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)
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.
Thanks. That's all very interesting.
So how does it cost the tax payer millions to give someone a new identity? I'm assuming it's because of the monitoring that therefore goes with it.
I wonder if it costs more or less than keeping them in prison. I'd imagine someone like that would be a target both on the inside and the outside.
It cost £250,000 for Jon Venables new ID. Unfortunately he's had to have 4 for various reasons. I would still think it was cheaper to have him in the community, paying his own way, with support from probation, long term. I guess everytime someone tries to blow his cover, or posts pictures of what he might look like now, it costs the tax payer more money.
OP you have got it wrong.
The judge sets how long a person is deemed as "a risk",in the Bulger case this will be for life.
When a CRB is applied for, on the section that says "other information" it will be sent back that, the person cannot work with vulnerable people/children etc.
The new identity is kept on record, these people don't have freedom of travel, they are kept "tabs" on, that is the role of the agencies that are involved in the whole thing, similar to probabtion.
I am in SW, when i put names in my computer, a red mark will come up against them and it will say "this person poses a risk to children", for example.
You would be surprised at the information held by SS.
It is a misconception that CRB checks only show up convictions.
Also many professions have regulatry bodies (which the torys are trying to disband).
I could not work unless i am a member of the GSCC, you cannot train to be a SW, either.
The GSCC what every detail of your life since leaving school, including you driving/car history. You cannot hide anything and this is also a safeguard against criminals entering certain jobs.
That is why there is an outcry against regulatory bodies being disbanded.
There are propably police control room workers on MN, who wil ltell you how strict there recruitment is. Their close family is looked at, also.
I wonder if it costs more or less than keeping them in prison
It generally costs more.
It would be interesting to consider a case like Maxine Carr, who also got a new identity. She was never a risk to anyone, as she only lied as to where her boyfriend was, saying she was with him when she wasn't if I remember correctly, but presumably has the same restrictions on job applications because of her change of identity because it was such a high profile case.
I always knew they would watch them very closely. I suppose I was thinking from an employers point of view really. It's all quite a murky area with previous convictions.
If a new ID person applied for a standard minimum wage type job in Tesco for example and they said they have no convictions and yet someone else has to put down they stole some cds aged 17 and it flags up... I don't know doesn't seem right. But then would a standard employer have access to check records anyway or are they relying on people being honest? Like with medical history. They often ask if you have anything serious etc. My mum, who does, always has to say no otherwise she probably wouldn't be employmed whatever anyone says about equal rights etc.
It depends on how long ago the cds were stolen though. After a period of time the conviction is spent in a 'standard' job. If john venables was applying for a job which requires an enhanced check (unlikely) then it would be decided by probation and above whether he could actually apply for that job anyway. So it wouldn't be an issue.
Its up to your mum if she decides not to disclose her medical history, but if she got found out she could lose her job and if something happened she may not be covered by insurance. Your mum is not (i presume) a new ID person arranged by the police, and she is not subject to the same monitoring that john venables is.
Hopefully you are now registered with the HCPC, not the GSCC
recently , a newspaper used freedom of information to find out how many serving police officers had criminal convictions , more than u may think !
im having massive trouble finding a job because of a conviction
it even effects my household insurance all the big ones wont touch me,and had to go to a ex convicts website to find a insurer that will with inflated prices
Obviously you don't have to answer, but (out of curiosity) what was the conviction? Was it for a serious offence? I had no idea it could affect household insurance and the like!!
it as assault,yes a serious offence
i had no idea how much it affects things but it does,if it was fraud i could understand the insurance more
my job advisor is coming across this problem alot with clients even for minor things
A) He was a child. He may have to declare adult offences.
B) There is no way he would stay alive if his crimes were known.
In most western countries he would not even have been convicted. In my opinion tgere is a huge difference between an 11 year old and a 17 year old.
Wow. I imagine that 'assault' is something you could find yourself just caught up in too. I had no idea it would affect so many things.
I might be wrong but I have a feeling hat he would have a criminal record to declare - it would probably be full of lots of minor and less minor things but would show hat he had spent much of his teenage years in a secure unit.
Aside from anything else doing this would probably keep him safer - otherwise he would have huge gaps in his life and life knowledge that he would otherwise have to explain.
it is easier to get caught up in than many people think
i was hoping to go back to America (holiday) but have been told that i would have trouble getting in
though some celebrity's (cheryl cole) managed it,dont think its as easy for joe public though
ive even applied for voluntary work and they ask about criminal records and its not working with children,public etc
the strange thing is i can help out at my childs school,eg,take them to the local old folks home,local church harvest festival but if i wanted to dinner lady i would not be able to
so let this be a lesson to everybody about what it can effect
I guess (would hope) that the men with new ID wouldnot be able to work in certain fields. But it's a tough one isn't it. I know they were children when they killed that little boy but they were responsible for their actions (hence their convictions for murder). Personally, I often think of (and weep for) that poor toddler and his mother.
Interesting anecdote abnout 'tabs kept on people ' - Bigf Brother is truely with us!
I was married and divorced abroad. I never used his surname other than in a socail capacity, my passport and bank accounts in this country stayed in my maiden name - yet his surname throws up on CRB checks in this country
You may be alright for america - I know someone with a conviction for assault who got to go there on holiday - just had to fill forms in in advance & I think they interviewed him when he got there too.
I agree with you Emily.
I find it quite strange that there seems to be an undercurrent here that somehow they were just children and didn't know what they were doing. Anyone who knows the details of the case and their previous abduction attempts knows they were absolutely fully aware of their actions. They were in the words of the judge, "cunning and wicked".
But I'm trying very hard not to get too emotive about the details of that particular case. It just sparked my thoughts about new identities.
He may be killed if his identity were known but is that a justification for the Gov spending so much money on his new identity? What about the rationing of drugs and medical care?decisions in respect of life saving public spending have to be made in the public interest and is it in the public interest to protect Jon Venables?
they should never have been tried in an adult court
their pictures should never have been plastered all over the media
He's going to have to be kept segregated in prison and watched constantly
if he gets out he'll need yet another new identity etc
their identities should never have been made public in the first place
Corny that's an interesting point.
I guess there was so much media interest at the time and everyone was so outraged and shocked etc the media was desperate to publish the photos, rightly or wrongly.
I suppose they would have possibly been identified by the cctv footage that they released before they found James' body anyway, when they were still searching for him. I don't know. Maybe not.
There was another (absolutely innocent) boy who was arrested before the other two and thankfully the media never published a photo of him otherwise I could imagine even though he was innocent his life would be absolutely wrecked.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.