Security vetting and bankruptcy - does anyone know...

alastairq

I get the impression, BoBQ's views may contain an apparently moralistic colour.


The implication is that any one who has petitioned [or been petitioned for] bankruptcy is likely to have abdicated their financial responsibilities.....and if that is the case, what other 'responsibilities' are they likely to abdicate from?

The reality is , that people who have petitioned for Bankruptcy have in fact done the exact opposite.

They have found themselves in a position of insolvency [the reasons are irrelevant here]....and have dealt with their debt situation equitably, fairly and legally.


To voluntarily subject oneself to the legal restrictions [never mind the perceived financial one's?] that Bankruptcy imposes, is about as far as one can get from an 'abdication of responsibility.'


How would BoBQ's views change if 'being divorced' was considered as a restriction to entry in services such as the police?

Following the logic applied to bankruptcy, one could argue that someone who is divorced is quite likey to be morally corrupt?


If indeed, BoBQ's views on the matter are indicative of a general view regarding suitability of an applicant for any Public Service post, within those services, then not only are those public services denying themselves access to people who may well be the most suitable for that post, those who create the rules themselves must be deemed 'unfit' to hold position?

BobQ

22bear wrote: »

Just to re-iterate what debtinfo has said about the various reasons why people become insolvent with some cases not being due to any irresponsibility...my own insolvency occured after I had to give up being a self-employed NHS dentist after suffering a stroke that left me with a pretty useless left hand...one day I had a well paid job, the next day it was gone, leaving me with the next years income tax liability to pay with no income to pay it (this is after being able to pay me income tax religiously on-time every single year for 18 years!)....to declare myself bankrupt was the only solution to clear this debt that I had absolutely no means to pay...

....so I hope you can see bobQ, that not all bankruptcies are due to irresponsibility!

I accept that having a stroke was beyond your control and not irresponsible. But being self employed you clearly knew that your current income would have a tax liability at the end of the tax year. You chose to fund this liability from future income rather than set aside funds from current income to settle your HMRC debt. I know everyone does it! But that does not make it right. A PAYE employee has no choice but to pay tax from current income.

22bear

BobQ wrote: »

I accept that having a stroke was beyond your control and not irresponsible. But being self employed you clearly knew that your current income would have a tax liability at the end of the tax year. You chose to fund this liability from future income rather than set aside funds from current income to settle your HMRC debt. I know everyone does it! But that does not make it right. A PAYE employee has no choice but to pay tax from current income.

Yes, i did know that...but as you say, "everyone" does it.....i wonder if you would remain so high and mighty (and quite frankly a bit of a smart a**e!!!!) when you or a loved one find themselves unable to pay a debt when they can't work due to illness...let's just hope that it never happens to you or one of your own, eh? I certainly never thought that it would happen to me...

BobQ

alastairq wrote: »

I get the impression, BoBQ's views may contain an apparently moralistic colour.............

If indeed, BoBQ's views on the matter are indicative of a general view regarding suitability of an applicant for any Public Service post, within those services, then not only are those public services denying themselves access to people who may well be the most suitable for that post, those who create the rules themselves must be deemed 'unfit' to hold position?

I see nothing remotely moralistic in what I have posted above.

This is not a question of morality, its a matter of sensible risk management as to the future behaviour of an employee. If you are running a business you are entitled to make reasonable judgements about whether an applicant is worth the risk of employing in the job you want to employ them.

I agree that people who have been discharged as bankrupts may be people of integrity and the circumstances do matter, but I can understand it being seen as a risk factor in jobs like the police (which is what the policy seems to say). People in the Police Service may have access to sensitive information that affects the safety and security of others or money. If they are more prone to being corrupted or compromised than the average person it is a factor in any objective decision.

As I say I see nothing remotely moralistic in what I have posted above.

22bear

BobQ wrote: »

I see nothing remotely moralistic in what I have posted above.

This is not a question of morality, its a matter of sensible risk management as to the future behaviour of an employee. If you are running a business you are entitled to make reasonable judgements about whether an applicant is worth the risk of employing in the job you want to employ them.

I agree that people who have been discharged as bankrupts may be people of integrity and the circumstances do matter, but I can understand it being seen as a risk factor in jobs like the police (which is what the policy seems to say). People in the Police Service may have access to sensitive information that affects the safety and security of others or money. If they are more prone to being corrupted or compromised than the average person it is a factor in any objective decision.

As I say I see nothing remotely moralistic in what I have posted above.

Not being moralistic, eh? Quote:

Interesting. Personally I am shocked that someone who has discharged their debts as recently as three years ago would still be considered.

...yeah, right! We can all clearly see what YOUR "risk managment" strategy would be when considering someone who had been made bankrupt...