Reply to: Would you ever employ someone that has been in prison?

[AtW]

Seems like system is a total mess and needs complete reform.

[ASB]

Well, there is a time period after which convictions are considered "spent" - I think it's 10 years? So if he did something like this 20 years ago and it's not stuff like war crimes then it's fair play.

Unfortunately it doesn't necessarily work that way. Firstly convictions become spent under the rehabilation of offenders act. How long that is depends upon the offence. Some (reasonably enough) never become spent. However being spent does not mean they are in any way removed. All it means it you do not need to declare them in general. However it does not apply to everything by any means. Insurance contracts (arguably), Visa applications, eg for the US and Australia.

Also CRB Checks which are undertaken do reveal them - depending upon the level of check undertaken.

[AtW]

A perfect example of why you should not judge someone on their past by using a police database.

Well, there is a time period after which convictions are considered "spent" - I think it's 10 years? So if he did something like this 20 years ago and it's not stuff like war crimes then it's fair play.

[ASB]

He is now head of department through merit. He got pissed up a few times out on the town when he was as student and got lifted, 20 years on he runs the Maths department and is now considered to be an excellent teacher. A perfect example of why you should not judge someone on their past by using a police database.

And perhaps also a good example of why, because often people do judge the book by it's covers, not recording the damn things in the first place might actually improve things.

[minestrone]

Well, 3 offences kind of makes him repeat offender - it seems reasonable to err on the side of caution if he is to work with children.

He is now head of department through merit. He got pissed up a few times out on the town when he was as student and got lifted, 20 years on he runs the Maths department and is now considered to be an excellent teacher. A perfect example of why you should not judge someone on their past by using a police database.

[AtW]

I think they were all just for being noisey in the street, drunk student kind of things. They obviously cross checked his stories with the charges and let him in.

Well, 3 offences kind of makes him repeat offender - it seems reasonable to err on the side of caution if he is to work with children.

[ASB]

I think they were all just for being noisey in the street, drunk student kind of things. They obviously cross checked his stories with the charges and let him in.

One of the issues with that is that it creates an unlevel playing field. Drunk and Disordely is one of the things that is a recordable offence that can be dealt with by fixed penalty (and is I believe the preferred initial option). In this case of course it is considered that a recordable offence has not been committed.

[minestrone]

And how did he explain his previous charge?

I think they were all just for being noisey in the street, drunk student kind of things. They obviously cross checked his stories with the charges and let him in.

[AtW]

as he had a previous charge he got lifted.

And how did he explain his previous charge?

[minestrone]

A good friend is a teacher and has 3 breach of the peace charges, very nearly never got into the job and had to write a letter explaining why he came by them.

He was singing a song in the street one time after the football and they lifted him, they let the others go but as he had a previous charge he got lifted.

[AtW]

Fixed penalties are there to remove the burden from the magistrates courts.

I am okay with those, I am not okay with "police cautions".

[Incognito]

Fixed penalty is 100% not the same as being convicted or pleading guilty in courts, they essentially created this system to get money easier out of people.....

if you get one even for serious crime it's not a criminal record, though I think they are saving up such info on yet another database.

Essentially Labour created parallel legal system that allowed them to extort money without high level of proof requires. What's really annoying is that even though speeding is deemed criminal offence you are not treated to "innocent until proven guilty" standard, essentially they force to self confict yourself or go down for not providing information. It's a serious anomaly that this sort of crap can happen here.

AtW, you are gibbering on a bit here. If you want to research the history of criminality through the English and Welsh legal system, try researching the history of Felonies and Misdemeanours and Indictable and Summary Offences.

Fixed penalties are there to remove the burden from the magistrates courts.

[AtW]

Cautions is surrogate justice - they should never be accepted, if police have proof they should charge person in question or walk away until such proof is available.

[Incognito]

pile of crap

or

as it was known.

I have heard that rumour. Mind you, the PNC isn't any better. Not so much the system, but the monkeys that man it.

[minestrone]

http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/crimestats/faq/

You can have a criminal record even if your name and details are held locally on a local police database i.e. a police caution. However, very few resources have access to records like these.

As someone previously indicated, the most important distinction is in whether or not the offence is a recordable offence or non recordable. That dictates whether your details will be held on the PNC or the SCHS and that is the ‘criminal record’ that people seem to be discussing.

pile of crap

or

as it was known.