Migrated From: The Record - Posts

Proof that there’s a rehabilitation period for restraining orders with no duration or time specified!

Whilst answering enquiries for Unlock’s helpline I came across the following email from a client, which typifies the type of questions we often get asked. This one relates to relevant orders which have ‘no specified end date’. The following exchange between our client and Disclosure Scotland clears up this point once and for all.

Question to Disclosure Scotland

“Sadly, about 3 years ago, I got into a situation with an ex -partner which, due to a complex set of circumstances, ended with a conviction. I received a fine together with a restraining order. The restraining order had no duration or time specified.

Due to the restraining order not having an end date, I wanted to know whether this would cause a drag through effect and stop my conviction becoming spent? Fines usually become spent 12 months from the date of conviction. The date of my conviction was December 2012.

I was wondering therefore if you could clarify the situation.

Many thanks for your help”

Answer from Disclosure Scotland

“Restraining orders which have no duration/or time specified have a 2 year rehabilitation period. However, in the case where a relevant order is ‘indefinite’ it will still be considered to be live and therefore has a rehabilitation period of 100 years.

We can confirm therefore from the information that you have provided that under new legislation introduced in March 2014, your conviction is now considered spent when applying for a Basic certificate.

Date of conviction December 2012

Fine ( 1 year rehab period) considered spent December 2013

Restraining order no duration/time specified (2 year rehab period) considered spent December 2014 (ROA under English and Welsh legislation)

I hope this information is of assistance”

While this is a success story for this particular client, we would advise you to look carefully at what duration has been placed on your order. ‘Indefinite’ means your conviction will never be spent until such a time as you have gone back to court to have it amended. If the order states ‘Until further notice’, again you will need to go back to court to have an end date placed on the order.

Restraining order’s with no duration or time specified will become spent automatically after two years.

By Simon

Recruitment agencies expecting ‘clear’ disclosures

When it comes to jobs that are exempt from the Rehabilitation of offenders Act, the law says you still need to disclose on an application form when asked about spent cautions or convictions regardless to however minor. In my case I will discuss about a caution from this point.

My caution was in 2012. It is minor and does not have any relevance to working with vulnerable people.

I applied for jobs to 4 different agencies on line and sent my CV with covering letters for Care Assistant roles with elderly people. I have lots of skills/experience and recruiters would always invite me down for the actual interviews. At all those interviews I had to fill out an application form and as they state they will apply for a DBS, I was aware I had to disclose the caution. Once this was put to paper on application, I was advised I would be contacted for a follow up interview and to apply for DBS and if successful will be put forward for training. I found I never heard from any of those agencies again.

I did not want to give up and saw an agency advertising for work. I sent them my CV and a covering letter. The same sequence happened, I received an email arranging an interview etc and asking me to bring proof of my identity.

However this time round, I decided to email the person back from HR as I noted that the email stated that they would need to apply for DBS if I am successful at interview and I did not want to go through the same time wasting exercise again, to not hear from them again after interview. So I decided to email the lady from HR, advising that I am currently waiting on DBS which my local authority had applied and paid for due to some work I was currently doing as a ‘Personal Assistant’.

I received a phone call from this lady from HR. She basically advised I should bring my DBS to the interview if it comes through. She told me she did not feel it had any relevance to the job I was applying for but said I can still go to the interview as it should not be a problem. She said it would basically all depend on whether I was successful or not and then taken from there.

I attended the interview a week later and I was successful at interview. I was told by the interviewer they would need to apply for a fresh DBS. She gave me a letter signed by her manager stating I was successful and a date to start the training for the following week, and pending my references and DBS check to be completed. I had also disclosed to her at the interview about my caution and she told me she did not feel it had relevance to the post but ultimately was down to the Director to make any decision, depending what comes up on DBS. She also appeared to already know about it when I told her as she said it ‘rang a bell’. I assumed the HR lady who I spoke to initially had already spoken to them about it in advance, prior to my interview I left there happy and looking forward to start the training.

Come Monday morning. I checked my emails and there was an email from the woman who interviewed me. She wished me good luck in her email for the future and referred me to ‘see letter attached’. I opened the attachment and there was a rejection letter. The rejection letter stated about them having many candidates that applied for the role who had more experience than me and they were sorry that I was ‘unsuccessful’ for the position.

