met/exceed the role requirements then potentially you have a job while not disclosing. Obviously, I could be missing something altogether here and I’m not advocating for anyone to lie on a job application but rather more interested in what the actual legal position is regarding disclosure. Also interested to hear if anyone has gone down the route of saying no to the box and what happened afterwards (good or bad). The ROA does define when a conviction becomes spent, so the fact that "unspent" isn't defined doesn't mean it's not legally recognised. In this context, it is a conviction that hasn't become spent yet. It could be argued that if you lie about unspent convictions and get a job as a result of that, you've got it by fraud. Most companies don't want the publicity, though, so they just sack you for gross misconduct. The bottom line is that employers must have the right to do at least a basic DBS check, or the DBS wouldn't have the right to provide them. If you refuse to consent to a lawful check, they will say that your background checks weren't satisfactory and either withdraw the job offer or dismiss you. Unlock is clear about this, and they have always been trustworthy. Just because they don't supply a link to the relevant law, it doesn't make it untrue. Please don't take my query as any form of slight on Unlock or others - that was in no way my intention. I hadn't actually previously seen the link you provided. Reading through the information there it's not actually stated that disclosure is a legal requirement (like on other pages) but does discuss the honesty aspect so it seems my thinking is correct. Obviously honesty is the best policy however would still be interested to hear if anyone has convinced an employer that the role didn't require a check or has said no with unspent convictions.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+xI know I’m getting ahead of myself here given where I am in the process however I’ve read a number of forum posts and articles on both Unlock, Narco and elsewhere on disclosure of unspent convictions and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and was a bit curious about it all. Everywhere I’ve read says you “ legally have to disclose unspent convictions if asked” (and spent ones for certain roles that require a standard or enhanced DBS check) and all mention the ROA 1974 act (and it’s subsequent updates). I took some time and read the ROA act and could not find anywhere that says ‘you must disclose unspent convictions’. In fact the word ‘unspent’ does not appear in the text at all. Nb I did not read through schedule 1 Service disciplinary convictions (relates to army, air force, navy and armed forces acts), schedule 2 Protection for spent cautions or schedule 3 Protection for spent alternatives to prosecution Scotland. The act itself appears to simply be about rehabilitation periods (e.g. when an offence is considered spent) and that any relevant person disclosing a spent conviction is guilty of an offence. I may be missing something completely obvious or there may be another law somewhere which means that you do have to legally disclose (although I couldn’t find one when I did search). The only information I could find that doesn’t state you have to legally disclose is on the Open University website ( https://help.open.ac.uk/disclosing-a-criminal-record-when-applying-for-jobs) which under the heading “ If asked, why should you consider declaring your criminal record?” says “T his is essentially down to honesty, transparency and trust. You’ll only need to declare your record if an employer asks you, but if you fail tell the truth about your record when asked and your employer learns about it at a later date, you’re at risk of losing your job and potentially being prosecuted.
Furthermore, if you’re on licence at the time and fail to disclose information to the employer, you may be recalled back to prison.” - Obviously if you say no (and have unspent convictions) and then the (potential) employer does a basic DBS check then you are found out.
- If they don’t do a check however or if you refuse permission for them to do a check then it doesn’t seem based on what I’ve read that it’s a problem legally. I realise that the employer may not trust you at the point they found out as you haven’t told the truth.
- If however you say no record and no you cannot do a DBS check and can successfully argue that you don’t believe in DBS checks e.g. my ability to do the job/have the job offered are not dependant on a criminal record should I have one. Or Why does it matter if I have a criminal record when given that I’m not in prison means that the law has said I’m safe to be in society and that if it was a specific regulated role applied for (financial, vulnerable adults, children, police etc) then you’d be doing a standard, enhanced or barred lists check. Or I have a family member who has a criminal record and I know how hard it is for them to get work when they are asked to do a DBS check which is why I don’t believe in them.
