When is a conviction "spent"?

Equaliser123

pulliptears wrote: »

Nothing to add, but how incredibly refreshing to read a thread on a more sensitive subject that hasn't gone down the lines it usually goes down. Just good advice and discussion

Early days yet....

somethingcorporate

Unfortunately with unemployment so high employers use criteria such as criminal convictions as a screen to ensure that they don't waste their own and the applicants time in applying.

Perhaps they should consider self-employment?

fluffnutter

brettcta wrote: »

i hope this doesn't come across as high-horsish, but as you know, fraud is a crime where it can be hard to find basis to trust someone once they've been convicted. i understand and agree to an extent that your friend may deserve a second chance, but i can side greater with employers in this situation, especially in a time where there are generally more applicants for every job than there may have been 5/6 years ago, why employ someone who it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt has defrauded someone, when you can employ someone with no criminal record to do the same job? it's tough times for (almost) everyone - you can see why employers would not want to increase their risk of further losing money to potentially fraudulent members of staff.

I don't disagree with the sentiment but, at the end of the day, a company is breaking the law if it forces an applicant to divulge a spent conviction.

The whole idea, one assumes, behind the rehabilitation of offenders act is that people are given second chances. We wouldn't be a civilised country if we didn't allow for and encourage redemption.

brettcta

fluffnutter wrote: »

I don't disagree with the sentiment but, at the end of the day, a company is breaking the law if it forces an applicant to divulge a spent conviction.

The whole idea, one assumes, behind the rehabilitation of offenders act is that people are given second chances. We wouldn't be a civilised country if we didn't allow for and encourage redemption.

no disagreement there, i'm not saying it's right what they are doing, just trying to understand it and maybe give an explanation as to why.

unholyangel

My old neighbour was in jail years ago. He had similar problems when he got out. A lot of people turned their backs on him but i didnt as he'd always looked after me (i was a young girl living on her own, if he heard screams - usually from me babysitting my little cousins and having a laugh with them - he'd come to my door to make sure everything was ok).

He managed to find work at a charity shop. Started out on a volunteer basis then got taken on as paid staff.

Does she have a case/social worker of any kind? Could she perhaps ask at the jobcentre if they have any special advisors that could help? Has she spoken to the jobcentre about whether she's suitable for a work trial? Or whether they have any work placements available for her?

It may involve working for a little while with little or no money but if she is willing to try hard, there will be an employer out there who will trust her. You never know, perhaps the employer has had a conviction themselves and can empathise!

She could also ask around small local businesses as they are probably less likely to do a criminal background check.

I dont believe in crucifying someone for a mistake. We've all made them, just on varying degrees. As the saying goes, let he without sin cast the first stone! (and technically by casting the first stone they'd be committing a sin even if they hadnt already )

jamespir

brettcta wrote: »

i hope this doesn't come across as high-horsish, but as you know, fraud is a crime where it can be hard to find basis to trust someone once they've been convicted. i understand and agree to an extent that your friend may deserve a second chance, but i can side greater with employers in this situation, especially in a time where there are generally more applicants for every job than there may have been 5/6 years ago, why employ someone who it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt has defrauded someone, when you can employ someone with no criminal record to do the same job? it's tough times for (almost) everyone - you can see why employers would not want to increase their risk of further losing money to potentially fraudulent members of staff.

as an aside, i don't know about these things, but do big companies have insurance against thefts or any kind from their staff? i ask this because there may be other issues than just trust behind why the op's friend can't get past the 'i have spent convictions for fraud' section of an application? would it be likely that company a's insurance would be invalid for losses incurred by employing an employee convicted of fraud?

jusy because someones been convicted of something dont mean they are gonna rob people

fffs judgmental or what

jamespir

OP i have a conviction for gaining products by deception(i stayed in a hotel and didnt pay and was arrested when i went back to pay three days later ) and was always honest about it when it came up in job applications (its expired now but have to reveal it when doing crb checks)and i have not had a probelm getting jobs or jobs with a degree of trust

somethingcorporate

jamespir wrote: »

jusy because someones been convicted of something dont mean they are gonna rob people

fffs judgmental or what

But why should an employer take that risk when there are 50 others in line for the job without a conviction for fraud?

It would put anyone pretty far down the pecking order.

brettcta

jamespir wrote: »

jusy because someones been convicted of something dont mean they are gonna rob people

fffs judgmental or what

i didn't say that, i said it doesn't exactly looks good on paper. there was nothing judgemental about it, i was just stating the truth

jamespir

somethingcorporate wrote: »

But why should an employer take that risk when there are 50 others in line for the job without a conviction for fraud?

It would put anyone pretty far down the pecking order.

why should it if they are the best person for the job and why should there be any risk

not everyones a repeat offender