I telephoned her and asked whether the email was sent in error and she said it was not. She said that a contract had ended and they didn’t have enough work coming in and that any work they did have had to go to the employees that were already on their books. She said she didn’t know there was not enough work until her manager raised it. She was quick to say she would shred all my paperwork. I knew she was lying as the information she was giving me on the phone contradicted the information she sent me in an email At the end of that week, I was job searching on line and came across a large advertisement from this same company on line, in many areas surrounding my borough. It was obvious to me that they had not lost any contracts and there was lots of work available.

It appeared their reluctance & change of mind was related to the minor caution that had no relation to this job or any impact to working with vulnerable elderly people, except of course if I applied to work in a prison. I decided to telephone the woman I had spoken to at the very beginning before my interview, where I had initially disclosed the caution to. I told this lady from HR about the confusion I had, in being told different theories to why they changed their mind. I also added the fact they gave me a firm offer in writing stating I was successful with a training date. I pointed out that it was obvious to me there was no issues with losing contracts as there was a big advertisement on line and plenty of work! The lady I spoke to from HR remembered me because she remembered advising me to bring my DBS that was pending with the LA and the disclosure I made in an email. She asked me some questions relating to my caution and I spent some time talking to her for about 15 minutes. She suggested she would speak with her manager and then get back to me. She also asked me to forward to her the email and rejection letter I received.

The following week I received a phone call from the above persons’ Manager as promised. I was told the offer still stood and I can do the training. From what I understood I was advised the position would merely be dependent on what was on my DBS. I replied I had already informed them in advance what may well be on there.

She said the person who interviewed me and sent me the rejection letter after offering me the position was new and because I had made a disclosure she thought they were unable to take me on because their policy is that a DBS ‘should be clear’. She said in my case it all is dependent on what is on there.

I then went on to say that I had been up front about what may show up when a DBS comes in before the interview and at the interview and I have already explained what the caution is for.
I explained again it is not a conviction. I agreed to do the training and take it from there. She emailed me offering me the opportunity to do the training and I responded as she asked to confirm I will do the training but I did get the impression that they were covering up for each other as I did not feel it was right to automatically prejudice someone because of a caution.
I also am concerned that it was said a ‘DBS should be clear’. Obviously in my case it is not going to be clear because a caution is likely to show up, I am still left feeling uneasy for when the time comes when the DBS is processed and concluded.

In the meantime I have carried out some training with another organisation for work relating to vulnerable people and do not finish this training until next week. This is not care work like the other organisation but still is working with vulnerable people. I will have to also get a DBS carried out with this firm after the training but my concerns are that their policy is: ‘DBS will be carried out and must be clear’.

So my real concern is that a lot of these organisations expect that it must come back clear. There is nothing on the policy saying ‘we will not discriminate or necessarily bar you if you have something that shows up and does not impact on the role you are doing’. It appears these organisations are discriminating against ex-offenders

I also experienced discrimination with 2 well known recruitment agencies. About 6 weeks ago I had them hounding me to register with them due to my skills etc and seeing my CV on line, knowing I was looking for work. I ended up making efforts to see them in person to register and I had to fill out an application form at their offices. Their form asked whether you have any spent or unspent convictions and including cautions or any pending prosecutions. I was honest with them and filled out the form. I have to this day never heard from them again!

I contacted them recently to ask them to remove my details. They totally ignored me and I chased it up and got one minimal response written in an unprofessional way. I now have to take time out to complain to their managers, as I need clarification they have indeed removed my details and the sensitive information I disclosed.

Finally, in relation to a role that I have been successful in, I have not yet been told when I can start as they are currently obtaining references and I am sure they will also do a DBS due to the role of working with young people.

For this role, I was never questioned on application as to whether I have any spent or unspent convictions or cautions and at interview I was not questioned. I do have a concern when they get to know about my caution they may change their mind about allowing me to have the job. As explained previously, it has no direct relevance to deter me from working with vulnerable people or young people.

So I am left with a very sour view of all these hurdles I have had to face due to the prejudice in some cases and cases where ex-offenders are discouraged from taking up employment.

As you can clearly see, more work needs to be done to ensure all organisations, including care work, and working to assist vulnerable people will not necessarily bar people from working on account of their enhanced DBS not being clean.

It is as if I have been sentenced to life as it is constant and never ending. It was spent in 2012 and is a caution that is constantly hanging over me.

By Sam (name changed to protect identity)

When will this go away?