If you do refuse to give permission for a check then it’s likely possible that you won’t be offered the role or that any offer is withdrawn of course. However if you can successfully argue that the role really doesn’t require a check or the reasons why you don’t believe in such checks yet your skills and experience clearly met/exceed the role requirements then potentially you have a job while not disclosing. Obviously, I could be missing something altogether here and I’m not advocating for anyone to lie on a job application but rather more interested in what the actual legal position is regarding disclosure. Also interested to hear if anyone has gone down the route of saying no to the box and what happened afterwards (good or bad). The ROA does define when a conviction becomes spent, so the fact that "unspent" isn't defined doesn't mean it's not legally recognised. In this context, it is a conviction that hasn't become spent yet. It could be argued that if you lie about unspent convictions and get a job as a result of that, you've got it by fraud. Most companies don't want the publicity, though, so they just sack you for gross misconduct. The bottom line is that employers must have the right to do at least a basic DBS check, or the DBS wouldn't have the right to provide them. If you refuse to consent to a lawful check, they will say that your background checks weren't satisfactory and either withdraw the job offer or dismiss you. Unlock is clear about this, and they have always been trustworthy. Just because they don't supply a link to the relevant law, it doesn't make it untrue. Please don't take my query as any form of slight on Unlock or others - that was in no way my intention. I hadn't actually previously seen the link you provided. Reading through the information there it's not actually stated that disclosure is a legal requirement (like on other pages) but does discuss the honesty aspect so it seems my thinking is correct. Obviously honesty is the best policy however would still be interested to hear if anyone has convinced an employer that the role didn't require a check or has said no with unspent convictions. Hi There are examples here supporting AB2014 and the fact that someone may not be asked at interview but subsequently the business requires the question to be asked and the person has been released. Business knows it would take a brave ex-offender to take them to tribunal for unfair dismissal. In my personal experience sometimes I have not declared it to a recruitment agency because " any question suggesting a declaration is required " has not been asked. I have told a recruitment agency because they asked the or a leading question to be then told either the agency or the employer do not hire ex-offenders - especially sex-offenders. I have told a recruitment agency and gained an interview, offered a role at interview only to find out that the agency had not told the business! Yes the offer was rescinded. I have gone through the process over 2000 times and failed. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
lotsofquer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 119,
Visits: 3.4K
|
+x+x+x+xI know I’m getting ahead of myself here given where I am in the process however I’ve read a number of forum posts and articles on both Unlock, Narco and elsewhere on disclosure of unspent convictions and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and was a bit curious about it all. Everywhere I’ve read says you “ legally have to disclose unspent convictions if asked” (and spent ones for certain roles that require a standard or enhanced DBS check) and all mention the ROA 1974 act (and it’s subsequent updates). I took some time and read the ROA act and could not find anywhere that says ‘you must disclose unspent convictions’. In fact the word ‘unspent’ does not appear in the text at all. Nb I did not read through schedule 1 Service disciplinary convictions (relates to army, air force, navy and armed forces acts), schedule 2 Protection for spent cautions or schedule 3 Protection for spent alternatives to prosecution Scotland. The act itself appears to simply be about rehabilitation periods (e.g. when an offence is considered spent) and that any relevant person disclosing a spent conviction is guilty of an offence. I may be missing something completely obvious or there may be another law somewhere which means that you do have to legally disclose (although I couldn’t find one when I did search). The only information I could find that doesn’t state you have to legally disclose is on the Open University website ( https://help.open.ac.uk/disclosing-a-criminal-record-when-applying-for-jobs) which under the heading “ If asked, why should you consider declaring your criminal record?” says “T his is essentially down to honesty, transparency and trust. You’ll only need to declare your record if an employer asks you, but if you fail tell the truth about your record when asked and your employer learns about it at a later date, you’re at risk of losing your job and potentially being prosecuted.
Furthermore, if you’re on licence at the time and fail to disclose information to the employer, you may be recalled back to prison.” - Obviously if you say no (and have unspent convictions) and then the (potential) employer does a basic DBS check then you are found out.
- If they don’t do a check however or if you refuse permission for them to do a check then it doesn’t seem based on what I’ve read that it’s a problem legally. I realise that the employer may not trust you at the point they found out as you haven’t told the truth.
- If however you say no record and no you cannot do a DBS check and can successfully argue that you don’t believe in DBS checks e.g. my ability to do the job/have the job offered are not dependant on a criminal record should I have one. Or Why does it matter if I have a criminal record when given that I’m not in prison means that the law has said I’m safe to be in society and that if it was a specific regulated role applied for (financial, vulnerable adults, children, police etc) then you’d be doing a standard, enhanced or barred lists check. Or I have a family member who has a criminal record and I know how hard it is for them to get work when they are asked to do a DBS check which is why I don’t believe in them.
