criminal record- does this mean they cant work with children

junkmayle

Welcome back Woody01. I had hoped your absence was due to you having a good hard think about what you think these children are at risk of. But no. You say she is a risk, but like Shel, you are unable (not unwilling because I believe you would love to prove me wrong) to clearly state what these kids are at risk of. Like Shel also, you merely try to deflect people away from your inability to argue your case.

As far as point 3 goes, dont you care that you are also working hard to keep funding me my JSA and all other related benefits, simply because of a caution years ago makes it nigh on impossible to get a job. Some councils now want binmen to be CRB checked. Why? You state that you are not whiter than white so you imply that you have broken the law but have not been caught.

The false allegation is an attempt to make you understand that, should I make an allegation against you that may be totally false, a record is kept and disclosed on an enhanced CRB check. You have no right to change this info and often, the allegation is disclosed only to the employer, not you, so you may never know of it. If you think thats fair, you are well on your way to getting the society you deserve.

In response to your second post, you cant answer a question twice that you havent even answered once. Yes, you think she is a risk. Answer this

What are the kids at that club at risk of?

A 10 word question with every word containing only one syllable. The question is THAT simple.

junkmayle

Kurjam - I think that Woody01 is trying to say that I am your friend, simply because I am to defend, rather than damn them to hell forever.

[Deleted User]

junkmayle wrote: »

Welcome back Woody01. I had hoped your absence was due to you having a good hard think about what you think these children are at risk of. But no. You say she is a risk, but like Shel, you are unable (not unwilling because I believe you would love to prove me wrong) to clearly state what these kids are at risk of. Like Shel also, you merely try to deflect people away from your inability to argue your case.

As far as point 3 goes, dont you care that you are also working hard to keep funding me my JSA and all other related benefits, simply because of a caution years ago makes it nigh on impossible to get a job. Some councils now want binmen to be CRB checked. Why? You state that you are not whiter than white so you imply that you have broken the law but have not been caught.

Which councils? There is absolutly no baisis in law that would allow them to force a crb of a binman. They do not work with any specified groups nor are they privy to vulnerable data. In this is the case the potential bin man could refuse and take a case to tribunial and win if refused a job on that basis.

The false allegation is an attempt to make you understand that, should I make an allegation against you that may be totally false, a record is kept and disclosed on an enhanced CRB check. You have no right to change this info and often, the allegation is disclosed only to the employer, not you, so you may never know of it. If you think thats fair, you are well on your way to getting the society you deserve.

That is not true. If someone is found guilty on the baisis of an allegation (false or otherwise) then yes it stays forever.

If there is an investigtion and/or charge but either found not guilty or the case is dropped for whatever reason the informaton can be challanged an successfuly removed.

Even if there was a guily verdict in court this still does not mean you could not do the job you had applied for depending on what the crime was.

In response to your second post, you cant answer a question twice that you havent even answered once. Yes, you think she is a risk. Answer this

What are the kids at that club at risk of?

In the case of someone who has commited a crime of fraud / deception / theft all of which apply for benfit fraud depending on the circumstances (which you wont disscuss) and previous history and behaviour since.

Children and their families could be at risk of having their names, addresses, vulnerabilities, crimes, legal status released to the people perhaps a violent ex partner of the mother, an individual who had previously abused them, the press, other individuuals who could then use that information to to then access and abuse the child or pass that information on to others who could do the same.

They or their family could also be at risk of their personal details being used in the applications of benefits, loans, credit for the 'employees' benfefit.

They or their families possessions could be a risk of being stolen to be sold to raise funds for the 'employee'.

The employer could be at risk of having their resources purchased for the young people (not talking office equip) stolen.

The list could go on. AGAIN it depends on why the offence was committed. Are they an deceitful fraudster abusing systems and people for their own benefit financial or otherwise or are they someone who was nieve, in hard times, led by someone esle, unaware of their error etc.

woody01

Welcome back Woody01. I had hoped your absence was due to you having a good hard think about what you think these children are at risk of. But no. You say she is a risk, but like Shel, you are unable (not unwilling because I believe you would love to prove me wrong) to clearly state what these kids are at risk of. Like Shel also, you merely try to deflect people away from your inability to argue your case.

I have nothing to defend. I am honest!

If you took your head out of your behind for one second and read what i have written then your question, and my answer, wouldn't be quite so confusing for you. MANY times in this thread,you have been told by several people how your past actions could be a risk to an employer yet you choose to ignore it.
Far from refusing to answer you (as has happened many times), you are refusing to believe the truth that an employer does not want to employ a convicted criminal and thief.

For the last time (and hopefully you will now grasp it), i do not believe the children are at risk.

YOU are a risk as you have proved beyond reasonable doubt, that your are untrustworthy.

To this end, and regardless of the criminal act, your integrity as a whole is questionable.

I have NEVER said you would be a risk to children (no more than anyone else), but when you are a convicted fraudster, you have to have your whole integrity questioned.

