criminal record- does this mean they cant work with children

dmg24

_shel wrote: »

How long ago did this happen? Not long I hope, you have 3 months from the date of dismissal or if you lodge a gievance from when it has been investigated and you get a reply. Read the information on here and go see a solicitor as soon as possible http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/ You can lodge a cliam yourself, just download the forms but I would suggest getting a solicitor to do it.

The OP has only been employed for three months, and therefore a tribunal would dismiss their claim.

[Deleted User]

junkmayle wrote: »

Please please read the post Shel

Mr Pinnington has never even been charged with an offence, never mind convicted.

This man has lost his job and may never work again due to rumours, gossip, speculation, heresay. Read the judgement, click the link. Bloody hell, isnt just 1 case like that more than enough?

As far as your friends case is concerned, post the judgement. Its public knowledge.

No one case is not enough. You are saying this is widespread and very wrong, one case does nothing to prove that.

Here are a lot of sources for you of children who have been systamatically abused in care. Some of which could have been stopped by checks.

http://m.liverpoolecho.co.uk/ms/p/tmg/livecho/view.m?id=786506&tid=638956&cat=Liverpool_Local_News

http://www.abneys.co.uk/AbuseLaw/newsitems.asp?ID=145

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4003097

http://www.abneys.co.uk/AbuseLaw/newsitems.asp?ID=124

http://www.abneys.co.uk/AbuseLaw/newsitems.asp?ID=94

It is not public knowledge, the guilty verdict in Court did not make it into the pres and unlike Mr Pinnington they did not need to go to Court to get the information removed from the CRB.

As far as challenging goes, you can only do it if you know its wrong. You shouldnt have to be a lawyer to apply for a job otherwise you would be a lawyer, wouldnt you? Anyway, given your clear admission earlier that you had no idea about rehabilitation periods, yet claim to deal with them every day, makes your advice on this matter worthless.

I made what admission? You suggested a 10 year rehab period for benefit fraud! Who would go to prison for more than 2 years for benefit fraud. Nobody unless they had prior offences with sentences including custody, which if they have gives more reason not to employ them.

You tell me not to assume you know me, yet you keep implying that I read the Daily Mail You should also be a person IN the job too. I think a growing number of people are becoming aware of the kind of imcompetants that are social workers.

Much of what you say sounds as if it's being read directly from the DM, why should I believe diferently. You have yet to to tell anyone YOUR qualifying reasons to give advice on this matter? As yet it just appers to be one big chip.

As I said before. If someone is that desperate to get personal info, they simply need to be a postie. When I was on that job, I could find out anything about anyone on my rounds, all with no CRB.

You state that 'Children have the ability to grow, learn and mature and benefit from Restorative Justice unlike many adults' and yet in your last paragraph you say 'I am proof as I have already said, because yes years can change people' Do you know what contradiction and hypocrite mean?


Yes dear I do dear
As per my previous post I do not believe children should be criminalised for minor maters, they should be given a chance to learn and grow. Adults on the other hand have already done that and unless they have an imparement in learning should respect and obey, even if they do not agree with it, the law and authority. Breaking the law as an adult is whole different concept hecne the masive differences in dealing with adult and young offenders.


Finally, Im probably pi$$ing in the wind here, but can you provide a link confirming you assertation that 1 in 4 applicants with convictions get the job?

If you are !!!!ing in the wind any chance you can take a pic when it hits you in the face I have the link in work, you'll get it, you will prob also find the same on NACRO as Sue says but you have to pay for some of their stuff.

[Deleted User]

dmg24 wrote: »

The OP has only been employed for three months, and therefore a tribunal would dismiss their claim.

Could she not make a claim for wrongful dismissal?

adouglasmhor

junkmayle wrote: »

Flickering Ember - Please do read it. It is very disturbing. Here is another story you might find interesting - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5818422/Mother-who-left-children-playing-in-park-is-branded-a-criminal.html In a nutshell, mother leaves kids playing in a park (eldest child 9), whilst visiting a local shop. Plod spots them, speaks to mother, no further action taken (and none needed in my opinion) but incident is logged on PNC and turns up on enhanced CRB!