If you do refuse to give permission for a check then it’s likely possible that you won’t be offered the role or that any offer is withdrawn of course. However if you can successfully argue that the role really doesn’t require a check or the reasons why you don’t believe in such checks yet your skills and experience clearly met/exceed the role requirements then potentially you have a job while not disclosing. Obviously, I could be missing something altogether here and I’m not advocating for anyone to lie on a job application but rather more interested in what the actual legal position is regarding disclosure. Also interested to hear if anyone has gone down the route of saying no to the box and what happened afterwards (good or bad). The ROA does define when a conviction becomes spent, so the fact that "unspent" isn't defined doesn't mean it's not legally recognised. In this context, it is a conviction that hasn't become spent yet. It could be argued that if you lie about unspent convictions and get a job as a result of that, you've got it by fraud. Most companies don't want the publicity, though, so they just sack you for gross misconduct. The bottom line is that employers must have the right to do at least a basic DBS check, or the DBS wouldn't have the right to provide them. If you refuse to consent to a lawful check, they will say that your background checks weren't satisfactory and either withdraw the job offer or dismiss you. Unlock is clear about this, and they have always been trustworthy. Just because they don't supply a link to the relevant law, it doesn't make it untrue. Please don't take my query as any form of slight on Unlock or others - that was in no way my intention. I hadn't actually previously seen the link you provided. Reading through the information there it's not actually stated that disclosure is a legal requirement (like on other pages) but does discuss the honesty aspect so it seems my thinking is correct. Obviously honesty is the best policy however would still be interested to hear if anyone has convinced an employer that the role didn't require a check or has said no with unspent convictions. Hi There are examples here supporting AB2014 and the fact that someone may not be asked at interview but subsequently the business requires the question to be asked and the person has been released. Business knows it would take a brave ex-offender to take them to tribunal for unfair dismissal. In my personal experience sometimes I have not declared it to a recruitment agency because " any question suggesting a declaration is required " has not been asked. I have told a recruitment agency because they asked the or a leading question to be then told either the agency or the employer do not hire ex-offenders - especially sex-offenders. I have told a recruitment agency and gained an interview, offered a role at interview only to find out that the agency had not told the business! Yes the offer was rescinded. I have gone through the process over 2000 times and failed. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me. Very much agreed.
If you don't mind me asking what sort of work is it that you're looking for/have done in the past? Perhaps someone on here knows of something/has some ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+xI know I’m getting ahead of myself here given where I am in the process however I’ve read a number of forum posts and articles on both Unlock, Narco and elsewhere on disclosure of unspent convictions and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and was a bit curious about it all. Everywhere I’ve read says you “ legally have to disclose unspent convictions if asked” (and spent ones for certain roles that require a standard or enhanced DBS check) and all mention the ROA 1974 act (and it’s subsequent updates). I took some time and read the ROA act and could not find anywhere that says ‘you must disclose unspent convictions’. In fact the word ‘unspent’ does not appear in the text at all. Nb I did not read through schedule 1 Service disciplinary convictions (relates to army, air force, navy and armed forces acts), schedule 2 Protection for spent cautions or schedule 3 Protection for spent alternatives to prosecution Scotland. The act itself appears to simply be about rehabilitation periods (e.g. when an offence is considered spent) and that any relevant person disclosing a spent conviction is guilty of an offence. I may be missing something completely obvious or there may be another law somewhere which means that you do have to legally disclose (although I couldn’t find one when I did search). The only information I could find that doesn’t state you have to legally disclose is on the Open University website ( https://help.open.ac.uk/disclosing-a-criminal-record-when-applying-for-jobs) which under the heading “ If asked, why should you consider declaring your criminal record?” says “T his is essentially down to honesty, transparency and trust. You’ll only need to declare your record if an employer asks you, but if you fail tell the truth about your record when asked and your employer learns about it at a later date, you’re at risk of losing your job and potentially being prosecuted.
Furthermore, if you’re on licence at the time and fail to disclose information to the employer, you may be recalled back to prison.” - Obviously if you say no (and have unspent convictions) and then the (potential) employer does a basic DBS check then you are found out.
- If they don’t do a check however or if you refuse permission for them to do a check then it doesn’t seem based on what I’ve read that it’s a problem legally. I realise that the employer may not trust you at the point they found out as you haven’t told the truth.
- If however you say no record and no you cannot do a DBS check and can successfully argue that you don’t believe in DBS checks e.g. my ability to do the job/have the job offered are not dependant on a criminal record should I have one. Or Why does it matter if I have a criminal record when given that I’m not in prison means that the law has said I’m safe to be in society and that if it was a specific regulated role applied for (financial, vulnerable adults, children, police etc) then you’d be doing a standard, enhanced or barred lists check. Or I have a family member who has a criminal record and I know how hard it is for them to get work when they are asked to do a DBS check which is why I don’t believe in them.