I started working in the legal field when I turned 21, and although I was a single parent of three children, working full time, I worked extremely hard to do my exams and pass them. I helped hundreds of vulnerable people thought my personal life and professional life and did my fair share of pro bono work.

Unfortunately in 2008 I was arrested for a crime of fraud, and although I did not have any direct link to having done anything knowingly or intentionally, I was convicted on circumstantial evidence and the fact that I should have been more vigilent as a professional.

As a professional, if there is no direct evidence for convicting on evidence, the professional bodies get you on the basis of “bringing disrepute to the profession”.

My children were at court supporting me. Up to this point I was the breadwinner, mother , father and friend to my children and many many people who were vulnerable. I was hysterical as the judge summed up and although he felt that I had not benefited from this crime, he had no option but to sentence me to 5 years.

I lost my business, my children, my freedom, my self respect and everything I worked for. I took it on the chin. I got transferred to open prison and with great difficulty and patience I began doing voluntary work for a charity and continued until a month before my release from prison in late 2013.

I had to sign on for benefits, which I did and am on still!

I have applied for hundreds of jobs and been to uncountable interviews but each time I disclose my conviction people look at me as an offender, a convicted person, a untrustworthy person. My conviction was against lenders not an individual. The lenders concerned probably had insurance therefore they haven’t made a loss. The person who ran away with the money didn’t make the loss nor any member of the public. Only I have made a loss.

I continue to look for work, any sort of work. However not even the supermarkets want me.

The added problem is that due to the length of my sentence for a white collar crime, my conviction will never be spent. I can’t grasp the idea that my conviction and the sentence I received is worse than some one who has been convicted of a violent crime.

I am not saying what I did or failed to do is right, but I do feel that I have been left out in to the community, where there is no prospect of finding work, no one happy to take me on. Some places say I’m over qualified and the others say their policy is such that they cannot employ me due to my conviction. It’s a joke really, I want to work and no one wants a ex offender.

I would like to know when will this go away? I also want to know why is it that Judges do not think about the impact of the sentence they give. They are aware of the fact that if the sentence is above 4 years it will never be spent, so is it a way of ensuring the ex offenders can not rebuild there lives?

I want to work, I want to pay for my mortgage, but there is no help out here. I want to know why? The CJS is all for punishing, but not there to help convicted people get back into work, and someone needs to look at the impact of the length of sentences given.

By Harry (name changed to protect identity)

Dating someone with a serious criminal record

I met Wes at my gym. We got talking and decided to go for a drink. Both in our 40’s, he wasn’t my usual type but there was something about him. Over the next three weeks we met numerous times. I was beginning to really like this guy.

Then I found out via a mutual friend that he had been in prison! He had only been out 4 months! I was shocked. Some things he’d said then made sense; He had no passport! He’d spent time living with his sister! Lack of possessions!

So, I asked him and yes it was true. I was totally gutted, devastated. I have a responsible job in education and 2 teenage children, how could I carry on seeing him now? Prison, crime and the world he’d moved in were totally foreign to me.

His crime was bad. I Googled him and there he was – a criminal. The local newspaper painted an awful picture but somehow I just couldn’t connect the two men together. I didn’t know this man in the newspaper. I only knew the funny, kind, caring man I’d been dating.

I ended the relationship, but I just felt so sad, it didn’t feel right. He too was disappointed with my decision, but understood.

But I couldn’t sleep for a week, I tossed and turned and felt so unsettled. I confided in a few close friends, most of them warned me to steer clear, told me I’d made the right decision. I did some research, read things online, looked at the Unlock website and forums. I then spoke to my sister- in-law who’s a probation officer. I was surprised at what she told me; “talk to him, ask him about his life, and find out about his sentence and the terms of his license”. I was surprised by her positivity. She told me many people turn their lives around after release from prison.

So I decided to see him again. I asked him why he hadn’t told me the truth, asked him what his license terms were, where he’d been in prison. He was honest. He apologised and admitted he was struggling to find a way to tell me about his prison sentence. After all how on earth do you tell someone (new and that you’re developing feelings for) that?

Over the past seven months he has met many of my immediate family and some of my friends. Most have accepted him. I have lost a couple friends because of my decision to carry on seeing him. These so called friends have never even spoken to me about Wes and have never even met him. They are fools! Narrow minded, judgemental and hypocritical. I don’t need people like that in my life. They aren’t friends.

