Should your past come back to haunt you?

[JumpingThroughHoops]

Three cases this week of what we would all consider to be upstanding members of the community barred from standing as councillors due to offences committed as teenagers:

(1) Alan Charles, the vice-chairman of Derbyshire Police Authority, had intended to stand as a Labour candidate but withdrew after revealing he was given a conditional discharge for a minor non-violent crime in 1965.

(2) His case echoes that of Bob Ashford, who quit as the Labour candidate in Avon and Somerset on Tuesday over a £5 fine he was given for two minor offences committed 46 years ago when he was just 13. He was convicted in 1966 of trespass on the railway and possession of an offensive weapon.

(3) The rules had already led war veteran Simon Weston to pull out because he feared that his £30 fine at the age of 14 for being a passenger in a stolen car would have disqualified him.

AIBU to think that if you've had a clean record in excess of 30 years, are working with charities, youth offenders and even the police in a civilian capacity - one would hope you are rehabilitated enough to stand for council? I thought unless you had a heavily violent juvenile record, that petty misdemenours were considered 'spent'.

Interestingly John Prescott is/was standing against Bob Ashford for the seat - that would be the John Prescott who decked someone on live telly but wasn't prosecuted for it

YANBU

That's totally ridiculous.

Mind boggling that you can pass a CRB to work with vulnerable people but not sit on a committee to decide what colour my wheelie bin should be.

Depends on the offence and what it is stopping you doing.

It wasn't that they were being stopped from being a councillor though, they are prohibited from standing for election as Police Commissioners so nowt to do with the colour of wheelie bins!

For stuff like that YANBU!

YANBU. IF you can keep a clean sheet as adult, these teenage miss deeds should be wiped clean.

That just sounds weird. An offence is considered 'spent' after 7 years iirc and as far as I'm concerned, the CRB check should be one of society's highest standard, so yes - if you could pass that you should be able to stand for office.

I would also think that if the rules were changed to force disclosure (ie people would have to state any convictions like these but could still stand) would be fairer, as I would imagine there are a number of councillors out there who are hiding similiar things, maybe deliberately, maybe not.

On a side note, had the privilege of meeting Simon Weston a few times and any community that isn't able to accept his service will be the poorer for it. Amazing man.

I despise John Prescott but he was not prosecuted, rightly, because his actions were deemed reasonable. In other words the Tosser deserved it IMO and more. So it's hardly relevant to the point you're making, OP, which I do agree with.

I know councillors who have done a lot worse, but haven't been convicted. In fact, I know of an MP who is known to regularly drink drive. A conviction as a minor should be deleted from records, but often, even these days, that doesn't happen.

I think the police commissioner election criteria is the same as that of a councillor by the way.

YANBU. Juvenile offences should be completely disregarded (possible exception for really serious/violent offences). I would have thought the fact that someone was in trouble as a teenager, but had overcome that to reach a position where there were a serious candidate for public office, would make them more qualified for the job, not less.

So all in all, that stern scary speech your headteacher gave you as a child telling you that there is a record of all the naughty things you do, that is passed on to schools and workplaces, is actually true?
Who'd have thought eh?

They were standing as police commissioners, not councillors, that is the thing here.

The Home Office and Electoral Commission has said that you can't stand if you have a juvenile conviction for an offence that would carry a prison sentence if committed by an adult. The rules aren't the same for councillors - Alan Charles is deputy leader of a county council.

Yes, I think your past deeds should be taken into account (in fact I'm surprised they aren't in other instances).

The claim that "I'm being persecuted because of my honesty" is a pile of rot, they are being "persecuted" because of past mis-deeds.

I think its fair enough that previous convictions are taken onto account. There are numerous people who have lived a life of crime and have never had a conviction so although possible you are very unlucky to have made only one mistake and been convicted for it.

I've been thinking about this, and in the case of Simon Weston (and similar) if he was deemed rehabilitated enough after a stupid childish prank (not condoning and maybe prank is the wrong description) to wear the Queens uniform and represent his country then he has the right to stand for his beliefs and be held accountable to and by the public. Surely if the general consensus was that he was a criminal or prat he wouldn't get voted in anyway. Am not saying this should be the case for dodgy gits though.

That just sounds weird. An offence is considered 'spent' after 7 years iirc and as far as I'm concerned, the CRB check should be one of society's highest standard, so yes - if you could pass that you should be able to stand for office.
Offences are never 'spent' on an enhanced CRB.

You don't pass or fail a CRB, it shows any criminal record and in some cases extra information from the chief constable.

It is up to an employer whether they employ you or not. Some require a 'clean' CRB, others do not.

I know of a case where the scouts find someone suitable as a volunter, but the guides in the same town don't.

Apologies I read Labour candidate to mean councillor.

So its for Police Commissioners? Even after that expose last year that 1,000 serving officers have criminal convictions?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8987795/Nearly-1000-serving-police-officers-and-PCSOs-have-a-criminal-record.html

I think a minor offence committed at 14 should become irrelevant providing the person has lived an honest life through years of adulthood.

Ridiculous that these minor crimes committed years ago are preventing them from doing anything now. I don't know who sets these rules, but can't the individuals challenge them?