Migrated From: The Record - Posts

Banning the Box and the Demands for Disclosure – Part 1

It’s a sobering thought when you’re sat there, faced with three strangers you’ve never met: the panel at your job interview has more information about your criminal record than a jury would if you were on trial. And, in a capitalist economy where we all have to earn a living, employers are every bit as powerful an influence on your life as judges.

In a criminal trial, the jury is not allowed to know if you have a previous conviction. This is to make sure they aren’t prejudiced against you so that you get a fair trial. Research with mock juries has shown that jurors are likely to believe a defendant guilty if they know the defendant has been convicted a similar crime in the past. So it’s probable that interview panels are more likely to believe people with convictions might commit a crime while they’re employing them if they know about previous convictions. But, with one in five unemployed people having a criminal record, how are they supposed to get a fair interview if they’ve already had to disclose their convictions to the potential employer on their application form?

Some employers make sure that interview panels aren’t shown your disclosure so that they aren’t prejudiced. Many do not. And many small firms don’t have an HR dept., it’s just the boss, your application form, you and your record. So it’s impossible to remove prejudice. And that’s exactly why ‘Ban the Box’ action is crucial.

The practice of employers seeking a disclosure is very common, according to one survey carried out for British Industry in the Community (BITC) it’s a staggering 73%. In response, one year ago, BITC supported by Nacro, Unlock and others, launched the UK’s own Ban the Box campaign, #bantheboxuk.

The idea is to work with employers to get them to remove the criminal convictions question (‘the box’) from application forms and only ask about convictions at a later stage in the process – this varies depending on the employer, but many instead ask at interview.

So, imagine being in an interview in your forties and being quizzed about the worst and most stupid thing you did in your teens. Does that seem like a reasonable interview question to you? No? Well, that’s exactly the kind of situation people with convictions face every day.

Emotionally, it can be a truly gruelling process. Even the most well-meaning of employers, like charities who work with the disadvantaged, walk you back through the worst time in your life, get you to talk about what was going on for you at the time, assess your level of regret and remorse then thank you very much for your honesty and show you the door. If they don’t give you the job, there was absolutely no need for them to put you through that or for them to have that information. It’s an invasion of privacy of the highest order, and many people who’ve been through it never again seek work from employers who behave that way.

If employers ask about records on application, it means everyone who applies needs to make a disclosure, even though only one person – the successful candidate – ever really needs to. All the other applicants and interviewees are just members of the public with no legal obligation to disclose or undergo a DBS check. Their offending isn’t relevant to the employer because they are not employed, and are not going to be. So they should be able to exit the recruitment process with their privacy and dignity intact, shouldn’t they?

This is Part 1. More to follow….

You can read more about Ban the Box at http://www.bitc.org.uk/programmes/ban-box

Leeds United owner disqualified, but only until conviction becomes spent

There was an interesting article published in the FT recently. What I was particularly interested by was the fact that the disqualification was (rightly) limited until the conviction becomes spent, which since the changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was reformed in March this year, only takes 1 year for a fine (previously 5 years).

“Leeds Utd owner disqualified by Football League

Massimo Cellino’s ownership of Leeds United is again under a cloud after the Football League announced it had decided to disqualify him once more.

Leisure Industries Correspondent Roger Blitz reports the Italian had previously been disqualified in March under the league’s owners and directors test, after he was found guilty in Italy over non-payment of import duties on a boat, and fined €600,000.

He appealed that Football League ruling back in April, after a QC ruled it was “not conduct which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest”.
But the QC said that if the Cagliari court which convicted him of the offence subsequently issued a reasoned ruling which was such that Mr Cellino’s conduct would reasonably be considered to be dishonest, he would be subject to disqualification.

In a statement, the league said:
“At its meeting last week, the board considered the reasoned judgment of the Italian court against Mr Cellino, having successfully applied to the Italian courts for its full disclosure. The board considered detailed legal advice and agreed unanimously… that Mr Cellino is subject to a disqualifying condition under the terms of the test.”

Mr Cellino has 14 days to appeal.

