Criminal Record
Alasdair
population of the UK are totally free from criminal convictions?
Whereas the Rehabilitation of Offenders act is dead in the water
because of the number of exceptions to it.
Whereas every job in the public sector and many in the private sector
require a CRB check nowadays.
What are the chances of someone with a conviction for criminal damage
30 years ago (sentence absolute discharge) getting a decent job these
days?
--
Alasdair.
peterwn
If one excludes most motoring and administrative offences (eg no dog
or TV livence), perhaps much less than 1% of the population has a
criminal record, but this is only a guess. IMO if more than 5% or so
of the population has a record, Whitehall, Chief Constables and Judges
would start to have a serious problem as those with records start to
be a significant political force.
As far as I can see the impetus for 'clean slate' policies arose from
people who in their youth were convicted of smoking pot or for public
order offences arising out of protests or demonstrations.
thedarkman
Nigel Oldfield
"For example it is estimated that at least twenty percent of the
working population has a criminal record and one in three men under
the age of 30 have criminal convictions (Ibid)."
"roughly a third of the men in the UK under the age of 35 already have
a criminal record"
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u33ujh57t0080251/
WM
Nigel Oldfield
§ More than five million people in the UK have convictions for crimes
that could have involved imprisonment.
§ Less than 10% of convictions are for violence to the person.
§ One in three men under 30 years of age have criminal records.
§ It is estimated that at least 20% of the working population has a
criminal record.
§ 82% of offenders are male.
§ The proportion of offenders convicted only once is higher for
females than for males. Almost 80% are convicted
on only one occasion before the age of 40.
§ 70% of female offenders are first convicted for theft and handling
stolen goods.
§ The most common female offence is theft from shops, 4% of the female
population are convicted of the offence,
at least once, before the age of 40.
§ 50% of offenders are under 21 years of age.
§ 55% of the prison population have qualifications.
§ Home Office statistics show that if a person with a criminal record
finds settled employment, or receives training
with secured employment at the end, the chances of re-offending are
cut by two-thirds.
§ Current estimates suggest that it is at least eight times harder for
a person with a criminal record to obtain
employment than somebody without.
§ Custodial sentences of over two-and-a-half years are never
considered spent.
§ Only 0.4% of the population have a conviction by the age of 35 that
will never be spent.
WM
nonanon
> If one excludes most motoring and administrative offences (eg no dog or
> TV livence),
Many of the female prison population were there for failure to pay the
fine they got for not having a tv licence.
An old conviction for criminal damage is bad on the CV, but a spell
inside?
Ian Jackson
<cf63dca0-a390-4594...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
peterwn <pmil...@gmail.com> writes
>On Jan 10, 1:43�pm, Alasdair <m...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote:
>> Could someone hazard a reasonable guess? �What percentage of the
>> population of the UK are totally free from criminal convictions?
>>
>> Whereas the Rehabilitation of Offenders act is dead in the water
>> because of the number of exceptions to it.
>>
>> Whereas every job in the public sector and many in the private sector
>> require a CRB check nowadays.
>>
job, and that it was illegal to demand them for others.
>> What are the chances of someone with a conviction for criminal damage
>> 30 years ago (sentence absolute discharge) getting a decent job these
>> days?
>>
>
>If one excludes most motoring and administrative offences (eg no dog
>or TV livence), perhaps much less than 1% of the population has a
>criminal record, but this is only a guess. IMO if more than 5% or so
>of the population has a record, Whitehall, Chief Constables and Judges
>would start to have a serious problem as those with records start to
>be a significant political force.
>
>As far as I can see the impetus for 'clean slate' policies arose from
>people who in their youth were convicted of smoking pot or for public
>order offences arising out of protests or demonstrations.
>
If the ongoing introduction of more and more new offences of the
"walking on the cracks in the pavement" variety, it is inevitable that
the vast majority of the population WILL eventually have some sort of
criminal record.