Wes wants to move on with his life, he’s served his time and needs a chance to rebuild his future. In the time I’ve known him he has only ever been hardworking, caring, kind, loving, supportive and generous. I’ve learnt so much about myself too during all of this, I don’t judge people so quickly anymore, and people need another chance. Life is so short, I think if you mess part of it up, you need the opportunity to make the remaining bit worthwhile.

On Valentine’s Day Wes sent me a card, inside it simply said ‘Thank you for believing’. It made me cry.

By Carla (name changed to protect identity)

Help us improve our online forum

Now that it’s 7 years old, we are working on giving our forum a bit of an update and we want to hear from people with convictions about what an updated forum would look like, and how it would work.

Complete the survey here

Find out more about this work by reading a longer update we’ve posted on our information site.

Help Unlock challenge employment discrimination

I wanted to post a piece to get readers of theRecord involved in a project that Unlock is running to challenge the employment discrimination faced by people with convictions.

As part of this work, alongside supporting and challenging employers to develop good practice, we’re also looking for input from people with convictions.

In particular, there’s two questions that we’ve recently published that I’m looking for people to help us with if possible:

How would you like to be treated when applying for work?
Do you have evidence of bad practice from employers?

How would you like to be treated when applying for work?

In particular, we’d like to know what you think is a ‘fair’ way of dealing with criminal records as part of the recruitment process.

To do this we’ve put together a short survey. You can complete the survey online survey here (you can stay anonymous if you wish).

Alternatively, you can read the questions here and email your answers to employer@unlock.org.uk.

Do you have evidence of bad practice from employers?

We’re also on the look-out for evidence of bad practice by employers with regards to the policies and processes that they have in place for job applicants with criminal records.

This could include employers that:

Have a blanket policy of not recruiting anybody with unspent convictions
Carry out DBS checks for roles not eligible for them
Request applicants to provide a copy of their ‘police record’ (also known as ‘enforced subject access’)
Don’t give applicants an opportunity to explain their criminal record

Find out more details here about how to send us examples and evidence of bad practice.

More information

There’s more information about this project on the main Unlock website.

You can sign up to receive email updates about this work by subscribing here and selecting ‘News on our work challenging employment discrimination’.

From Temp to Permanent – Learning the hard way, but still persevering

I had my disciplinary meeting the day before yesterday. At the end of the meeting I was offered the chance to resign rather than face dismissal and for the good of my “Permanent Record”, I took it. All I had to do was write out; “I (my name) hereby resign with immediate effect (date)”.

It was a simple call centre job-inbound- that involved taking calls from policy holders with the company, whose business is to supply warranties for white and brown goods. Following the 3 week training period, I would be taking calls and providing the customers with the details they needed to activate their warranties, which would include providing them with the pertinent repair firm details and reassuring them that a replacement would be provided if worst came to worst. There was also an element of upselling. The upsell was more warranties, the theory being that as the consumer was seeing their warranty in action, it would be the optimum time to offer them further cover for their treasured household appliances. Strike while the iron is hot, if you’ll excuse the appliance-related pun.

The job only paid around 14k per annum basic wage (20-25 ote) , and I had once upon a time vowed never to work in any vaguely sales-oriented job again, but the fact that I had been offered a permanent role at a large reputable firm really made me feel that I could maybe start living a normal life. Perhaps I really could firmly put my past in its place.

I have served three prison sentences. The first one was for 8 months (served 4) when I was 19. The fact that I had not been able to join the army for 7 years, and was prevented from many other forms of employment – after that ridiculous blip had been the source of endless frustration and despondency on my part. I had again and again found dead ends when seeking to further my career and my personal development and eventually, being a callow youth, had given up and resigned myself to a life on benefits. The hopelessness of this predicament had eventually led to me once again serving another sentence, seven years later, of 9 months (served 4.5) at the age of 26. Neither of these offences involved violence, and both were the direct result of imbibing too much alcohol and various other substances, and the wanton behaviour that resulted.

Upon release in the summer of 2009, I tried my upmost to get a basic minimum wage job in a kitchen porter type role in my small town, but my reputation preceded me and after applying for all of the jobs I could, I eventually ended up marooned on benefits and descending once again into drink and drug problems. And this time opiates were starting to make an appearance in the mix, making me feel more creative and less depressed despite the worsening situation. Of course that is testament to the delusory ability opiates have, making it possible to sleepwalk into a life of living death.