If you do refuse to give permission for a check then it’s likely possible that you won’t be offered the role or that any offer is withdrawn of course. However if you can successfully argue that the role really doesn’t require a check or the reasons why you don’t believe in such checks yet your skills and experience clearly met/exceed the role requirements then potentially you have a job while not disclosing. Obviously, I could be missing something altogether here and I’m not advocating for anyone to lie on a job application but rather more interested in what the actual legal position is regarding disclosure. Also interested to hear if anyone has gone down the route of saying no to the box and what happened afterwards (good or bad). The ROA does define when a conviction becomes spent, so the fact that "unspent" isn't defined doesn't mean it's not legally recognised. In this context, it is a conviction that hasn't become spent yet. It could be argued that if you lie about unspent convictions and get a job as a result of that, you've got it by fraud. Most companies don't want the publicity, though, so they just sack you for gross misconduct. The bottom line is that employers must have the right to do at least a basic DBS check, or the DBS wouldn't have the right to provide them. If you refuse to consent to a lawful check, they will say that your background checks weren't satisfactory and either withdraw the job offer or dismiss you. Unlock is clear about this, and they have always been trustworthy. Just because they don't supply a link to the relevant law, it doesn't make it untrue. Please don't take my query as any form of slight on Unlock or others - that was in no way my intention. I hadn't actually previously seen the link you provided. Reading through the information there it's not actually stated that disclosure is a legal requirement (like on other pages) but does discuss the honesty aspect so it seems my thinking is correct. Obviously honesty is the best policy however would still be interested to hear if anyone has convinced an employer that the role didn't require a check or has said no with unspent convictions. Hi There are examples here supporting AB2014 and the fact that someone may not be asked at interview but subsequently the business requires the question to be asked and the person has been released. Business knows it would take a brave ex-offender to take them to tribunal for unfair dismissal. In my personal experience sometimes I have not declared it to a recruitment agency because " any question suggesting a declaration is required " has not been asked. I have told a recruitment agency because they asked the or a leading question to be then told either the agency or the employer do not hire ex-offenders - especially sex-offenders. I have told a recruitment agency and gained an interview, offered a role at interview only to find out that the agency had not told the business! Yes the offer was rescinded. I have gone through the process over 2000 times and failed. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me. Very much agreed.
If you don't mind me asking what sort of work is it that you're looking for/have done in the past? Perhaps someone on here knows of something/has some ideas. Hi No problem as at moment I am trying to formulate a plan for some sort of advice / support website facility to help ex-offenders (probably sex offenders mainly for obvious reasons) 23 years of military life so various skills there. lol Been in IT since '89 ranging from h/ware and s/ware support, developer, project management etc Had a software testing business - founder member - ISEB Qualified software tester. where I looked after all HR & IT elements. Last 20 years focused on Resource Management - recruitment, reporting of staff to Board level e.g. utilization, capacity forecasting, personal development of staff including skills and training gaps etc. love planning, data analysis, people mentoring etc. had enough of Sales related work as they are a different character set lol. Worked for various Blue chip:: Network Rail, Siemens, Capita, Belron (windscreens)
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
lotsofquer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 119,
Visits: 3.4K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI know I’m getting ahead of myself here given where I am in the process however I’ve read a number of forum posts and articles on both Unlock, Narco and elsewhere on disclosure of unspent convictions and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and was a bit curious about it all. Everywhere I’ve read says you “ legally have to disclose unspent convictions if asked” (and spent ones for certain roles that require a standard or enhanced DBS check) and all mention the ROA 1974 act (and it’s subsequent updates). I took some time and read the ROA act and could not find anywhere that says ‘you must disclose unspent convictions’. In fact the word ‘unspent’ does not appear in the text at all. Nb I did not read through schedule 1 Service disciplinary convictions (relates to army, air force, navy and armed forces acts), schedule 2 Protection for spent cautions or schedule 3 Protection for spent alternatives to prosecution Scotland. The act itself appears to simply be about rehabilitation periods (e.g. when an offence is considered spent) and that any relevant person disclosing a spent conviction is guilty of an offence. I may be missing something completely obvious or there may be another law somewhere which means that you do have to legally disclose (although I couldn’t find one when I did search). The only information I could find that doesn’t state you have to legally disclose is on the Open University website ( https://help.open.ac.uk/disclosing-a-criminal-record-when-applying-for-jobs) which under the heading “ If asked, why should you consider declaring your criminal record?” says “T his is essentially down to honesty, transparency and trust. You’ll only need to declare your record if an employer asks you, but if you fail tell the truth about your record when asked and your employer learns about it at a later date, you’re at risk of losing your job and potentially being prosecuted.
