Can i work in a school with a criminal record?
Options
Comments
-
I'll say again, I thought he told the story to the point that we understood the circumstances and by implication how it has changed his life to the point of taking on employment as a school caretaker. I don't think he is making excuses - he has stated how hard done by he was - but this is at least partially relevant. He has done his time - "paid his debt to society" and I find it somewhat on the offensive side that you are requiring him to show remorse - particularly as nothing seems to indicate that he lacks remorse.Oldernotwiser wrote: »I do appreciate that and thought of it as I typed my reply. However, that isn't the case for the OP who admits the offence but still seems to be making excuses for it rather than admitting full responsibility.
It is a bit like asking every passing German to apologise for the war.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
While a school should look at all of the circumstances, I think that their judgement must be based on the relevance to child protection. The CRB is handing certain employers a huge wodge of info which was not available at one time and is facilitating judgement on aspects which are substantially irrelevant.I think that the point is being somewhat missed here. Whilst it is within the power of the employer to decide not to take this conviction into account, they must look at all the circumstances, not just how long ago the conviction was. The OP may well be open to talking to people about the conviction, but if he does so in the way that he has done in his post, then it is not about remorse - it is about not recognising the seriousness of his crime or that it matters too much. There is a difference between apologetic and apologistic. I have utterly no problems with schools or anyone else employing people with criminal records, but I would have a problem if the message that person was peddling about their conviction is that "it's unfair because it was only a little bit of stolen goods and that shouldn't matter".Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I think the OP SHOULD have had an eCRB in place, but visiting tradesmen wouldn't IMO need one, because they shouldn't ever be left unsupervised with the children.
Plus, if the OP was regarded as self-employed, he couldn't have got one done on himself.
It sounds to me as if the school's policies and procedures are a complete and utter mess.
Nope - even contractors on school sites must have them. Being on the school site brings them into potential contact with children - a child who recognises someone from school, no matter how cursory that contact may have been, may trust them. Visiting tradesmen - ie people visiting the site (the milkman) do not need them, alhtough they should never be on site unsuprevised. But workmen on the site do. So if there is a school extension being built, the contractor must eCRB all employees on the job, unless the whole of the job is completed in school holidays. A caretaker certainly must have one.0 -
DVardysShadow wrote: »I'll say again, I thought he told the story to the point that we understood the circumstances and by implication how it has changed his life to the point of taking on employment as a school caretaker. I don't think he is making excuses - he has stated how hard done by he was - but this is at least partially relevant. He has done his time - "paid his debt to society" and I find it somewhat on the offensive side that you are requiring him to show remorse - particularly as nothing seems to indicate that he lacks remorse.
It is a bit like asking every passing German to apologise for the war.
Not a good analogy, however, imo it is not unreasonable to ask those Germans who were directly involved to show remorse. The OP is one such German.Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I think the OP SHOULD have had an eCRB in place, but visiting tradesmen wouldn't IMO need one, because they shouldn't ever be left unsupervised with the children.
Plus, if the OP was regarded as self-employed, he couldn't have got one done on himself.
It sounds to me as if the school's policies and procedures are a complete and utter mess.
We have a policy of requiring CRB's for every contractor/sub contractor who is on school premises.0 -
Hello Again.
Great views. To set things straight the Head did not want me to go. The Governors were not informed. HR forced the head to Dismiss me. This HR guidelines allows contractors in without a CRB and since I have been gone, a contractor they have used does not have a CRB. The offence was in 1994 and I have paid in more ways than one. Computers then were a total different game then. I had £250000 worth of equipment siezed by police and they stopped customers paying monies owed to a total of over £60000.
When all the equipment was returned 2 months after I was in prison the value was less than £10000. Every single item I sold had an invoice which came back to me. I did have proof of purchases but they somehow went missing once in police property. Fact, One of my salesman whom I sacked, went on to work for West Kent College. During his time there, they were robbed 3 times with no sign of forced entry. After he left, the local Kent police raided his home and found bits of equipment from all 3 breakins along with a set of 26 keys to West Kent College. He was chargered in my case but was found not guilty as he answered questions that made me look in the wrong. After when the jurty had gone it came out that it was not in the publics interest to go any further with the 3 robbery charges and he walked. The prosecution against me took 45 minutes as they had nothing. The Judge took 2 full days blaming me. I was on the end of the most bent team of police you would ever want to meet and they stole money and equipment. Proving it is another totally different ballgame. Never neen in trouble before my business and nothing since. I have no remorse because I was not guilty. Believe me it can happen to any of us and I hope it never does.
