Would a google search find someone with a conviction?

Forever

Angry_Bear wrote: »

You're confusing a reasonable amount of looking into something (i.e. asking the person, maybe doing a CRB check if it's warranted and wasn't done before) with a "witchunt". It's perfectly possible to find things out without resorting to a witchunt.

By your argument there's no point having criminal records at all as they're pointless. I'd trust someone who doesn't have a criminal record (including someone who doesn't have one because all convictions are spent) LONG before I'd trust someone who has a criminal record for theft or fraud (for example).

And I'd expect my bank (again, for example) to do a reasonable amount of checking if they came across reason to believe that someone working with my money and details had a conviction for one of these things.

Actually banks usually only ask if they can access your credit rating history and to confirm your immediate work history with previous employers.

It is against the law to request a CRB check unless you are working with children or vulnerable adults.

mjm3346

Uncertain wrote: »

I think the real problem is that by looking you may find something which you are not legally able to act on.

I get the impression the employee is fairly new in which case they can be got rid off with no problem, if they have been there long enough to get employment rights you just have to be a little more careful with the "reason" you use to dismiss them.

Angry_Bear

Forever wrote: »

CRB checks are not there to ensure people who have once had a conviction can never work again in their lives and can only live on the dole. Many people may make mistakes and then never repeat it again.

"Never work again" was not what I suggested, and why I made a very clear distinction between spent and unspent convictions (and said checks IF appropriate). Of course people should get the opportunity to learn from their mistakes, but law-abiding people should also be protected from criminals.

Forever wrote: »

It is against the law to request a CRB check unless you are working with children or vulnerable adults.

Interesting. Seems to make a mockery of bothering with even having criminal records. Someone can be convicted of fraud and yet a company employing them to deal with finances or customers sensitive data has no way of knowing?

ETA: I suspect I've confused matters with my misunderstanding of what counts as a "criminal record". I've been taking this to be only unspent convictions, but apparently it includes both which is why CRB checks are limited. So now I'm wondering, how would an employer (or anyone) check if an applicant has any unspent convictions? Just curiosity.

Uncertain

mjm3346 wrote: »

I get the impression the employee is fairly new in which case they can be got rid off with no problem, if they have been there long enough to get employment rights you just have to be a little more careful with the "reason" you use to dismiss them.

Not so in most occupations.

You have unfair dismissal protection from day one for certain types of discrimination and that INCLUDES discriminating against somebody because of a spent conviction.

It is also an offence under the rehabilitation of offenders act!

Uncertain

Forever wrote: »

It is against the law to request a CRB check unless you are working with children or vulnerable adults.

Well nearly!

There are certain other occupations where they are required.

It is against the law to request them outside of the defined list.

Angry_Bear

Angry_Bear wrote: »

So now I'm wondering, how would an employer (or anyone) check if an applicant has any unspent convictions? Just curiosity.

As I'm having a very quiet day with nothing better to do, I had a google and came up with this http://www.microscope.co.uk/feature/In-depth-Checking-your-employees-criminal-record

Apparently you can ask a candidate or employee to provide a "Basic Disclosure" that would detail any unspent convictions. In the situation the OP describes (and strongly depending on how convincing the rumours were, and how the suspected conviction would impact their job) I'd be tempted to take the person aside and tell them that there have been rumours and would they like to provide a Basic Disclosure to make sure these were stopped in their tracks. Naturally the fee would be refunded under expenses.

Surely that would settle the matter without coming under the heading of "witchunt" and would allow the OP to state absolutely that the person had been checked and had no relevant convictions.

denla

Forever wrote: »

You would then have to admit to that person that the reason you are asking is because you have heard some gossip!

How is the concerned person going to feel if he/she is a) innocent or b) the conviction is spent.

It is pointless going down this path. As I said before, anyone can do something dodgy whether they have a previous conviction or not.

Anyway, on a different note, CRB checks can only be requested if the person is working with children or vulnerable adults.

CRB checks are not there to ensure people who have once had a conviction can never work again in their lives and can only live on the dole. Many people may make mistakes and then never repeat it again.

Wrong. Any employer can request a CRB check if their employee(s) will be representing their company to the public, or handling finance. Employer needs to know employee won't smear the company's reputation in the public eyes, and is trustworthy enough to handle finance.

k12479

tattycath wrote: »

So if the company you work for employed someone who was once a convicted thief (and had served their time or whatever penalty they got), you would either try to get them sacked or hand in your notice then?

No, I wouldn't, I have better things to do with my time. I said I'd prefer not to work amongst them.

Uncertain wrote: »

So you are happy to break the law to fit in with your prejudices ?

I'm not breaking the law, I'm not doing anything.

It's not prejudice if it's based on fact, discrimination, maybe.

Would you be happy to:
- Leave you child with a former !!!!!phile?
- Look after a package for a former drug dealer?
- Give your personal details to convicted fraudster?
- Have a heated business meeting with someone previously jailed for GBH?

Uncertain wrote: »

You appear to be suggesting that anybody with a conviction for anything should be banned from working for life!

I'm suggesting I'd rather not work with them, not that they should be banned. However, I do think that they should rightly find that many doors have closed to them.

If the bad things you do can be wiped after 6 years, why not the good? Should people's degrees or work history be disregarded after 6 years?

junkmayle

Angry Bear - How do you sleep soundly at night, knowing the indians in your banks call centre have NOT been CRB checked AND have access to ALL your financial details.

Tygermoth

Several years ago I also was in a position similar to this and it did not end well.

I was told some information from a manager about a co-worker. The manager was leaving the company and 'thought someone should know' (this info was on a level of that stated by the OP)

As most of the posters here mentioned I thought i should 'keep my nose out' it was just hearsay and not anything that could be substantiated. I also was concerned that it would reflect badly on me for being a gossip and telling tales.

Seven months later an issue comes to light via an external source, huge investigation (and I mean HUGE) and massive fallout. Senior management, legal and HR are questioning people. The level of tension was phenomenal and there is a nasty finger of blame being pointed at everyone.

I was heavily disciplined for not bringing the details of the conversation (which only related to an very insignificant part off the issue being investigated) to senor management even though I KNOW they would have done nothing and ridiculed me for coming forward. This was confirmed when it came to light that there had been a number of reports of more valid and incontestable concerns that had been disregarded and the concerned parties had been rebuked for 'stirring'. Even in light of the above they still chose to give me a formal warning on my work record. (and the other people that raised conserns)

It was the most stressful and nasty situation I have ever been in because when the poop hits the fan management will throw anyone under the bus to get out from under the mountain of crap raining down from above. The knives were out and no one was safe from harm.

In the end the person being investigated was paid off to go saving the company from major embarrassment (after several months of paid suspension) They agreed to give him a neutral reference. The three unit managers remained in their roles without any citations of their work records (and kept bonuses) with no action taken even though they were the crux of the problem.

The remaining staff however were treated like crap, we lost our bonuses had long speeches from management about how disappointed they were in us and generally were treated like pariahs even though we had no input in his hiring, raised the issue with management and were totally without wrong doing during the whole process.