Furthermore, if you’re on licence at the time and fail to disclose information to the employer, you may be recalled back to prison.” - Obviously if you say no (and have unspent convictions) and then the (potential) employer does a basic DBS check then you are found out.
- If they don’t do a check however or if you refuse permission for them to do a check then it doesn’t seem based on what I’ve read that it’s a problem legally. I realise that the employer may not trust you at the point they found out as you haven’t told the truth.
- If however you say no record and no you cannot do a DBS check and can successfully argue that you don’t believe in DBS checks e.g. my ability to do the job/have the job offered are not dependant on a criminal record should I have one. Or Why does it matter if I have a criminal record when given that I’m not in prison means that the law has said I’m safe to be in society and that if it was a specific regulated role applied for (financial, vulnerable adults, children, police etc) then you’d be doing a standard, enhanced or barred lists check. Or I have a family member who has a criminal record and I know how hard it is for them to get work when they are asked to do a DBS check which is why I don’t believe in them.
If you do refuse to give permission for a check then it’s likely possible that you won’t be offered the role or that any offer is withdrawn of course. However if you can successfully argue that the role really doesn’t require a check or the reasons why you don’t believe in such checks yet your skills and experience clearly met/exceed the role requirements then potentially you have a job while not disclosing. Obviously, I could be missing something altogether here and I’m not advocating for anyone to lie on a job application but rather more interested in what the actual legal position is regarding disclosure. Also interested to hear if anyone has gone down the route of saying no to the box and what happened afterwards (good or bad). The ROA does define when a conviction becomes spent, so the fact that "unspent" isn't defined doesn't mean it's not legally recognised. In this context, it is a conviction that hasn't become spent yet. It could be argued that if you lie about unspent convictions and get a job as a result of that, you've got it by fraud. Most companies don't want the publicity, though, so they just sack you for gross misconduct. The bottom line is that employers must have the right to do at least a basic DBS check, or the DBS wouldn't have the right to provide them. If you refuse to consent to a lawful check, they will say that your background checks weren't satisfactory and either withdraw the job offer or dismiss you. Unlock is clear about this, and they have always been trustworthy. Just because they don't supply a link to the relevant law, it doesn't make it untrue. Please don't take my query as any form of slight on Unlock or others - that was in no way my intention. I hadn't actually previously seen the link you provided. Reading through the information there it's not actually stated that disclosure is a legal requirement (like on other pages) but does discuss the honesty aspect so it seems my thinking is correct. Obviously honesty is the best policy however would still be interested to hear if anyone has convinced an employer that the role didn't require a check or has said no with unspent convictions. Hi There are examples here supporting AB2014 and the fact that someone may not be asked at interview but subsequently the business requires the question to be asked and the person has been released. Business knows it would take a brave ex-offender to take them to tribunal for unfair dismissal. In my personal experience sometimes I have not declared it to a recruitment agency because " any question suggesting a declaration is required " has not been asked. I have told a recruitment agency because they asked the or a leading question to be then told either the agency or the employer do not hire ex-offenders - especially sex-offenders. I have told a recruitment agency and gained an interview, offered a role at interview only to find out that the agency had not told the business! Yes the offer was rescinded. I have gone through the process over 2000 times and failed. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me. Very much agreed.
If you don't mind me asking what sort of work is it that you're looking for/have done in the past? Perhaps someone on here knows of something/has some ideas. Hi No problem as at moment I am trying to formulate a plan for some sort of advice / support website facility to help ex-offenders (probably sex offenders mainly for obvious reasons) 23 years of military life so various skills there. lol Been in IT since '89 ranging from h/ware and s/ware support, developer, project management etc Had a software testing business - founder member - ISEB Qualified software tester. where I looked after all HR & IT elements. Last 20 years focused on Resource Management - recruitment, reporting of staff to Board level e.g. utilization, capacity forecasting, personal development of staff including skills and training gaps etc. love planning, data analysis, people mentoring etc. had enough of Sales related work as they are a different character set lol. Worked for various Blue chip:: Network Rail, Siemens, Capita, Belron (windscreens) Wow - a lot of experiance! I'm sure you have but have you considered going back in to software testing - either for yourself or a small firm (that may not ask for a check)?
