ABH Caution and the NHS

d123

surreysaver wrote: »

But they only agreed to accept the caution after being told lies by the poilce

The major problem you will have, is proving that is how it happened.

Quixotic

The Act in question is the Home Office Circular 6/2006

Found here:

http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/HO/circular .nsf/79755433dd36a66980256d4f004d1514/6219d569 2a5aa023802571370054cf4d?OpenDocument

It talks about the occupations that are affected and should be shown to people considering accepting a caution.

It is her word against theirs but they clearly haven't followed procedure and if she would have seen such lists she would have chanced her 'day in court' and probably won. (As we'd have taken photos of her black and blue arms and legs, characters witnesses etc etc)

Do you guys think she has a case?

Quixotic

Any more advice out there will be hugely appreciated.

Savvy_Sue

I am sure I heard a news item earlier today (BBC Radio 4) about a former thief who had had problems getting into medical school because of his previous convictions. I cannot find a link online, but wonder whether if you could, it would lead to other information / support groups.

It is of course a delicate balance between protecting the public and allowing people to make something of their lives after committing an offence.

surreysaver

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I am sure I heard a news item earlier today (BBC Radio 4) about a former thief who had had problems getting into medical school because of his previous convictions. I cannot find a link online, but wonder whether if you could, it would lead to other information / support groups.

It is of course a delicate balance between protecting the public and allowing people to make something of their lives after committing an offence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7483856.stm

The difference being this idiot was properly convicted in a court (although a minor at the time - could that have any bearing?), he would have planned his crime, so it is a lot different than someone acting in self defence. I wouldn't want him being my doctor - these days people are far too wary and it doesn't take a lot for a professional to lose both their respect and their collegues' respect.

Savvy_Sue

Thanks for finding it: I had only half heard the item anyway but thought at the time it might be of interest to Quixotic.

and I agree it is different, in that it was a conviction rather than a caution.

There's a (cynical) part of me which wonders whether there is more to that story than was reported: was there a 'history' or was this a completely out of character one-off offence? And it's also very different in that he has not yet started his course, and must have many other options, including doing a different degree and applying for a conversion course when it's been more years since the offence.

Because I really don't believe that ONE conviction makes someone automatically unsuitable to be a doctor. At 18 he's far too young from my perspective, and will be for a good few years - showing my age here! - but if it was one stupid mistake at the age of 15 I probably won't care about it by the time he's 25.

Quixotic

Thanks guys for bringing that case up.

I do think people can make mistakes and go on to be reformed characters. This chap obviously must have taken the time, effort and drive to do some pretty heavy study at college to be considered on the Uni course, so hats off to him for that.

It is a shame that he can't do what he wants to do and I agree that someone at 15 once they've grown up and are 25, could be too different people.

People do need to be give a chance and in my opinion, know the hard work that a friend of mine put into becoming a Doctor, so if he did all that I would have him as my GP.

It is a delicate balance between protecting the public and allowing people to make something of their lives after committing an offence.

It just seems draconian that in a world so vibrant with technology and progression, that simple common sense cannont be used in these kind of situations and cautions must stand for 100 years.

surreysaver

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

There's a (cynical) part of me which wonders whether there is more to that story than was reported: was there a 'history' or was this a completely out of character one-off offence?

Its not you being cynical. There is always more to a story than is reported in the media (even the BBC!). The press will generally only show one side of the argument. Everything I have seen/read/heard in the media that I actually know the facts of have been misrepresented, whether just simple errors, half the story left out or blantant lies.

junkmayle

This is a prime example. What use will the CRB check and the 'spent' offence have served if this obviously hard working young man who has now found his way onto the straight and narrow cant get into the work he is obviously capable of. What if, a few years down the line, disillusioned because he is never allowed to forget his past, islamic fundamentalists get thier hooks into him and he decides to strike back against society in the worst possible way. A little far fetched I know but not beyond bounds of impossibility. Anyway, the holier than thou attitude of the college - Imperial College said the public "must have confidence in the integrity and probity of its doctors". "Medical practitioners hold a position of responsibility within society." Imperial College conducted an assessment of whether Mr Ahmed could be considered a risk to patients, and decided he would. - stinks. Just ask Harold Shipmans patients about the integrity of thier GP. Just ask Sally Clarke about Roy Meadows. Oh no you cant cos Mrs Clarke is dead, no thanks to Meadows false evidence and yet he is still allowed to practice. Both with squeaky clean CRB checks and yet people are dead?