If you have a criminal record, can you still claim JSA?

miduck

teajug wrote: »

He could be become an MP or maybe a 'Lord' and he would have no problems walking back in to his job even after a prison sentence.

That is not true - they *could* be subject to disciplinary/ misconduct proceedings similar to any other worker.

**Patty** wrote: »

Actually, someone with a conviction that carries a Life Licence, who is trying to rebuild their lives is probably the safest person on the schoolyard, as they will avoid jeopardising their freedom at any cost.

I take it you are happy to have !!!!!philes in the playground with your children?

You assume that those who have served their time want to stay out of prison. Research into repeat offenders shows that quite the opposite is true - a good number will do anything to go back inside. After a period of detention it is incredibly difficult to readjust to the real world, many simply cannot cope with it.

miduck

clemmatis wrote: »

I think some people here would prefer he starved to death.

I'm glad he's doing well -- comparatively speaking -- now.

Has anyone said that? The situation described by the OP and that described by barbarawright are entirely different, and would be treated as such by the JCP. The OP's relative would be sanctioned due to their own misconduct, barbarawright's relative would not be sanctioned as he was (is?) incapacitated.

justlooking2012

miduck wrote: »

Has anyone said that? The situation described by the OP and that described by barbarawright are entirely different, and would be treated as such by the JCP. The OP's relative would be sanctioned due to their own misconduct, barbarawright's relative would not be sanctioned as he was (is?) incapacitated.

This will certainly not make me popular on here, but anyone convicted of a crime against children, I wouldnt care one bit if they were starved to death

miduck

justlooking2012 wrote: »

This will certainly not make me popular on here, but anyone convicted of a crime against children, I wouldnt care one bit if they were starved to death

I am sure some would agree with you, but I prefer to look at the bigger picture - things are not always as clear cut as they seem.

justlooking2012

miduck wrote: »

I am sure some would agree with you, but I prefer to look at the bigger picture - things are not always as clear cut as they seem.

You are right there and im not specifically referring to this thread as we know absolutely nothing about it, for example it could have been someone who was being abused/harassed by a group of mouthy teenagers and gave one a clip around the ear(okay its far fetched but possible). But in general the more serious crimes against children my opinion still stands

bloomingflower

miduck wrote: »

I am sure some would agree with you, but I prefer to look at the bigger picture - things are not always as clear cut as they seem.

justlooking2012 wrote: »

You are right there and im not specifically referring to this thread as we know absolutely nothing about it, for example it could have been someone who was being abused/harassed by a group of mouthy teenagers and gave one a clip around the ear(okay its far fetched but possible). But in general the more serious crimes against children my opinion still stands

Agree with justlooking,there is nothing more clear cut than a crime committed against a child in my book. Doesn't matter what the circumstances were.

bery_451

Who would employ someone with a criminal record? So whats the point of jsa claimant seeking jobs when the claimant knows they wont get the job in the first place because of criminal record.

what if the claimant has a criminal record before making a claim before jsa?

I understand if the claimant gets

clemmatis

miduck wrote: »

Has anyone said that? The situation described by the OP and that described by barbarawright are entirely different, and would be treated as such by the JCP. The OP's relative would be sanctioned due to their own misconduct, barbarawright's relative would not be sanctioned as he was (is?) incapacitated.

I'd say some posters here are doing rather more than simply supporting the standard JSA sanctions (the OP prominent among them) -- which do not as I understand it preclude payment of another benefit -- :

DarlingBuds wrote: »

You see I don't think it's fair he should get anything. Due to type of conviction, he really can't work anywhere, but I don't think us tax payers should also be giving him pocket money....

DarlingBuds wrote: »

He sponges of his mum, also on benefits. It's not my fault he took the wrong path. He should be penalised accordingly

DarlingBuds wrote: »

Let's just say it was to do with children. Yes he should be on the streets and pelleted like the old days!

princessdon wrote: »

Gosh shame you can only thank once!!

princessdon wrote: »

It would go some way to showing right from wrong -you don't know the crime but I can think of some that deserve the workhouse my sympathies are with the innocent parents tbh.

skintandscared_2

bloomingflower wrote: »

Agree with justlooking,there is nothing more clear cut than a crime committed against a child in my book. Doesn't matter what the circumstances were.

You can't be that black and white about things. Life rarely is. This happened in my own family recently so I know all details are true.

12 year old boy is "going out" with a 12 year old girl in his class. 2 weeks later, he changes his mind and finishes with her. Boy receives "explicit" photo on his phone of the girl. She took and sent the photo herself, to several boys in that class. The boy finds it hilarious, shows his mate then deletes the picture. The photo goes viral round the school and everyone is laughing at/taunting the girl.

The police then turn up at the boy's house and question him about the photo. In a panic, the girl has alleged that the boy has sent it to half the school. The police advise the boy (who is home alone, unaccompanied by anyone over 16 or a parent) that if that is the case he will be placed on the s.e.x. offenders register.

It is then discovered that the picture had never been sent from the boy's phone and the matter was dropped.

BUT if he had forwarded that photo to even one friend, he would now find himself on that register, aged 12.

Would you call that clear cut?

bloomingflower

bloomingflower wrote: »

Agree with justlooking,there is nothing more clear cut than a crime committed against a child in my book. Doesn't matter what the circumstances were.

skintandscared wrote: »

You can't be that black and white about things. Life rarely is. This happened in my own family recently so I know all details are true.

12 year old boy is "going out" with a 12 year old girl in his class. 2 weeks later, he changes his mind and finishes with her. Boy receives "explicit" photo on his phone of the girl. She took and sent the photo herself, to several boys in that class. The boy finds it hilarious, shows his mate then deletes the picture. The photo goes viral round the school and everyone is laughing at/taunting the girl.

The police then turn up at the boy's house and question him about the photo. In a panic, the girl has alleged that the boy has sent it to half the school. The police advise the boy (who is home alone, unaccompanied by anyone over 16 or a parent) that if that is the case he will be placed on the s.e.x. offenders register.

It is then discovered that the picture had never been sent from the boy's phone and the matter was dropped.

BUT if he had forwarded that photo to even one friend, he would now find himself on that register, aged 12.

Would you call that clear cut?

I should have made my post above a bit more clearer.

I was actually talking more about adult crimes against children. In terms of sexual abuse,murder for example etc. Not circumstances such as the one you have posted involving teenage school children.

However, I do understand that the situation could have turned out differently for the boy in question. But thank the lord in didn't.

But I bet that girl was oblivious to the trouble she had caused?!.