But I still believe in Law and Order and am totally gutted I lost my job because of some jobsworth in HR who was not interested it what I had to offer the school. I have never lost anything since then and even if I only get a weeks money for to dismissal notice against Hr ,it will be a result for me. I cannot believe a faceless person can take your work away and that same person will be out of work in April.
Keep them coming, thank you0 -
I am sorry but you seem very naive. The Head may have expressed to you that he/she did not wish you to go, but ultimately they(and the governors) do have the final say, and they have bowed to the advice given by HR. You have had it from the horses mouth, the business manager told you that if they did not take the advice "they were on their own" it could not be clearer. They have chosen to take the advice, at your expense.
It may be easier for you to believe that it was a decision taken by HR but take it from me that is not the case, that is not how school governance or management works. As for governors not being involved, again, that is naive, it may not be an "official minuted involvement" but they will have been consulted, on, or off, the record.0 -
Nope - even contractors on school sites must have them. Being on the school site brings them into potential contact with children - a child who recognises someone from school, no matter how cursory that contact may have been, may trust them. Visiting tradesmen - ie people visiting the site (the milkman) do not need them, alhtough they should never be on site unsuprevised. But workmen on the site do. So if there is a school extension being built, the contractor must eCRB all employees on the job, unless the whole of the job is completed in school holidays. A caretaker certainly must have one.
I think I am thinking not so much of someone who is 'there' doing a long term job so much as the 'visiting specialist' who's in and out, and without unsupervised access allowed, eg the photocopier engineer.We have a policy of requiring CRB's for every contractor/sub contractor who is on school premises.
But it is a long time since I was completely au fait with the rules, which may have changed since then. I do remember a conversation with someone who was responsible for a team of photocopier engineers and wondered if they should have CRB checks, because they might be going in to nursery schools: I could see no way that this was allowed under the CRB regs of the time, since clearly the engineer should never be unsupervised with the children, especially if machinery with small parts was being dismantled and nasty chemicals wafted around!Signature removed for peace of mind0 -
I think I am thinking not so much of someone who is 'there' doing a long term job so much as the 'visiting specialist' who's in and out, and without unsupervised access allowed, eg the photocopier engineer.
But it is a long time since I was completely au fait with the rules, which may have changed since then. I do remember a conversation with someone who was responsible for a team of photocopier engineers and wondered if they should have CRB checks, because they might be going in to nursery schools: I could see no way that this was allowed under the CRB regs of the time, since clearly the engineer should never be unsupervised with the children, especially if machinery with small parts was being dismantled and nasty chemicals wafted around!
Yes - I did say the milkman wasn't included! Similarly it would not be necessary for the photocopier engineer - although believe it or not a number of them are, not because they go into schools per se, but because they go in a lot of places you'd want to know their trustworthiness in. Stranegly, banks, prisons, and even spies headquarters all have photocopiers!0 -
DVardysShadow wrote: »I'll say again, I thought he told the story to the point that we understood the circumstances and by implication how it has changed his life to the point of taking on employment as a school caretaker. I don't think he is making excuses - he has stated how hard done by he was - but this is at least partially relevant. He has done his time - "paid his debt to society" and I find it somewhat on the offensive side that you are requiring him to show remorse - particularly as nothing seems to indicate that he lacks remorse.
It is a bit like asking every passing German to apologise for the war.
It's not a question of showing remorse (although that's no bad thing) but the excuses and minimising of the crime ( 3 years for a first offence is pretty major) that is sticking in the craw for some of us.0 -
This CRB check thing is complete rubbish, proper guidlines need to be in place and common sense applied by employers, all you need to do to get a criminal record is swear in public or be drunk and disorderly, this does not make you a bad person or a child abuser, yet it's enough to potentialy destroy a promising career as a teacher (for example), in all the cases of child abuse within the school and nursey environment the people involved have had clear CRB checks, this sugests the system doesn't work as all it does is discriminate against those who may have made a mistake in the past but nothing even close to child abuse, I'm just wondering what the Human Rights people have to say on this one.I hate football and do wish people wouldn't keep talking about it like it's the most important thing in the world0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards