Let me tell you, this is so good to read. As someone who has long held a one-off simple caution for an apparently 'violent' crime (it was, at best, a bitch slap) I cannot express just how much it hangs over you when you look for work. Basic disclosures don't reveal old offences but as I understand it enhanced disclosures (working with children, vulnerable people etc.) reveal minor misdemeanors no matter how long ago they were committed. It doesn't look good on paper to the employer and they'll automatically opt for another candidate on that basis...it's understandable but it's unfair and the current system definitely needs reviewing.

I always thought the Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act, where minor convictions are considered "spent" after a number of years, protected those with minor convictions hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives.

I can understand some jobs, like working with kids, needing to know every conviction, even spent ones, but I can't see how supermarkets not employ someone with a spent conviction. Under the Act, they shouldn't even know about the spent convictions.

Becuase it's a metter of law, its called the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Also, its a matter of logic, otherwise no one with a conviction would ever get a job.

Taking the bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a shirt again

Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013

Its been an issue of contention in UK law for a long time, how long a criminal conviction for minor offences should remain on record as relevant, and the cost that this inflicts on individuals and society. Its finally come to a head, but even back in 1999 when I was working in the Court system, there was an awareness among the judiciary that this was probably unfair.

Its also been an issue where people have lost their jobs, notably where jobs have increasingly demanded criminal record background checks, where they once wouldn't have. Its been used by companies to justify letting people go when new owners have come in, even when the person has no complaints.

A good example: Someone I know was convicted of intent to supply when they were 18 and got six months. About six years after release they got a support job in the NHS IT. Then at 28, ten years after being release, the department was outsourced and taken over, and a requirement became passing a CRB check.

There are also cases where people have been deliberately 'exploited' in terms of promotions and pay rises, because employers know they can't leave or go elsewhere, even though they've not committed an offence in over a decade.

A lot of these people were just unlucky, doing things that plenty of people got away with.

Its worth noting that this applies to minor offences, rather than serious offences, and particularly where it affects people who haven't been in trouble since.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

The funniest part about that is when people who work at the airport get caught nicking things at work, their employers get rid of them but try as hard as possible to not have them charged for it.

Optimistic as ever

Which is, sort of, fair enough if they're nicking off the employer. It's their loss after all.

When it's the passengers, commercial freight and insurance that's suffering the losses, and they just want to save any bad press for the employer, it's taking the piss.

Optimistic as ever