The judgment of the Italian court has not been published in Italy, so the league is not making its contents public, the league said.
League chief executive Shaun Harvey did not take part in the vote because he was previously a Leeds director.
The league said the disqualification would run until March 18, 2015 – four months – since that is a year from the original court decision. Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders act, convictions are spent within a year.
Leeds said it was taking legal advice but noted that “nothing has changed” since the April decision to clear Mr Cellino. It said:
The steps that the League wishes the club to take – to remove Mr Cellino only to re-appoint him in three months’ time – will be destabilising for the club, its supporters and sponsors and cannot be in the best interests of any party.”

This content originated from: Financial Times (2014), Leeds owner disqualified by Football League (2014), The probation trust that’s now employing ex-offenders as mentors

Available at http://www.ft.com/fastft/243962/post-243962 (Last accessed 18th December 2014)

Embassy interview to travel to the US

I had visa interview this morning (Paris Embassy) and was granted. Passport coming back end of week. My record – 2 arrests – 1 caution for D&D in 2005, 1 for ABH in 2010 which resulted in 10-week tag, 260 hours community service, £400 fine from Magistrates.

I applied for B1/B2 visa from US Embassy in Paris, as currently at university in France. Filled in standard visa application, whereby I declared both caution and conviction. I also got ACPO certificate but this is not mandatory for visas from France. Booked appointment online, and turned up with confirmation of payment, Stamped Addressed Envelope, photos, etc.

Arrived at 0730 (smartly dressed in suit and tie!), given a number, and gave all docs for registration. about 20 mins later, was called to a screen with US immigration officer. There was no private room, just a rank of booths not unlike a bank branch. She asked me what I was doing in France, what I wanted to go to the US for, and how was I going to finance it. I gave her a copy of my uni course confirmation, and my bank statements.

She then asked me to give more detail about the 2 arrests / convictions which I did, and also handed over the ACPO certificate. After she tapped away on a computer for a bit, she then said “I just have to go and check something”, and 5 minutes later she came back and said, “Everything is fine, and you’ll get your passport back with the visa in 2-3 days”.

Total time at Embassy – 1 hour. Obviously there will be some minor procedural differences between Paris and London, but the key takeaway is that the system can work, and the bureaucracy not be so bad. Clearly it’s not all quite there, as I won’t believe the final hurdle is overcome until I set foot on American soil. It’s a major weight off my mind, however.

I tried again for my B2 Visa and was granted

After my last attempt in London two years ago I bit the bullet and tried again.

I must admit the new online application process and booking system for the US Embassy/Consulate is speedier and cheaper than going through the old (09) £1.20pm number.

I applied for my visa at the US Consulate in Belfast, very nice building, bit tricky to find but head towards the Ulster Bank offices and there is the security office.

My appointment was at 11.45am but arrived at 11.30am. Security were friendly and you can leave your mobile phone with them which is a bonus as there are no public pay phones near the Consulate. After being searched, I walked up the grounds past the Consular Generals office (he was in and waved when he saw someone walking up the path who was a visitor). You go right to the back of the building into a small office with three counters and an Interview Booth. There is a vending machine for drinks.

I passed all of my documents over:

DS-160 Confirmation Page
Interview Confirmation Page (Printed off the new website)
Old Passport
ACPO Certificate
VCU01 Form
2”x2” Photo

I was asked to sit down and wait, there were another ten people in the room. I was called up to the desk again around 40minutes later and they took my fingerprints and handed me back my photo. About 20minutes later I was called into the Interview Booth and was greeted by a nice friendly American Lady.

She asked me:-

Why I wanted the visa?
What I was going to do in the States?
How long I was with my partner?
Explain to me what happened regarding your conviction etc. – I was very truthful and told her about my volunteering etc to keep paying back to the community.

She typed away at her screen. Thanked me for being so upfront and honest and she said that “it’s my decision [dramatic pause and stern look on her face] to grant you your visa for 10 years.” (Big moment! I cried and was full of thanks. Now I am just waiting for my passport to come back.)

Total time at the consulate: 1hour 20minutes

Just be truthful, honest and dress smart. Just remember to take all of your information with you and be honest.

