BF2S Forums Sex offender laws need to be reworked

JohnG@lt wrote:

And again, what me and Turquoise have been saying is that no, the employer should not have a right to dig into someones personal life unless it is applicable to the job. Naked pictures of your wife may not apply to your job, but as an employer, it is currently my right to ask you for them as part of a contract. You have no rights other than the right to refuse. Too bad if it's a high paying job.

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

And again, what me and Turquoise have been saying is that no, the employer should not have a right to dig into someones personal life unless it is applicable to the job. Naked pictures of your wife may not apply to your job, but as an employer, it is currently my right to ask you for them as part of a contract. You have no rights other than the right to refuse. Too bad if it's a high paying job.

Thats capitalism and the free market for you, companies hold all the cards, hard luck if you don't like it.

So move to that socialist utopia the EU then, employees do have rights.

Dilbert_X wrote:

They don't have 'rights' to work in sensitive jobs.

Chances are a felon will have a big fat inexplicable hole in their CV and won't be applying for anything responsible anyway.
Companies will still hire these people, eg for factory work.

It just means individual citizens don't have the right to ask other individual citizens about whether they have a criminal record or the detail of it.

Last edited by Pug (2010-04-22 06:45:16)

Dilbert_X wrote:

If the conviction is 'spent' thats it, they can say with a straight face 'I have no criminal record'.
Its the rehabilitation thing JohnG@lt is going on about, devil makes work for idle hands, better to keep them busy.

Doesn't apply in sensitive cases, working with children, applying for a gun license and so on.

Here ya go

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 of the UK Parliament enables some criminal convictions to be ignored after a rehabilitation period. Its purpose is that people do not have a lifelong blot on their records because of a minor indiscretion in their past. The rehabilitation period is automatically determined by the sentence, and starts from the date of the conviction. After this period free of further convictions, the conviction is "spent" (= expunged), and with certain exceptions an ex-offender is not obliged to mention an expunged (spent) conviction in any context, including when applying for a job, or obtaining insurance, or in civil proceedings.

Certain professions and employments are exempt from the Act so that individuals are not allowed to withhold details of previous convictions in relation to their job when applying for positions in similar fields. These professions include :

Those working with children and other vulnerable groups, such as teachers and social workers
Those working in professions associated with the justice system, such as solicitor, police, court clerk, probation officer, prison officer and traffic warden
Doctors, dentists, chemists or nurses
Accountants
Vetenarians
Managers of unit trusts
Anyone applying to work as an officer of the Crown
Members of the priesthood
Employees of the RSPCA whose duties extend to the humane killing of animals
Any employment or other work normally carried out in bail hostels or probation hostels
Certain officials and employees from government and public authorities with access to sensitive or personal information or official databases about children or vulnerable adults
Any office or employment concerned with providing health services which would normally enable access to recipients of those health services
Officers and other persons who execute various court orders
Anyone who as part of their occupation occupies premises where explosives are kept under a police certificate
Contractors who carry out various kinds of work in tribunal and court buildings
Certain company directorships, such as those for banks, building societies and insurance companies
Also certain civil service positions are excluded from the act, such as employment with the Civil Aviation Authority and the UK Atomic Energy Authority[1].
Aside from these professions, the law also exempts organisations if the question is asked either:

by or on behalf the Football Association, Football League or Premier League to assess someone’s suitability to work as, or supervise or manage, a steward at football matches.
by the Financial Services Authority and certain other bodies involved in finance, when asked to assess the suitability of a person to hold a particular status in the financial and monetary sectors.
to assess a person’s suitability to adopt children, or a particular child, or a question about anyone over the age of 18 living with such a person

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilita … s_Act_1974

Any competent company will see a hole in a CV and may choose to skip over that person.
According to a manager I knew at Toyota a good proportion of line workers had done time, no-one else wanted to do the work.

Pug wrote:

So reporters aren't allowed to report arrests and cover trials?

lowing wrote:

Also I notice it only includes "minor indescretions", these would seem to also exclude every crime we are discussing, as I do not see a felony as a minor indescretion...I doubt the EU does either. Basically that "act" is not as potent as you wish to make it appear.

Prison sentences of more than 2½ years can never be spent.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-22 06:55:42)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Pug wrote:

So reporters aren't allowed to report arrests and cover trials?

Of course they can, and obviously the internetz changes things radically, the act was written in 1974 when criminal records were held on file cards in individual Police stations.

lowing wrote:

Also I notice it only includes "minor indescretions", these would seem to also exclude every crime we are discussing, as I do not see a felony as a minor indescretion...I doubt the EU does either. Basically that "act" is not as potent as you wish to make it appear.

I'm not trying anything.

Prison sentences of more than 2½ years can never be spent.

So it does, as I said this is what John G@lt was on about.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You'll be on thin legal ice there, and if its on the internet already doesn't matter.

Companies will just ask applicants to supply CRB docs, as they do already.
For minor indiscretions the average company is fairly liberal about it, thats the thing about liberal democracy - most people don't want to trawl through the minutiae of other peoples live like they do in the US.

That's messed up.  There's nothing illegal about reporting crime, so I'm not quite seeing why organizing it and making it accessible would be illegal (given you can report it in the first place)

According to Law and the Media, a reference work relating to British media law, if a person can prove that the details of an expunged (spent) conviction were published with malice, then the publisher may be subject to libel damages regardless of whether the details were true or not. This applies where the publisher is relying on a defence of qualified privilege or justification.

As a result, although British media remain free to publish the details of spent (expunged) convictions, provided they are not motivated by malice, they generally avoid mention of such convictions after rehabilitation

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-22 07:20:23)

Dilbert_X wrote:

That's messed up.  There's nothing illegal about reporting crime, so I'm not quite seeing why organizing it and making it accessible would be illegal (given you can report it in the first place)

Why not read the article.

According to Law and the Media, a reference work relating to British media law, if a person can prove that the details of an expunged (spent) conviction were published with malice, then the publisher may be subject to libel damages regardless of whether the details were true or not. This applies where the publisher is relying on a defence of qualified privilege or justification.

As a result, although British media remain free to publish the details of spent (expunged) convictions, provided they are not motivated by malice, they generally avoid mention of such convictions after rehabilitation

So if you're providing a database to prevent people getting jobs - the precise thing the act was intended to prevent - you'll be sued by every person on the database and probably closed down by the govt.

If you're in contempt of the act you could find yourself in prison yourself.

Spark wrote:

So, you would rather they end up on welfare?

That's hardly his problem...

Pug wrote:

Loophole is Malice = direct intent to cause harm.  This would be indirect.  I'll explain if my coffee kicks in today.

I used to be a reporter.  I can't imagine the definition of malicious intent is much different over there.

An Act to rehabilitate offenders who have not been reconvicted of any serious offence for periods of years, to penalise the unauthorised disclosure of their previous convictions, to amend the law of defamation, and for purposes connected therewith.