Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

how can this be reasonable? - someone who commits a petty crime having to disclose crimes for a job, someone who murders someone and gets a new ID not having to?

(71 Posts)
Fairylea Fri 15-Feb-13 09:54:59

Ok. Possibly not thought this out entirely well but been thinking about this in light of the Jamie Bulger / Jon Venables new identity thing in the news at the moment.

So they gave him a totally new identity. He gets a job. Obviously the people hiring him have no idea who he is or what he's done. Some would argue (I don't agree) that he's done his time so fair enough.

But someone who say, stole some items from a shop as a teenager (still wrong but obviously not on the same scale whatsoever) would still have the same name etc and have to disclose their criminal record wouldn't they? Unless they lie.

So how is that fair?

Am I missing something ?

How is that reasonable?

If I am being stupid or not understanding something I would genuinely like to know.

I have deliberately left out details from the news regarding the case as I wasn't sure I could mention it here.

KatherineKrupnik Fri 15-Feb-13 09:59:44

Thought that you don't have to declare spent convictions, unless sex offences? So your teenager doesn't have to declare anything.

Fairylea Fri 15-Feb-13 10:01:11

I don't know anyone with a conviction. No one at all. I'm just asking a genuine question that I've been wondering about smile

Saltire Fri 15-Feb-13 10:03:16

Well my friend recently applied for a job as home carer. She is now 43. When teh disclosure check was done it showed up a fraud that she'd been convicted for when she was 17. She was late in declaring that she'd gone back to work after being on benefits. She is now married with 3 children, neve rhad a conviction since, but was refused the job because of that one which had shown up on the disclosure form

Rhiannon86 Fri 15-Feb-13 10:03:48

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

KatherineKrupnik Fri 15-Feb-13 10:05:25

Yup I understood that it was a hypothetical teenager. I don know the answer, but I do know people with spent convictions who are able to be in serious (doctor, lawyer) jobs.

I would assume that there are lots of things in place around new identities that the public is not privy to.

Fairylea Fri 15-Feb-13 10:05:55

See that's what I thought.. I thought they did stay on there for checks etc and also when you apply for jobs they ask (sometimes) if you've ever been convicted of anything.

So someone that gets a new ID, does it just wipe the slate clean like a "rebirth" like a totally new person?

LittleChimneyDroppings Fri 15-Feb-13 10:06:14

You dont have to declare spent convictions unless you are working with vulnerable people etc. Unlikely Jon venables would be doing that sort of job somehow. He may have a new identity so the general public cant identify him, but he will still have strict rules on what he can and cant do. If he didn't have a new identity someone would probably kill him at some point.

Floggingmolly Fri 15-Feb-13 10:07:02

Of course it's wrong. Being given a completely new identity to obliterate all record of an abominable crime you committed, even if it did take place when you were a child, is completely wrong.

LittleChimneyDroppings Fri 15-Feb-13 10:07:32

No his slate isn't wiped clean, just protected from just anyone knowing who he is.

KatherineKrupnik Fri 15-Feb-13 10:09:13

from the National Career Service - https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/Pages/convictions.aspx

You don't need to disclose spent convictions when applying for most jobs. Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 it's unlawful for an employer to discriminate on the grounds of a spent conviction. However, some types of jobs are exempt from this Act – this means you have to disclose spent convictions as well as unspent ones. These jobs include:

working with children and vulnerable adults, such as elderly and disabled people
senior roles in banking and the financial services industry
certain posts connected to law enforcement, including the judiciary and the police
work involving national security
certain posts in the prison service
certain professions in areas such as health, pharmacy and the law
private security work.

Floggingmolly Fri 15-Feb-13 10:09:27

"Just anyone" basically includes anyone who might place him in a position of trust, either employment wise, or within a family. Still wrong.

FreudiansSlipper Fri 15-Feb-13 10:09:31

so who would employ these men if their identity was noy changed and how could they possibly keep themsevles safe? Or should they live in fear

I thought you record for non violent crimes was wiped out after 10 years

and how many people have their identity changed and think of the reasons why they do not why others have to declare past convictions

KatherineKrupnik Fri 15-Feb-13 10:10:31

A friend of mine has a spent conviction for burglary at 18. He is now a doctor - he was a mature entrant to a medical course. When he applied he had to go before a GMC panel to be approved.

ifancyashandy Fri 15-Feb-13 10:11:49

As shown by his recall to prison, anyone out on licence is heavily monitored. Someone convicted of such a crime has probation and parole officers up their backside on an almost daily basis (correctly). They are prevented from applying to work with vulnerable people, hence the (non) disclosure is irrelevant.

And I would rather live in a society that rehabilitates children formally found guilty.

LittleChimneyDroppings Fri 15-Feb-13 10:12:39

He would never be put in that type of job. He will still have a probation worker, or someone similar, monitoring what he is doing. Jon venables is not free (in the same sense that most people are) and he will never be able to do exactly what he wants.

KatherineKrupnik Fri 15-Feb-13 10:13:14

they didn't have slates wiped clean though, they were released under license - as you can see by the recall of Venables to prison - which means they are still closely monitored!

LittleChimneyDroppings Fri 15-Feb-13 10:13:32

And I would rather live in a society that rehabilitates children formally found guilty

Absolutely.

TwllBach Fri 15-Feb-13 10:15:37

I've always just assumed that people who committed a crime worthy of an identity change would have to be monitored for the rest of their lives? So someone would be watching/need to be notified every time he applies for a job to make sure he doesn't work with children/vulnerable people.

I realise that still isn't fair though...

CMOTDibbler Fri 15-Feb-13 10:16:28

I was listening to a programme on people who'd been in witness protection and given new identities as part of that, and it certainly caused issues with crbs, so I guess that there would be a flag on the system if someone whose identity had been changed due to the issue of keeping them safe once released from prison that would inform the team responsible for them if they applied for a job they shouldn't be doing

badguider Fri 15-Feb-13 10:19:28

Somebody with a new identity couldn't pass an enhanced disclosure check - something 'sealed' would show up. I don't know how exactly but it would. He's no birth certificate and his new ni number would have massive gaps. If he were daft enough to try to pass his new Id off as a totally normal one and apply fir anything requiring disclosure he'd get found out.

TitWillow Fri 15-Feb-13 10:22:32

You only have to disclose past convictions for certain types of work, as someone above has said.

Even with a new identity, it would be illegal for someone to apply for one of these jobs without disclosing the offence. So Venebles would be told not to apply in the first pace, as it would blow his new identity. If he did, and failed to disclose, the police would disclose for him.

The purpose of the rules is to keep people unsuitable for the role away from vulnerable people, or from being in a position in the criminal justice system. A past offence will not necessarily bar someone from the job, but needs to be taken into account.

People who are given new identities are only given them for protection purposes. They are not actual real identities- the authorities still know who they are, and where they are, and their previous offences still have consequences for them.

TuesdayNightDateNight Fri 15-Feb-13 10:30:06

When my bf applied for a CRB check to be a TA it was on there that there was a DV allegation made against him 10 years ago. Even though no charges were ever made and all that happened was that the police were called.

RedHelenB Fri 15-Feb-13 10:34:33

TBH. I'm surprised that they ever allowed them to be named in the first place. I assume that their new identities mean that they would fail an enhanced crb check in any case if they did try to get work where that was necessary.

TheSecondComing Fri 15-Feb-13 10:34:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now