Would a google search find someone with a conviction?

Angry_Bear

junkmayle wrote: »

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.

Don't be absurd - I sleep soundly at night because I'm not paranoid. The likelihood of a financial institution employee committing fraud is probably quite high just due to the number of employees, even more so if the financial institution has employed a convicted fraudster (which is avoidable with basic checks). The likelihood of this fraud being on my accounts is reasonably low (as it is individually for most people), but just because it happens to someone else doesn't make it okay.

I would expect that someone with an unspent conviction for fraud would be prevented from working in a financial institution, just as I would expect someone with a previous conviction for a sex-crime to be prevented from working with children. What's so unreasonable about that?

P.S. I've already made my point about UNSPENT convictions being the point (not CRB checking).

Angry_Bear

Tygermoth wrote: »

The level of tension was phenomenal and there is a nasty finger of blame being pointed at everyone.

This was why I suggested asking the person earlier. I'd rather look kind of sheepish and admit I was reacting to rumours but still get everything out in the open and cleared up (true or not) rather than have bitter gossip wandering about for years. With the shoe on the other foot, I'd rather have the opportunity to clear my name than have a whole office gossiping and wondering about me behind my back.

Not an easy situation though, and (as always) much easier to deal with as a keyboard warrior

Tygermoth

Hi Angry bear,

My point would be that then, should the gossip be relevant to a bigger issue, you could be accused of tipping the person off. One of the many hysterical allegations made by senior management in my earlier post whilst they were trying to dodge any blame.*

If I had to do this over again I would put it in writing and hand off to a senior manager. I would state the matter as hearsay however i was concerned a felt I should bring the matter to their attention.

* To clarify - let’s say the gossip related to an employee’s possible use of company stamps for a personal ebay business. You look into the matter and can see there is a very small scale of discrepancies with the stamps but nothing that rings any bells esp to make a formal review. However rumours persist and rather than let things simmer you decide to give the person an opportunity to clear their name.

You speak to the victim of this nasty gossip who wholly refutes this claim and backs up the usage of the stamps via an independant source. Then several months later it comes to light that prior to you tipping him off he had used the companies post room to transport thousands of pounds worth of stolen goods. So the gossip was partialy right but not on the button as it was not the stamps but the post faciliities being used. However when you had the chat he then destroyed evidence meaning little could be done.

(The above senario does NOT relate to my earlier post - this was not the subject of the investigation)

P.s I do agree about it being easy when you are being a keyboard warrior real life is SO much harder.

junkmayle

Angry Bear - You dont appear to have read my post before calling me absurd. You said, in post #40 "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."

Once again, I ask you "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."

robster30

This is quite a minefield.

May I suggest the OP familiarises herself with employment law covering bullying,harrassment and discrimination. This is for acting on possible malicious rumours.

The other point I have not read in this thread is that a disclsoure can only be carried out with the employees permission, which leads me to my next point and the huge minefiled .

The employee will start asking questions why it is required now and not during the recruitment process which then can lead to allegations of bullying and harassment which in the modern day workplace is about as seriuous as it can get.

Its classed as gross misconduct to bully or harass a member of staff and acting on possible unfounded malicous rumours falls into this category.

If there was no dsiclosure carried out during the recruitment process then why not, if there was and all convitions are spent (theft would not be spent as it too serious and will show on a basic) you could be charged with bullying and harrassment and possibly sacked.

Tread very carefully and if in any doubt, please check employment law before you make any moves.

Dont listen to what your colleagues say or what your bosses say without knowing what you are getting yourself into.

BreamoreBoy

Davina40 wrote: »

Because I care about the company I work for and the people I work for and with.

Safe to assume that you don't work for a bank then, particularly Santander, without question the worst bank in the world. You have no salesmen, sorry Account managers, who'd lie to anybody to make a quick quid. Etc, etc, etc.

Nicki

robster30 wrote: »

theft would not be spent as it too serious and will show on a basic

No idea where you got this idea!

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act applies to all sentences which are for 2 and a half years of imprisonment or less, and no particular offence is cited by name in the Act as not being included in the Act.

The AVERAGE sentence in the UK for theft is 11.6 months in the Crown Court and 4.1 months in the Magistrates Court (as of 2011) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/05/riot-jail-sentences-crown-courts

Therefore the vast majority of theft convictions will become spent over time.

Angry_Bear

junkmayle wrote: »

Angry Bear - You dont appear to have read my post before calling me absurd. You said, in post #40 "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."

Once again, I ask you "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."

I had read your post. The "absurdity" I referred to was your suggesting that I can't sleep because something I expect hasn't happened. I'm nowhere near that sensitive, but perhaps I should have used a different word?

robster30

Nicki wrote: »

No idea where you got this idea!

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act applies to all sentences which are for 2 and a half years of imprisonment or less, and no particular offence is cited by name in the Act as not being included in the Act.

The AVERAGE sentence in the UK for theft is 11.6 months in the Crown Court and 4.1 months in the Magistrates Court (as of 2011) http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/05/riot-jail-sentences-crown-courts

Therefore the vast majority of theft convictions will become spent over time.

I got this from my experience in the type of work I do. I have looked at your link and checked out the legislation which you are right it does not specify a paticular crime only the lenght of sentence.

However, if a person has an assualt charge, theft, fraud etc dare I mention other horrible crimes, in my experience they have always shown on basic disclosures beacause the rehab act does not apply to these crimes regardless of the lenght of sentence imposed.

Therefore they will show on a basic disclosure.

Maybe the law is different for Scotland than it is in England and Wales.

Uncertain

robster30 wrote: »

I got this from my experience in the type of work I do. I have looked at your link and checked out the legislation which you are right it does not specify a paticular crime only the lenght of sentence.

However, if a person has an assualt charge, theft, fraud etc dare I mention other horrible crimes, in my experience they have always shown on basic disclosures beacause the rehab act does not apply to these crimes regardless of the lenght of sentence imposed.

Therefore they will show on a basic disclosure.

Maybe the law is different for Scotland than it is in England and Wales.

I think you are mixing two things together here.

A CRB check is only required (indeed can only lawfully be requested) for certain types of jobs. Although I don't know for certain (not my field) they may well show convictions that are "spent".

In other circumstances a person with a "spent" conviction is allowed to deny that they have ever had a conviction and cannot legally be penalised or discriminated against for doing so. As Nicki has pointed out you can't even ask them the question in the witness box so that they don't have to lie under oath.

If you somehow find out that somebody has a conviction that is now spent and use that fact against them in an employment situation they have various remedies available to them.