--
Ian
Robbie
> In message
> <cf63dca0-a390-4594...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> peterwn <pmil...@gmail.com> writes
>> On Jan 10, 1:43 pm, Alasdair <m...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote:
>>> Could someone hazard a reasonable guess? What percentage of the
>>> population of the UK are totally free from criminal convictions?
>>>
>>> Whereas the Rehabilitation of Offenders act is dead in the water
>>> because of the number of exceptions to it.
>>>
>>> Whereas every job in the public sector and many in the private sector
>>> require a CRB check nowadays.
>>>
> I thought that CRB checks were required only for certain categories of
> job, and that it was illegal to demand them for others.
That is how it works in theory. But in practice it hasn't worked that
way. Most people who are CRB checked are done so without any need but
that's the way things have worked out...
It's to stop the potential future Ian Huntley's and Gary Glitter's...
>
>>> What are the chances of someone with a conviction for criminal damage
>>> 30 years ago (sentence absolute discharge) getting a decent job these
>>> days?
>>>
>>
>> If one excludes most motoring and administrative offences (eg no dog
>> or TV livence), perhaps much less than 1% of the population has a
>> criminal record, but this is only a guess. IMO if more than 5% or so
>> of the population has a record, Whitehall, Chief Constables and Judges
>> would start to have a serious problem as those with records start to
>> be a significant political force.
>>
>> As far as I can see the impetus for 'clean slate' policies arose from
>> people who in their youth were convicted of smoking pot or for public
>> order offences arising out of protests or demonstrations.
>>
> If the ongoing introduction of more and more new offences of the
> "walking on the cracks in the pavement" variety, it is inevitable that
> the vast majority of the population WILL eventually have some sort of
> criminal record.
The new ISA will ensure that if you aren't checked you won't get a job
even shoveling shit.
November 5
A more interesting question, although harder to answer, is what
proportion of the UK population are criminals, caught or not.
Take dodgy image laws. If someone falls out of grace with HMG, it can
be arranged that they be sent a dodgy picture from an untraceable
email account, with the subject "Picture as requested, thanks for
payment."
Ding! An immediate criminal. The whole mass hysteria/CP industry kicks
into play, s/he is now a perv, unable to find a job and ostracised by
society. Suicide is a possibility - how tragic that someone unpopular
with the government stepped in front of a speeding train.
So it is quite conceivable that given the laws in the UK today,
*anyone* may be criminalised. Although I expect the British overlords
to come up with a few extra catch-all laws to criminalise saints
before the transformation into a Socialist nanny police state is
complete. Can't keep on pulling the same bunny from the same hat now,
can we?
N5
Laurence Taylor
>>> Whereas every job in the public sector and many in the private sector
>>> require a CRB check nowadays.
>>>
> I thought that CRB checks were required only for certain categories of
> job, and that it was illegal to demand them for others.
Most companies now ask job applicants if they have a record, and most
will bin the application if the answer is "yes", regardless of the
type of the offence or how relevant it is to the job.
> If the ongoing introduction of more and more new offences of the
> "walking on the cracks in the pavement" variety, it is inevitable that
> the vast majority of the population WILL eventually have some sort of
> criminal record.
And will therefore become unemployable.
--
rgds
LAurence
<><
...'There are few things easier than to live badly & die well' -O. Wilde
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
AlanG
Ian Jackson
Taylor <see-h...@nospam.plus.com> writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>>>> Whereas every job in the public sector and many in the private sector
>>>> require a CRB check nowadays.
>>>>
>> I thought that CRB checks were required only for certain categories
>>of job, and that it was illegal to demand them for others.
>
>Most companies now ask job applicants if they have a record, and most
>will bin the application if the answer is "yes", regardless of the type
>of the offence or how relevant it is to the job.
>
>> If the ongoing introduction of more and more new offences of the
>>"walking on the cracks in the pavement" variety, it is inevitable that
>>the vast majority of the population WILL eventually have some sort of
>>criminal record.
