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 -

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


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.

Fairylea Fri 15-Feb-13 10:42:32

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.

LittleChimneyDroppings Fri 15-Feb-13 12:33:18

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.

Fairylea Fri 15-Feb-13 13:22:56

<reads intently>

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.

LittleChimneyDroppings Fri 15-Feb-13 13:37:14

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.

SandWitch Fri 15-Feb-13 13:44:26

Hopefully you are now registered with the HCPC, not the GSCC wink

andubelievedthat Fri 15-Feb-13 14:13:00

recently , a newspaper used freedom of information to find out how many serving police officers had criminal convictions , more than u may think !

thekidsrule Fri 15-Feb-13 14:13:43


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

TroublesomeEx Fri 15-Feb-13 14:26:19


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!!

thekidsrule Fri 15-Feb-13 14:29:21

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

Narked Fri 15-Feb-13 14:33:26

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.

honeytea Fri 15-Feb-13 14:36:37

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.

TroublesomeEx Fri 15-Feb-13 14:41:04

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.

That's tough sad

MummytoKatie Fri 15-Feb-13 16:10:18

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.

thekidsrule Fri 15-Feb-13 18:03:47

yes folk

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 shock 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

Emilythornesbff Fri 15-Feb-13 18:20:14

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.

HollyBerryBush Fri 15-Feb-13 18:21:44

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 highly annoying

RedHelenB Fri 15-Feb-13 18:28:59

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.

Fairylea Fri 15-Feb-13 18:36:49

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.

WhatKindofFool Fri 15-Feb-13 18:53:28

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?

Cornycabernet Fri 15-Feb-13 18:57:22

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

Fairylea Fri 15-Feb-13 19:08:24

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.

honeytea Fri 15-Feb-13 21:33:33

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

-They were children, there is a reason 11 year olds can't vote or get married ordie for their country or live alone, they can't do those things because they are not mature enough to make those decisions. 11 year olds need parents who guide and protect them.

I was arrested for stealing some sweets from super drug when I was 13. There was no excuse for it but I was having ago ugh time.
I was given a warning and told it would be wiped when I turned 18. The law changed when I was 17 and now I have to have "THEFT" on my CRB when I give an enhanced disclosure. The law states this will be so until my 100th birthday.
I am an Nanny. And excuse my immodesty but I'm a really good Nanny. I'm qualified with comprehensive training and experience.

I HAVE to by law give an enhanced disclosure. I would never steal anything, it was something horrible I did as a child as a one-off, but it follows me. So prospective employers, who hire me to live in their houses and drive their cars, now get a piece of paper that has THEFT and a date on leaving me the embarrassment of explaining myself and - in some cases - a ruined interview.

But apparently if I had tortured and killed another child then I would be free as a bird with a spangly new record.


Footface Fri 15-Feb-13 21:43:46

If you have are probation and does inform your employer of that you are on probation and get found out you will get sent back to prison.

So the example you used of tesco, someone with a new Id would stand a better chance of gaining employment that some one in prison for theft

Footface Fri 15-Feb-13 21:44:28


* a tough time
* a Nanny

Time for bed I think...

TheCraicDealer Fri 15-Feb-13 22:07:13

What age are you seventh? If you don't mind me asking, I mean. My DP is a military policeman with a conviction for criminal damage (aged 10- stone thought a hotel conservatory roof) which he says was wiped....he's 27.

That's rough for you, it's things like that you wish you could put an asterix beside THEFT, with, "I was a troubled teen and I nicked some fruit pastilles from Superdrug, not the Northern Bank robbery"

It was a Mars Egg thing and the policeman said that I was stupid for nicking it because they tasted horrible grin

I'm cough 21 cough [looks around and hope no one notices that I'm so young]

Mines definitely not wiped btw had my last check in Dec, still there with its glowing neon underlined THEFT decorated in glitter on it [mutter mutter]

sleeplessinderbyshire Fri 15-Feb-13 22:23:20

mate of mine is a GP, she has to declare when she has a CRB that she has a caution for under age drinking when she was 17 (celebrating her a level results the week before she was 18). it's now something she finds mildly irritating and pretty funny but when we were younger it was a source of massive stress/anxiety in case she wasn't allowed to work (junior doctors tend to have to move jobs every 3-6 months and have a new enhanced CRB every time)

Remotecontrolduck Fri 15-Feb-13 22:37:54

That is extremely unfair Seventh, there should be some way of convictions like that being wiped. Obviously theft is wrong, but stealing sweets at 13 in a difficult period shouldn't be held against you.

I totally disagree with what was said about the boys being 11 and children thus not responsible. Yes, some things are silly and childish like shop lifting but brutally torturing a toddler? No, there is no excuse for that. Even a 5 year old would know that's beyond the limits of acceptability. They KNEW it was wrong.

Emilythornesbff Sat 16-Feb-13 08:06:27

Yes they were chidren at the time but childhood (and their reportedly very difficult childhood)does not absolve them of culpability.
IMHO a tue life sentence would not have been too harsh. I'm not quite sure what one has to do to be detained permanently tbh.

Losingexcessweight Sat 16-Feb-13 09:21:30

I dont know if this has already been mentioned as i havent read all the thread.

If you have a CRB check, you have to declare all convictions, cautions etc. if you dont, it will still show on your crb anyway, even if the crime was 25 years ago!

honeytea Sat 16-Feb-13 09:31:56

Those who think an 11 year old should be held responsible for their actions, do you think 11 year olds should be able to go and fight for their country? Should they be able to vote?

LaLaGabby Sat 16-Feb-13 09:35:28


If Jon Venables has a CRB check done (highly unlikely) his record will still come up. Clearly he would not be permitted to do any job with children or vulnerable people, ever.

It's only for a job that doesn't require a CRB check that he will be able to hide his record. If the hypothetical teenager applies for the same job they would not have to disclose their conviction if spent, eg after 3 years for most petty crime.

Not sure why you think that Jon Venables should not be able to get any kind of job ever in his life, or why you think he should forever be at the mercy of people who obsess over the case and seek to out him. If he is able to be released from prison whom does it benefit for him to be in hiding his whole life?

Floggingmolly Sat 16-Feb-13 09:50:23

Well, honeytea, seven is deemed to be the age of reason; why should an eleven year old be held unaccountable for their crimes?

BarbarianMum Sat 16-Feb-13 10:11:32

An 11 year old is not held 'unaccountable' - they can still be punished by the law. But many some of us don't feel that an 11 year old should be treated like an adult, whatever their crime, so a larger emphasis should be put on rehabilitation.

If you think that children are totally accountable for their actions at 11, then would you favour changing the law in other ways too? Should they be allowed to marry, join the army, leave school and consent to sex?

BarbarianMum Sat 16-Feb-13 10:12:59

PS: Anybody who deems 7 the 'age of reason' has clearly not had much to do with 7 year olds!

honeytea Sat 16-Feb-13 10:13:20

The United nations recommends a minimum age of 12 for criminal responsibility.

If we say a 7 year old is capable of reasoning why not let 7 year olds take responsibility for their own lives? Why should we tell a 7 year old what to do and drive them around and think that as a parent and adult our opinion if more valid than a 7 year old's?

TheBigJessie Sat 16-Feb-13 10:16:10

Seven? Where? The Bible?

Seven year olds believe in the Tooth Fairy!

This isn't about heather teu are capable of "reasoning" though. If a 7 year old or an 11 year old stole something then yes, their age is a factor in this. We do silly things when young. But when a child TORTURES and MURDERS another child that can't be passed off as "well, they don't have full consideration yet"
Torturing another hold indicates a serious and dangerous underlying MH issue.
No, I don't think 7/11 year olds are old enough to vote or have lots of responsibility. But I think they CAN be held responsible for serious, serious crimes.

And no, no matter what your age when you did it, if you deliberately killed another human being you should NOT be able to live a normal life and get a job etc.
Jut because he isn't working WITH children he is still amongst the people. How would you feel if the man your child bought sweet in a shop from turned out to be a child murderer? Or the bus driver had tortured a classmate when he was a boy?

*whether they are

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