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI know I’m getting ahead of myself here given where I am in the process however I’ve read a number of forum posts and articles on both Unlock, Narco and elsewhere on disclosure of unspent convictions and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and was a bit curious about it all. Everywhere I’ve read says you “ legally have to disclose unspent convictions if asked” (and spent ones for certain roles that require a standard or enhanced DBS check) and all mention the ROA 1974 act (and it’s subsequent updates). I took some time and read the ROA act and could not find anywhere that says ‘you must disclose unspent convictions’. In fact the word ‘unspent’ does not appear in the text at all. Nb I did not read through schedule 1 Service disciplinary convictions (relates to army, air force, navy and armed forces acts), schedule 2 Protection for spent cautions or schedule 3 Protection for spent alternatives to prosecution Scotland. The act itself appears to simply be about rehabilitation periods (e.g. when an offence is considered spent) and that any relevant person disclosing a spent conviction is guilty of an offence. I may be missing something completely obvious or there may be another law somewhere which means that you do have to legally disclose (although I couldn’t find one when I did search). The only information I could find that doesn’t state you have to legally disclose is on the Open University website ( https://help.open.ac.uk/disclosing-a-criminal-record-when-applying-for-jobs) which under the heading “ If asked, why should you consider declaring your criminal record?” says “T his is essentially down to honesty, transparency and trust. You’ll only need to declare your record if an employer asks you, but if you fail tell the truth about your record when asked and your employer learns about it at a later date, you’re at risk of losing your job and potentially being prosecuted.
Furthermore, if you’re on licence at the time and fail to disclose information to the employer, you may be recalled back to prison.” - Obviously if you say no (and have unspent convictions) and then the (potential) employer does a basic DBS check then you are found out.
- If they don’t do a check however or if you refuse permission for them to do a check then it doesn’t seem based on what I’ve read that it’s a problem legally. I realise that the employer may not trust you at the point they found out as you haven’t told the truth.
- If however you say no record and no you cannot do a DBS check and can successfully argue that you don’t believe in DBS checks e.g. my ability to do the job/have the job offered are not dependant on a criminal record should I have one. Or Why does it matter if I have a criminal record when given that I’m not in prison means that the law has said I’m safe to be in society and that if it was a specific regulated role applied for (financial, vulnerable adults, children, police etc) then you’d be doing a standard, enhanced or barred lists check. Or I have a family member who has a criminal record and I know how hard it is for them to get work when they are asked to do a DBS check which is why I don’t believe in them.
If you do refuse to give permission for a check then it’s likely possible that you won’t be offered the role or that any offer is withdrawn of course. However if you can successfully argue that the role really doesn’t require a check or the reasons why you don’t believe in such checks yet your skills and experience clearly met/exceed the role requirements then potentially you have a job while not disclosing. Obviously, I could be missing something altogether here and I’m not advocating for anyone to lie on a job application but rather more interested in what the actual legal position is regarding disclosure. Also interested to hear if anyone has gone down the route of saying no to the box and what happened afterwards (good or bad). The ROA does define when a conviction becomes spent, so the fact that "unspent" isn't defined doesn't mean it's not legally recognised. In this context, it is a conviction that hasn't become spent yet. It could be argued that if you lie about unspent convictions and get a job as a result of that, you've got it by fraud. Most companies don't want the publicity, though, so they just sack you for gross misconduct. The bottom line is that employers must have the right to do at least a basic DBS check, or the DBS wouldn't have the right to provide them. If you refuse to consent to a lawful check, they will say that your background checks weren't satisfactory and either withdraw the job offer or dismiss you. Unlock is clear about this, and they have always been trustworthy. Just because they don't supply a link to the relevant law, it doesn't make it untrue. Please don't take my query as any form of slight on Unlock or others - that was in no way my intention. I hadn't actually previously seen the link you provided. Reading through the information there it's not actually stated that disclosure is a legal requirement (like on other pages) but does discuss the honesty aspect so it seems my thinking is correct. Obviously honesty is the best policy however would still be interested to hear if anyone has convinced an employer that the role didn't require a check or has said no with unspent convictions. Hi There are examples here supporting AB2014 and the fact that someone may not be asked at interview but subsequently the business requires the question to be asked and the person has been released. Business knows it would take a brave ex-offender to take them to tribunal for unfair dismissal. In my personal experience sometimes I have not declared it to a recruitment agency because " any question suggesting a declaration is required " has not been asked. I have told a recruitment agency because they asked the or a leading question to be then told either the agency or the employer do not hire ex-offenders - especially sex-offenders. I have told a recruitment agency and gained an interview, offered a role at interview only to find out that the agency had not told the business! Yes the offer was rescinded. I have gone through the process over 2000 times and failed. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me. Very much agreed.
