criminal record- does this mean they cant work with children

junkmayle

Savvy Sue - Why on earth should I justify my 'crime' to you or any other employer? The circumstances and arguments are heard at the time by the highly qualified and highly expensive legal profession and a judgement is made then. Anyway, I would only give you my side of things, sanitised and possibly with omissions. You are not going to seek out the other side and listen to thier side are you? The judge is paid enough and qualified enough to make the judgement. I will not permit anyone else to pass 'judgement' on my 'crime' over and over again, be it HR suits or self righteous committee members. Once a conviction is spent, it should be just that. Gone. Deleted. Habitual criminals will remain on file due to thier ongoing actions and people who make a silly mistake will eventually be able to move on with thier lives. As an aside, if I were a youth skirting the edge of criminality, I would rather talk to someone who had been there, done that, come out the other side, you know, have an edge to them, rather than a wishy washy do-gooder spouting stuff they know nothing of, whose only crime is taking a library book back 20 minutes late. Sorry for the rant.

Savvy_Sue

junkmayle wrote: »

Savvy Sue - Why on earth should I justify my 'crime' to you or any other employer? The circumstances and arguments are heard at the time by the highly qualified and highly expensive legal profession and a judgement is made then. Anyway, I would only give you my side of things, sanitised and possibly with omissions. You are not going to seek out the other side and listen to thier side are you? The judge is paid enough and qualified enough to make the judgement. I will not permit anyone else to pass 'judgement' on my 'crime' over and over again, be it HR suits or self righteous committee members. Once a conviction is spent, it should be just that. Gone. Deleted. Habitual criminals will remain on file due to thier ongoing actions and people who make a silly mistake will eventually be able to move on with thier lives. As an aside, if I were a youth skirting the edge of criminality, I would rather talk to someone who had been there, done that, come out the other side, you know, have an edge to them, rather than a wishy washy do-gooder spouting stuff they know nothing of, whose only crime is taking a library book back 20 minutes late. Sorry for the rant.

I'm not asking you to justify anything. It's up to you what you disclose to a prospective employer: the bald fact of having a ciminal conviction of some kind by ticking the box on the CRB form, or more details if you so wish. Clearly you don't.

However, I DO have to make a judgement as to whether your crime is relevant to your work with children. In the case the OP describes, I'd say probably not: it was not recent, so the person is not a habitual offender, it does not immediately put children at risk.

That is all I meant by forming a judgement. And since you know nothing about my background, how can you possibly know whether I have an 'edge' or I'm just a wishy washer do gooder?

junkmayle

Sue - The wishy washy do-gooder was not aimed at you. I was merely attempting to highlight the stupidity of only allowing people with 'clean' CRBs anywhere near (older) children. By definition, the only people who can talk about, say, gang or drug culture are the one who have been there and done that. Also, can you define what you mean by 'put the child at risk' in the ladies case. Risk of what?

LottieB

Hi

As a recruiter in the healthcare sector I can say that if you're completely honest on application forms and at interview, a criminal record may not be an issue at all. Personally I'd only turn down someone based on criminal record if it was assult etc, things like being caught with some LSD 20 years ago or shoplifting at 16 I don't care about. But if someone hadn't declared a conviction or warning and it came up on the CRB I'd be more concerned.

Saying that, we generally just talk to people when this happens and ask why they didn't declare it, the usual answer is they didn't realise they had to as it was spent, and as long as they are genuine and the offense isn't a concern to our patients, we continue with employment.

Savvy_Sue

junkmayle wrote: »

Sue - The wishy washy do-gooder was not aimed at you. I was merely attempting to highlight the stupidity of only allowing people with 'clean' CRBs anywhere near (older) children.

Actually, I'm with you on the stupidity of thinking that a blank CRB does anything much to safeguard children of any age! The CRB was only ever PART of our selection processes, and as it turned out a fairly minor part.

junkmayle wrote: »

By definition, the only people who can talk about, say, gang or drug culture are the one who have been there and done that. Also, can you define what you mean by 'put the child at risk' in the ladies case. Risk of what?

Well, I don't wish to go into details, but I'm now in a line of work which does attract a fair percentage of people who may well have a criminal record.

So to speak generally, would an 'old' drug conviction put me off employing someone to work with young children? Probably not, but if I had any doubts about whether the person was still using drugs, even occasionally, it would. Would an 'old' conviction for some sexual offence put me off? That's where I would discuss anonymously with someone else, and hope the person would have offered some kind of explanation.

As for working with older children, if people don't offer some kind of explanation it's very hard to know whether this was the time they were unlucky and they are still engaged in the same behaviour, or if they're now absolutely fine. And in this climate of paranoia, you will find people reluctant to take risks.

BTW, I do know several people with convictions on their CRBs working with vulnerable and young people, including in quite senior positions.

And I know too that I'm more of a risk-taker in this area than others. When I was setting up the out of school club and we had a very 'interesting' police check come back, my colleague on the management committee and I both agreed that this person would be fine, just as long as parents never found out!

amcluesent

I've heard different points of view from recruiters into the public sector. On the one hand, HR in the public sector actually see it as part of their remit in social responsibility to hire ex-offenders where appropriate.

The said, it's offences which suggest a deceitful turn of mind and planning to commit an offence which causes concern, rather than someone get drunk & disorderly as a youth, i.e. a 'one off' aberration.

DKLS

I have just been told, I have to have a CRB check for my contract, does my head in, I never come into contact with kids!!! and never will.

junkmayle

Im still waiting for anyone to clearly explain how the OP friends 13 year old conviction for benefit fraud puts any child at 'risk' and to clearly state what they would be at 'risk' of. There seems to be many that will say she is a 'risk' but cannot articulate why or how? If you are one of those many, maybe you need to have a long hard think about why you have fallen for the goverment myth that anyone without a 'clean' CRB is a 'risk' and ask yourself the true purpose of the ever widening list of jobs that 'need' a CRB.

[Deleted User]

junkmayle wrote: »

Im still waiting for anyone to clearly explain how the OP friends 13 year old conviction for benefit fraud puts any child at 'risk' and to clearly state what they would be at 'risk' of. There seems to be many that will say she is a 'risk' but cannot articulate why or how? If you are one of those many, maybe you need to have a long hard think about why you have fallen for the goverment myth that anyone without a 'clean' CRB is a 'risk' and ask yourself the true purpose of the ever widening list of jobs that 'need' a CRB.

The crime you talk about would not nesessarly make someone a risk to children, however it would be a risk to the employer. Benefit fraud = fraud, deception, theft. If working with highly sensitive data such as names, addresses and vulnerabilities and also the employers money and resources the same person could be a risk of exploiting that data or resources for their own benefit. This is why you should explain your actions, intentions, situation at the time of the offence. This is what establishes you would not do this whilst in employment. That your situation led to that crime, take away the situation/age/state of mind the criminal behaviour wont apear.

Yes this has all been heard by a Court before but the potential employer has no access to this. You want the job, explain and justify. Dont want the job then dont bother and be rejected.

Unless the crime is horrific such as child abuse, it does not exclude a person from working with children. I could talk to you on a private level about this from experience and knowledge, but then probably wont as it seems you would rather believe their is a government myth than listen to those with experience, but that myth is on your head, they have never actually published anything saying anyone without a 'clean' CRB is a 'risk'.

[Deleted User]

DKLS wrote: »

I have just been told, I have to have a CRB check for my contract, does my head in, I never come into contact with kids!!! and never will.

CRB's dont just apply to working with children. It also applies to working with vulnerable adults, even indirectly and sensitve data in relation to both. Our admin who never have contact with kids have them done as do the IT dept, caretakers etc