Eventually I got the big sentence. 5 Years. However this time things did change. I had been hoping for a bit of a stretch in which to truly get myself sorted out; get the degree; get fit, get off the fags, the booze and the drugs. However I hadn’t anticipated it to coming about in the messy way it did, falling out with friends, one of whom picking up some nasty injuries thanks to me. Once again the whole situation had run away from me, seemingly snowballing and acquiring a terrible momentum of its own. I felt terrible. But after a period of lying in my cell in a blue funk of lament and melancholy for a few weeks, it began to dawn on me that this was the chance I had to really change things.

During the sentence I did the education bit acquiring nearly 120 credits toward a degree with the open university on a part time course, gained various NVQ’s at level 2 and 3, wrote a lot, gave up smoking, got fit and started meditating. I avoided drugs and even got my own prison radio show! It seemed like I had finally grown up.

I got out and worked numerous menial and temp jobs. My sentence plan and probation all went well and I found a modest house share in which to live. After a year of being out the chance of a permanent role came up and I jumped at it. I even turned down another job for it, temp, but with a good chance of becoming permanent and at a company I had enjoyed working at before , in order to take up the offer.

My heart hit the floor when I opened the email which required me to submit 6 years of address history, 3 years of work history etc. I was being comprehensively vetted for a simple call centre role and had absolutely not anticipated such a thing happening. This was a big faux pas on my part. Naturally I had omitted to mention my prison sentence on my CV, but crucially I had also skipped over the criminal record information bit on the application form. This was of course my fault for lying, but what could I do? They wouldn’t have given me a second chance if they would have seen the details of my offence, and I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition for such a mundane position, a position for which they wouldn’t have taken a first glance at my history if I was temping.

The obvious course of action seemed to be just not showing up to the permanent role and see if I could somehow salvage the temp one that I had turned down. However my friends, family and girlfriend made a good case for coming clean. This seemed like a noble idea, and I did really like the idea of working at the place. ‘ So’ I thought, ‘when I go in on Monday, perhaps if I just let the HR lady know there is a bit of a blemish on my record, then they will just appreciate my candidness and let it slide’.

I’m not sure where this blinding flash of wishful thinking came from, as I am normally quite cynical. But clearly I should have just gone with my original ‘cut and run’ plan.

Following the disciplinary meeting, in which the HR people were ever so nice and supportive, providing encouragement and best wishes for the future after accepting my resignation, I got back in touch with the agency. The chap I worked with at the agency (who had now also found out about my past) had promised me that in this eventuality, he would help me find more temp work. However I now haven’t heard from him in days. The same goes for the other agency who I clearly alienated by taking the permanent job over their temp one. Safe to say next time I will most likely put something in the criminal record declaration part of the application form.

I am tired and frustrated and back to square one. Luckily I still have some menial shifts at a restaurant. It’s back to hard work, anti-social hours, little pay, peeling hands and greasy skin. However this set back is not driving me back to wanton oblivion and abandonment of hope, such as set me back all the other times in my life. I have a nice girl who seems to like me for who I am, and a job at least, regardless of its mind-numbing dead-endedness. All I can do is persevere. Persevere and hope that it pays off.

By Valerie (name changed to protect identity)

UK versus the USA – The Criminal Records Debate

I have a older sister, a Green card holder, who resides in the USA, and I’ve travelled there many times pre the 9/11 attacks.

I am deeply proud to say that as a reformed and rehabilitated law abiding ex-criminal with spent convictions, I have considered going back to the states to see my sister many times, but have increasingly felt that the visa application may possibly be a step too far. I have convictions that are felt by the Americans to be just too serious to allow me the chance to see a close family member and have a 2 week holiday. Thankfully, as an EU citizen I travel everywhere in Europe with my wife, without fear of being asked about my past, or having to obtain a visa or have a criminal records check. The Unlock forum has hundreds of questions in regards to the USA and holiday visa’s, and it seems a major talking point, and sadly a very upsetting issue for many people.

Thinking about the flip side, I started to wonder, how Americans cope with having possible restrictions placed upon them whilst travelling the world.

It’s obvious from research, that US citizens need to also apply for a visa for visits to the UK if they have a criminal record, but I have not found any actual details on what crimes the British consider serious or not, and how hard it actually is to get into the UK from the USA if you have a criminal past.

Moving on from the visa debate, and knowing first hand how hard it can be to get a job with a record, faced with ever increasing employers that stipulate high level DBS checks, I wondered how the Americans addressed this issue.

Wow, I was in for a shock.