Surely you can understand that.

woody01

_shel wrote: »

In the case of someone who has commited a crime of fraud / deception / theft all of which apply for benfit fraud depending on the circumstances (which you wont disscuss) and previous history and behaviour since.

Children and their families could be at risk of having their names, addresses, vulnerabilities, crimes, legal status released to the people perhaps a violent ex partner of the mother, an individual who had previously abused them, the press, other individuuals who could then use that information to to then access and abuse the child or pass that information on to others who could do the same.

They or their family could also be at risk of their personal details being used in the applications of benefits, loans, credit for the 'employees' benfefit.

They or their families possessions could be a risk of being stolen to be sold to raise funds for the 'employee'.

The employer could be at risk of having their resources purchased for the young people (not talking office equip) stolen.

The list could go on. AGAIN it depends on why the offence was committed. Are they an deceitful fraudster abusing systems and people for their own benefit financial or otherwise or are they someone who was nieve, in hard times, led by someone esle, unaware of their error etc.

Too true.
It's a pity the OP cannot/will not read this.

What are the kids at that club at risk of?

A thief, a liar and someone with a criminal record that could (not saying would), use the property and information for financial gain.
You have already stolen and made money. Who is to say you wouldn't do it again. Only you............the 'only you' that has already been found guilty of such an act.

Wake up for god's sake.

I wouldn't want you responsible for my children whilst in nursery, and, if the truth be told, even your fan club here wouldn't given the choice.

i am on maternity leave and work for a very sucessful security company in the uk.

How ironic.
A fraudster friends with someone in a security company.
If you are so sure she has 'gone straight' then you give her a job. :rotfl:

adouglasmhor

_shel wrote: »

How Unoriginal

If the post requires an enhanced disclosure all convictions, spent or otherwise need to be disclosed on the application form. http://www.crb.gov.uk/using_the_website/applicant.aspx#whymight

And from next year some people if working with some groups will need to be registered with these people http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/default.aspx

Along with being registered as care worker or social worker if appropriate http://www.gscc.org.uk/Home/ or registered with a the appropriate body if a teacher or lecturer http://www.gtce.org.uk/registration/ nusery nurse (in scotland), nurses and doctors.

Do you know how the 20/40 rule affects this? I declared offences for a job and the police said they had no record of them.

[Deleted User]

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Do you know how the 20/40 rule affects this? I declared offences for a job and the police said they had no record of them.

If the police have no record of any offence for you then they have either c**ked p or you dont actually have any convictions. You would have had to have been found guilty in a Criminal Court. If it was a civil matter it wont be there, nor will most things from overseas as yet.

You can do a subject access request and see what information they do hold about you http://www.met.police.uk/information/info_about_you.htm if you wanted to but apply to your area Police force. I'm not sure what you mean by 20/40 rule?

eamon

This whole argument is specious at best. If it is drawn to its logical conclusion then prospective parents, siblings and other relatives should be CRB'd etc. I seem to recall that the official statistics tell us most child abuse happens within the family, most rape victims know their attacker etc. CRB checks will only catch/spot those that have come to the attention of the authorities. But I tend to agree with woody01. The brush is unacceptably wide and I really question the ability of those that may have to make a decision as to what is relevent and what is not.
Also for those posters that are so unforgiving to forever condemn a fellow human being making a poor decision in the distant past is really disturbing. Has our society come to that? What then is the purpose of saying sorry, making amends and turning your life around? I hope these people don't live in glass houses. Finally before they start I'm fully aware of habitual criminals. Managing these individuals is surely a different argument.

adouglasmhor

_shel wrote: »

If the police have no record of any offence for you then they have either c**ked p or you dont actually have any convictions. You would have had to have been found guilty in a Criminal Court. If it was a civil matter it wont be there, nor will most things from overseas as yet.

You can do a subject access request and see what information they do hold about you http://www.met.police.uk/information/info_about_you.htm if you wanted to but apply to your area Police force. I'm not sure what you mean by 20/40 rule?

I have done that and nothing shows, but I was convicted in court of 2 minor offences in the 70s/early80s, I was told they had a thing called the 20 40 rule where any offences of a minor nature committed before the age of 20 could be expunged from the record when you were 40 if you had never offended again.

[Deleted User]

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I have done that and nothing shows, but I was convicted in court of 2 minor offences in the 70s/early80s, I was told they had a thing called the 20 40 rule where any offences of a minor nature committed before the age of 20 could be expunged from the record when you were 40 if you had never offended again.

Ahhh just noticed you're in Scotland, assuming you lived there as a minor too they have a completly different system for juvenile offenders.

Yup they're gone, you dont need to declare them :j I like the scottish system. They are getting tougher on child offenders but still nowhere near as bad as England and Wales and not likely they ever will be They focus more on restorative justice and parenting and know they are dealing with children not mini adults.