We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Job Interview: Drink Driving offence on DBS
Options
Comments
-
Looking at their other various replies on threads they mostly appear to be either sarcy, of no help or pointless, hence not giving them the pleasure of a response that they was probably hoping for.
Don't worry, you're not the first person to notice this and you won't be the last. Shaun of the Dead or whatever user name they were on at the time (and trust me, there have been plenty of these in past) makes a habit of posting replies that are unhelpful or sarcastic and more often than not, replies that state others are incorrect without giving a reason why in the hope that they can at a later date appear to be intelligent by having to explain in more detail.
He will deny ever having posted under a different user name but it's something that many other posters on here have picked up on many times in the past.0 -
Bluetooth,
Just to clear something up, and you may want to check.
You can not be charged with both offences. It is either one or the other.
21 years ago, roadside breath tests would never giver you an alcohol level. Just pass/fail.
The evidential breath machine at the Police Station would give you this reading. But you stated you were only 1mg over the prescribed limit. How do you know how much over you were, as you said you broke the tube to the machine? (which is replaceable).
Check your paperwork again. It is an impossibility to be charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, when you failed to provide.
Also, as above it is doubtful that at 1mg over(36mg per 100ml breath) you would be charged. This would have also been the lower reading (if a reading was taken, which it wasnt).
Just take it as it comes. If they ask for a DBS check then thats cool. But if they ask you about your past convictions you will ultimately have to tell them.
Good luck...0 -
Jumblebumble wrote: »In addition no one gets charged if one reading is below 39 nowadays
I don't know if this applied 21 years ago but i suspect the reading was 1mg over 39 and not 35
Its always been charge at 40 but up to 50 the suspect had the choice to provide blood.0 -
Oh for crying out loud, who gives a rats ar*e what the exact conditions were 21 years ago?! Who cares if it was 35, 40 or whatever. Is it going to change your advice at all, or are you just attacking the OP to make yourself feel superior whilst actually coming across as condescending and downright rude?
OP, ignore the pointlessly aggressive replies. You've had the best answer from JGB1955 which is to phone up the DBS helpline. Theyll be able to explain whether it will/wont show up in future.0 -
Under the current regs; if you have more than one conviction offence (even if they were dealt with at the same time) then all conviction offences will show no matter how old or how they were disposed.
Since the Home Office lost in court last year, this process is changing. We don't know what the new filtering scheme will look like, but it will be addressing the unfairness of the multiple conviction rule above so your record may not show up on future checks (watch this space, current rumours are that they'll be rolling out the new rules in spring but they're well known for chronically delaying change so don't quote me on that).
In the meantime, a reasonable employer wouldn't look to hard at such an old information as long as you're forthcoming and remorseful. You might want to talk to Unlock who can coach you through any future applications that require a spent criminal record declaration.I always thought the manager had been a bit cheeky because he put that it was "School IT Support - Child Workforce" under the "Position applied for" on the DBS certificate which was never the case.
You say cheeky, I say unlawful at best and criminal at worst. I would urge you to bring this to the attention of the DBS so that they can investigate.A witty saying proves nothing0 -
Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »If you were charged with failing to provide you weren't 1 microgram over and it takes some effort break the pipe on machine. Were you also charge with criminal damage too?
I suspect you mean the plastic tube you blow into. The only way you're breaking that is pulling it off and standing on it.
There's obviously more to this that you're caring to share.
Be that as it may, the conviction is still spent.
By the sound of it the company broke the law by claiming the job required a higher level of disclosure than was the case.
Except for certain types of convictions and / or certain types of work, an applicant is entitled not to disclose spent convictions and it is unlawful for the prospective employer to discriminate against them for doing so.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards