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.
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
AIBU?
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?
70 replies
Fairylea · 15/02/2013 09:54
OP posts:
Rhiannon86 ·
15/02/2013 10:03
This reply has been deleted
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
TheSecondComing ·
15/02/2013 10:34
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.