>
>And will therefore become unemployable.
>
The work will still have to be done, so we'll have to start employing
known criminals (ie probably people like you and me).
--
Ian
Fredxx
"nonanon" <no...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:Zzb2n.23684$2F5....@newsfe07.ams2...
That's an old wives tale. Anyone who continues to *refuse" to pay a fine is
likely to find themeselves in prison. It is the *refusal* to pay the fine
which puts you inside, not the criminal act itself.
Franky
They would have no need to disclose such a conviction
Dissenter
<see-h...@nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>>>> Whereas every job in the public sector and many in the private sector
>>>> require a CRB check nowadays.
>>>>
>> I thought that CRB checks were required only for certain categories of
>> job, and that it was illegal to demand them for others.
>
>Most companies now ask job applicants if they have a record, and most
>will bin the application if the answer is "yes", regardless of the
>type of the offence or how relevant it is to the job.
For those with a criminal record, unless it's the sort of job that
would require a CRB check, or your case was all over the papers, it
would be prudent to lie in this case.
--
Dissenter
nonanon
> "nonanon" <no...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:Zzb2n.23684$2F5....@newsfe07.ams2...
>> Many of the female prison population were there for failure to pay the
>> fine they got for not having a tv licence.
> That's an old wives tale.
What's an old wives tale? That at some times many of the female prison
population were there for failure to pay the fines they got for failing
to buy a TV Licence?
It's true, they were.
> Anyone who continues to *refuse" to pay a
> fine is likely to find themeselves in prison. It is the *refusal* to
> pay the fine which puts you inside, not the criminal act itself.
Where 'refused to' sometimes meant 'was not able to', or various
combinations of 'the boyfriend, who's house it was, should have been the
one interviewed, prosecuted, fined, but because he was out leaving the
girl to do the hoovering she ended up with the record instead'.
ZZ
news:b9sjk59k6ueh5skq3...@4ax.com...
...and pretty safe to do so. I started work in a public sector accounts
department while still tagged after early release from prison & went on to
work for them for 3 years without any problems until I found another job. I
have never admitted my conviction (for fraud) to any employer and have never
had any comebacks.
Nick Name
following poo:
Apparently there is a 'well known' database that lists those released
from Prison (not sure about the details of any offence) that is accessed
by some employment agencies. There is also a suggestion (can't back it
up) that some of the data comes from people like Reliance, gathered when
they are fitting 'tags'.
No citation - perhaps someone else knows more?
Fredxx
The court would ask for a person's means, and there are rules to say how
much can be collected from benefits and the like. Someone with absolutely
no means would not be able to pay, and the court would not give a custodial
sentence under those conditions, but wait and expect a future attendance to
reassess. I have seen fines going back many many years. It's the "can pay"
but "won't pay" that get custodial sentences.
Big Les Wade
>If one excludes most motoring and administrative offences (eg no dog
>or TV livence), perhaps much less than 1% of the population has a
>criminal record, but this is only a guess.
Wildly wrong, Peter.
> IMO if more than 5% or so
>of the population has a record, Whitehall, Chief Constables and Judges
>would start to have a serious problem as those with records start to
>be a significant political force.
They can't become a significant political force, because they cannot
unify. To join such a movement would be to reveal one's record.
This makes them an ideal first-target group for "salami legislation",
where the government wants to introduce measures that will eventually
cover the entire population, but needs to do it a little at a time so as
not to provoke opposition.
>As far as I can see the impetus for 'clean slate' policies arose from
>people who in their youth were convicted of smoking pot or for public
>order offences arising out of protests or demonstrations.
Quite likely. Do you oppose them on that account?
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
Alasdair
wrote:
>They would have no need to disclose such a conviction
Perhaps not but it would come up on a CRB or ISA check and these days
virtually *all* job applicants are CRB or ISA checked as a matter of
routine.
--
Alasdair.