If you don't mind me asking what sort of work is it that you're looking for/have done in the past? Perhaps someone on here knows of something/has some ideas. Hi No problem as at moment I am trying to formulate a plan for some sort of advice / support website facility to help ex-offenders (probably sex offenders mainly for obvious reasons) 23 years of military life so various skills there. lol Been in IT since '89 ranging from h/ware and s/ware support, developer, project management etc Had a software testing business - founder member - ISEB Qualified software tester. where I looked after all HR & IT elements. Last 20 years focused on Resource Management - recruitment, reporting of staff to Board level e.g. utilization, capacity forecasting, personal development of staff including skills and training gaps etc. love planning, data analysis, people mentoring etc. had enough of Sales related work as they are a different character set lol. Worked for various Blue chip:: Network Rail, Siemens, Capita, Belron (windscreens) Wow - a lot of experiance! I'm sure you have but have you considered going back in to software testing - either for yourself or a small firm (that may not ask for a check)? Hi After over 2000 application with varying types of businesses , a quick analysis would possible show the following: (a) Agencies not responding for various reasons: CV shows time out of my type of work -2 years prison then while trying to get a job; I have at some time declared to them and either they do not or the business do not work with offenders especially sex offenders. (b) when not required to declare prior to interview I have been offered numerous contract / permanent roles but then had to declare and they pull offer. I was once offered a interview and 15 mins into it I walked out as the interviews just asked questions about the details of the offence and then deeper questions on and on. (c) local businesses made by a direct approach is dangerous due to the possibility of it being public knowledge. Most have a form to write details in, or if a telephone chat - keeping my address secret - they will not hire a sex offender. Saying that I was going for a part time role at an estate agents. I would be showing buyers around empty property for sale. My PPU said I could not do it and would talk to the estate agents to stop it. Reason being - I could go to the property and there would be a child there by themselves!! No matter what I said they would not change they opinion; though you could see their embarrassment. Anyway I will not give up hope until I know I cannot work for definante. I wish you all the success.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
Harry
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 86,
Visits: 190
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI know I’m getting ahead of myself here given where I am in the process however I’ve read a number of forum posts and articles on both Unlock, Narco and elsewhere on disclosure of unspent convictions and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and was a bit curious about it all. Everywhere I’ve read says you “ legally have to disclose unspent convictions if asked” (and spent ones for certain roles that require a standard or enhanced DBS check) and all mention the ROA 1974 act (and it’s subsequent updates). I took some time and read the ROA act and could not find anywhere that says ‘you must disclose unspent convictions’. In fact the word ‘unspent’ does not appear in the text at all. Nb I did not read through schedule 1 Service disciplinary convictions (relates to army, air force, navy and armed forces acts), schedule 2 Protection for spent cautions or schedule 3 Protection for spent alternatives to prosecution Scotland. The act itself appears to simply be about rehabilitation periods (e.g. when an offence is considered spent) and that any relevant person disclosing a spent conviction is guilty of an offence. I may be missing something completely obvious or there may be another law somewhere which means that you do have to legally disclose (although I couldn’t find one when I did search). The only information I could find that doesn’t state you have to legally disclose is on the Open University website ( https://help.open.ac.uk/disclosing-a-criminal-record-when-applying-for-jobs) which under the heading “ If asked, why should you consider declaring your criminal record?” says “T his is essentially down to honesty, transparency and trust. You’ll only need to declare your record if an employer asks you, but if you fail tell the truth about your record when asked and your employer learns about it at a later date, you’re at risk of losing your job and potentially being prosecuted.
Furthermore, if you’re on licence at the time and fail to disclose information to the employer, you may be recalled back to prison.” - Obviously if you say no (and have unspent convictions) and then the (potential) employer does a basic DBS check then you are found out.
- If they don’t do a check however or if you refuse permission for them to do a check then it doesn’t seem based on what I’ve read that it’s a problem legally. I realise that the employer may not trust you at the point they found out as you haven’t told the truth.
- If however you say no record and no you cannot do a DBS check and can successfully argue that you don’t believe in DBS checks e.g. my ability to do the job/have the job offered are not dependant on a criminal record should I have one. Or Why does it matter if I have a criminal record when given that I’m not in prison means that the law has said I’m safe to be in society and that if it was a specific regulated role applied for (financial, vulnerable adults, children, police etc) then you’d be doing a standard, enhanced or barred lists check. Or I have a family member who has a criminal record and I know how hard it is for them to get work when they are asked to do a DBS check which is why I don’t believe in them.