I suppose Woody01 is happy for her to be branded forever. Are you happy to be funding her benefits forever too, like you do with me? Ive just worked out that if there are just 500,000 in my situation who cant get work cos the likes of Woody01 want us branded forever costs 6 BILLION pounds a year. Is it really worth wasting all that just to satisfy Woody01s rather medieval type of dogma?

I spent most of my childhood playing with other kids in a park with no adults about, I doubt any of the parets tought it was wrong in any way.

adouglasmhor

Re binmen needing CRB check, we have checks done on binmen, building trades workers and others, as a local authority worker they may have to do work in a school, childrens home, day centre etc, no time to do one in a hurry when vunerable adults or kids need work done in the premises.

Savvy_Sue

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Re binmen needing CRB check, we have checks done on binmen, building trades workers and others, as a local authority worker they may have to do work in a school, childrens home, day centre etc, no time to do one in a hurry when vunerable adults or kids need work done in the premises.

That's a bit tenuous, IMO. Surely, if a 'tradesperson' is doing work in such a setting, they will not have access to the children / vulnerable adults?

When we were (briefly) an umbrella body for the CRB, I got a call from a company who repaired photocopiers asking if they could get all their engineers done for this reason. I told them that it was the school's responsibility to ensure that children weren't wandering unsupervised into the area where they were working.

woody01

junkmayle wrote: »

Please please read the post Shel

Mr Pinnington has never even been charged with an offence, never mind convicted.

This man has lost his job and may never work again due to rumours, gossip, speculation, heresay. Read the judgement, click the link. Bloody hell, isnt just 1 case like that more than enough?

As far as your friends case is concerned, post the judgement. Its public knowledge.

As far as challenging goes, you can only do it if you know its wrong. You shouldnt have to be a lawyer to apply for a job otherwise you would be a lawyer, wouldnt you? Anyway, given your clear admission earlier that you had no idea about rehabilitation periods, yet claim to deal with them every day, makes your advice on this matter worthless.

You tell me not to assume you know me, yet you keep implying that I read the Daily Mail You should also be a person IN the job too. I think a growing number of people are becoming aware of the kind of imcompetants that are social workers.

As I said before. If someone is that desperate to get personal info, they simply need to be a postie. When I was on that job, I could find out anything about anyone on my rounds, all with no CRB.

You state that 'Children have the ability to grow, learn and mature and benefit from Restorative Justice unlike many adults' and yet in your last paragraph you say 'I am proof as I have already said, because yes years can change people' Do you know what contradiction and hypocrite mean?

Finally, Im probably pi$$ing in the wind here, but can you provide a link confirming you assertation that 1 in 4 applicants with convictions get the job?

And your point is what?

There is no speculation or doubt.

You, or your imaginary friend is a thief and therefore a scurge on civilisation

adouglasmhor

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

That's a bit tenuous, IMO. Surely, if a 'tradesperson' is doing work in such a setting, they will not have access to the children / vulnerable adults?

When we were (briefly) an umbrella body for the CRB, I got a call from a company who repaired photocopiers asking if they could get all their engineers done for this reason. I told them that it was the school's responsibility to ensure that children weren't wandering unsupervised into the area where they were working.

I don't set policy but a photocopier techie will probably only be working in office areas and our guys work anywhere in the building, also some predators are devious and there is no guarantee they will stay where they are suposed to, IMO better safe(r) than sorry in this case.

adouglasmhor

As I have said in earlier posts I have criminal convictions, as a youth despite this I have been successful in my career, left the army with an outstanding report in all fields, But here is the nub in my opinion, In cases where I was asked or had to declare I admitted my offences and have even spoken publicly to kids at risk about what a burden they were to me when younger.

When I was joining the Army I was given extra scrutiny, put through extra pressure, to see if I could change my ways and was told in no uncertain terms – slip up and you will wish you never walked through the door of the recruiting office. I reformed but also admitting past mistakes is a sign of character, hiding them is a sign of weakness.

The point here is not that this person had a conviction, but that they hid it when they were under obligation to declare even spent offences. This shows they are still capable of deceit for gain, which is exactly what got them into trouble in the first place.

For anyone interested my offences were and are possession of a class one weapon, breach of the peace and being part of a disorderly crowd. I admit I could have gone either way when a young man but I was one of the lucky ones.

woody01

kurjam wrote: »

she paid it back before the case got to court, it took 2 years for it to get to court....

Becuase she got caught. :T