As of 2011, 65 Million US citizens had a recorded criminal record. That’s a crazy 1 in 4 people. More people in fact than the whole population of the UK (2014). The US National Employment Law Project website highlights this issue, and the problems faced by Americans looking for work.

On a serious note, it’s really no different being in the UK or the USA, as both countries face the same problems with travel visas and employment issues.

I have put my travel plans on hold to the states, and I will continue to enjoy the freedom I have as an EU British citizen to travel everywhere in Europe without any restrictions.

The world is a massive place, and rather than think about the places I am not allowed to go to, I’d rather think about all the marvellous other places that I can.

By Peter* (name changed to protect identity)

Retention of DNA profiles of people with convictions not illegal, supreme court rules

This was originally published in The Guardian.

Court rules in test case involving drink driver that storing a man’s DNA profile is proportionate interference with his right to privacy

Retaining DNA profiles of convicted adults indefinitely is not an illegal breach of their privacy, the supreme court has ruled in a test case involving a Northern Ireland drink driver.

The judgment by the UK’s highest court sets a significant precedent in making a clear distinction between information that police forces may keep on those who have been convicted, as opposed to those who were merely suspects.

The claim against the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) was brought by Fergus Gaughran, 42, who was arrested for drink driving in 2008 and pleaded guilty at Newry magistrates court. He was disqualified from driving for a year.

By a majority of four to one, the supreme court justices ruled that storing his DNA profile – the information extracted from his DNA sample and held on a computer database – is a proportionate interference with his right to privacy under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

“The potential benefit to the public of retaining the DNA profiles of those who are convicted is considerable and outweighs the interference with the right of the individual,” said Lord Clarke, who delivered the majority decision. “The retention may even benefit the individual by establishing that they did not commit an offence.”

Clarke added: “The United Kingdom has chosen recordable offences as the touchstone. Recordable offences include any offences punishable by imprisonment, together with a limited number of non-imprisonable offences.

“As the expression suggests, the police are obliged to keep records of convictions and offenders in relation to such offences on the Police national computer. I can see nothing unreasonable in the conclusion that such records ought to include any available DNA profiles.

“It is of course true that the appellant was only fined £50 and disqualified from driving for a year but driving with excess alcohol is a serious offence and can cause significant injury and damage. It may lead to up to six months’ imprisonment.”

If such a “blanket measure” is at odds with practices in some other European countries, Clarke continued, then it is nevertheless permitted because it is within the UK’s so-called “margin of appreciation” – the flexibility allowed for local differences in regulations.

The assertion of such a status reflects the intricate dialogue between the supreme court in London and the European court of human rights in Strasbourg over who should have final authority in certain categories of cases.

Gaughran’s appeal was rejected. Lord Kerr, however, who gave a dissenting judgment, said: “the stigmatising application of the indefinite retention policy, even to those whose convictions are spent, frustrates the purpose of rehabilitation”.

This content originated from: The Guardian (2015), Retention of offenders’ DNA profiles not illegal, supreme court rules

Available at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/13/retention-of-offenders-dna-does-not-breach-privacy-supreme-court-rules [Last accessed 15th May 2015]

Election 2015: UKIP backs candidate with criminal record

UKIP has said it “backs entirely” one of its general election candidates, despite him having a criminal record.

Peter Bush, its candidate for Aberavon, has convictions for theft and arson, which are now spent.

UKIP said Mr Bush had “paid his debt to society” and “changed his life and the lives of many around him”.

The party told BBC Wales it was aware of Mr Bush’s convictions when he was selected.

‘Ancient history’

In a statement, Nathan Gill, UKIP’s leader in Wales said: “Peter, as a young man, made mistakes, which resulted in prison.

“But since that time he has changed his life and the lives of many around him.

“So much so that he has won a series of awards for his charity work, up to being nominated for and a finalist in the ITV Local Hero awards for Wales.

“We are proud to be a party that takes people for what they are, not for mistakes of the past.

“A party though tough on crime, is able to recognise that people can always turn a new leaf.

“We, unlike the other parties in Wales look at the individual, not just on their ancient history.

“In Peter we see a man that has, through his own hard work, not merely paid his debt to society but paid that debt many times over through his work. Would that other parties had people with similar drive to improve the lives of their neighbours”.

This content originated from: BBC website (2015), Election 2015: UKIP backs candidate with criminal record.

Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32519606 [Last accessed 30th April 2015]