If you do refuse to give permission for a check then it’s likely possible that you won’t be offered the role or that any offer is withdrawn of course. However if you can successfully argue that the role really doesn’t require a check or the reasons why you don’t believe in such checks yet your skills and experience clearly met/exceed the role requirements then potentially you have a job while not disclosing. Obviously, I could be missing something altogether here and I’m not advocating for anyone to lie on a job application but rather more interested in what the actual legal position is regarding disclosure. Also interested to hear if anyone has gone down the route of saying no to the box and what happened afterwards (good or bad). The ROA does define when a conviction becomes spent, so the fact that "unspent" isn't defined doesn't mean it's not legally recognised. In this context, it is a conviction that hasn't become spent yet. It could be argued that if you lie about unspent convictions and get a job as a result of that, you've got it by fraud. Most companies don't want the publicity, though, so they just sack you for gross misconduct. The bottom line is that employers must have the right to do at least a basic DBS check, or the DBS wouldn't have the right to provide them. If you refuse to consent to a lawful check, they will say that your background checks weren't satisfactory and either withdraw the job offer or dismiss you. Unlock is clear about this, and they have always been trustworthy. Just because they don't supply a link to the relevant law, it doesn't make it untrue. Please don't take my query as any form of slight on Unlock or others - that was in no way my intention. I hadn't actually previously seen the link you provided. Reading through the information there it's not actually stated that disclosure is a legal requirement (like on other pages) but does discuss the honesty aspect so it seems my thinking is correct. Obviously honesty is the best policy however would still be interested to hear if anyone has convinced an employer that the role didn't require a check or has said no with unspent convictions. Hi There are examples here supporting AB2014 and the fact that someone may not be asked at interview but subsequently the business requires the question to be asked and the person has been released. Business knows it would take a brave ex-offender to take them to tribunal for unfair dismissal. In my personal experience sometimes I have not declared it to a recruitment agency because " any question suggesting a declaration is required " has not been asked. I have told a recruitment agency because they asked the or a leading question to be then told either the agency or the employer do not hire ex-offenders - especially sex-offenders. I have told a recruitment agency and gained an interview, offered a role at interview only to find out that the agency had not told the business! Yes the offer was rescinded. I have gone through the process over 2000 times and failed. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me. I still stand by the stance of honesty. This is not just because I am an ex-offender, but because I expect that from others as they should expect it from me. Very much agreed.
If you don't mind me asking what sort of work is it that you're looking for/have done in the past? Perhaps someone on here knows of something/has some ideas. Hi No problem as at moment I am trying to formulate a plan for some sort of advice / support website facility to help ex-offenders (probably sex offenders mainly for obvious reasons) 23 years of military life so various skills there. lol Been in IT since '89 ranging from h/ware and s/ware support, developer, project management etc Had a software testing business - founder member - ISEB Qualified software tester. where I looked after all HR & IT elements. Last 20 years focused on Resource Management - recruitment, reporting of staff to Board level e.g. utilization, capacity forecasting, personal development of staff including skills and training gaps etc. love planning, data analysis, people mentoring etc. had enough of Sales related work as they are a different character set lol. Worked for various Blue chip:: Network Rail, Siemens, Capita, Belron (windscreens) Wow - a lot of experiance! I'm sure you have but have you considered going back in to software testing - either for yourself or a small firm (that may not ask for a check)? Hi After over 2000 application with varying types of businesses , a quick analysis would possible show the following: (a) Agencies not responding for various reasons: CV shows time out of my type of work -2 years prison then while trying to get a job; I have at some time declared to them and either they do not or the business do not work with offenders especially sex offenders. (b) when not required to declare prior to interview I have been offered numerous contract / permanent roles but then had to declare and they pull offer. I was once offered a interview and 15 mins into it I walked out as the interviews just asked questions about the details of the offence and then deeper questions on and on. (c) local businesses made by a direct approach is dangerous due to the possibility of it being public knowledge. Most have a form to write details in, or if a telephone chat - keeping my address secret - they will not hire a sex offender. Saying that I was going for a part time role at an estate agents. I would be showing buyers around empty property for sale. My PPU said I could not do it and would talk to the estate agents to stop it. Reason being - I could go to the property and there would be a child there by themselves!! No matter what I said they would not change they opinion; though you could see their embarrassment. Anyway I will not give up hope until I know I cannot work for definante. I wish you all the success. I am more interested in travelling abroad and when the visa application asked "Have you ever?..." in the UK we can say no, if the conviction is Spent. But do other countries recognise this? People could quite ignorantly apply for visas, not referring to a Spent conviction, thinking it does not have to be mentioned, only to be refused at Immigration. At least reading recent news about the new Shenghen visa, if a conviction was more than 10 years ago, we do not have to admit it. Is this correct?
|
|
|
|