Filtering failure

Despite having enjoyed a successful 40 year career in the private sector – and having raised his children successfully to adulthood – Richard was surprised to discover that his record branded him as a criminal with two previous convictions – one for possessing “dangerous drugs” and the other for “theft from an employer”.

The records surfaced approximately forty years on. Richard’s son wanted to join a choir and as a Dad, Richard needed to pass the new record check.

In the 1960s, aged 16, Richard had been prosecuted for the possession of marijuana and was given a one year conditional discharge. He was never a habitual drug taker; the offence resulted from a one-off mistake when he was approached by a dealer the police wanted to trap. Richard got into trouble again, a few years later, while a student. He was convicted of taking an item of food from a warehouse where he had a job stacking shelves. He believed the item he took was going to waste. Again, he was given a one year conditional discharge and put the mistake behind him.

After graduating, Richard found private sector jobs throughout the 1970s, 80s, 90s and 00s without anyone wanting to know if he had a criminal record. He was given positions of responsibility and had a productive career. Had anyone asked him, he would have said that he had no convictions. He had been discharged by the Courts and understood that his record was still clear. However, approaching sixty, he suddenly discovered that even after forty years of good behaviour, the Police were listing his youthful mistakes as criminal convictions on a non-basic check. Richard now feels he has been retrospectively criminalized and is being punished for events that should have been forgotten decades ago.

Richard says: “When you look at this record, it looks dreadful. But I was never really the drug taking thief that it suggests – I was a young person who made a couple of silly mistakes. But it’s harder than you would ever believe to correct the impression this record creates, even though no-one apart from me knows or should care about what happened over forty years ago.”

Because of this “new” old record, Richard feels unable to apply for third sector work he would like to do. He thinks he is being prevented from contributing in a way the justice system never intended: “I thought that Conditional Discharges were invented to help people get back on track – but since the invention of the CRB/DBS, people like me are shackled with old records they cannot get deleted. This creates a problem that never goes away.”
Richard believes that, realistically, he will never be chosen to do voluntary or third sector work for charities etc. He is inhibited about making applications requiring checks because he knows he will be required to explain away his mistakes to people who would largely prefer not to hear, or be asked to think deeply, about a senior applicant’s juvenile problems.

Richard believes that the Government needs to make decisive changes to the law so that the Check stop listing from youthful mistakes that resulted in conditional discharges decades ago.

Richard concludes, “We have lost faith in the capacity of people to learn from their mistakes and to change for the better. The present system is preventing people like me from participating.”

“Computer says no” to running a business

Like many people who contact Unlock, I have convictions. There’s more than one – fraud, burglary, driving whilst disqualified and I’m not proud of them but I’ve learnt my lesson and now I just want to put the past behind me and move on.

At the moment I have an unspent conviction and I’m on licence until next year. I’ve done everything that my probation officer has asked of me and never missed an appointment.

As we all know, work is hard to come by especially if you’ve got a criminal record. I’ve applied for hundreds of jobs and didn’t even get an interview and so at the beginning of this year, I decided to set up my own cleaning business. It’s taken me a while to get it off the ground but I’ve slowly managed to get myself several contracts in and around the town in which I live. I’m trying really hard to be a good person, run a successful business and prove to the community in which I live that I’ve turned over a new leaf.

Now that I’ve got some contacts, I decided last month to start the process of registering my business with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I mentioned this to my Probation Officer thinking that she would see it as a really positive step. She told me that due to my “offending history” I couldn’t run my own business in any way, shape or form. I asked if I could run if from behind the scenes but again the response was ‘no’.

I was so disappointed. All I’m trying to do is provide for myself and my family and put my criminal past behind me.

I really didn’t know where to turn and a search of the internet led me to the Unlock Helpline. I spoke to somebody there about my experience, the man I spoke to listened for ages and at the end gave me some really good advice.

It looks like my probation officer could be wrong and that I could run my business after all. There’s nothing legally stopping me from being a director of my company and I have no restrictions on my licence. I’m going to have to try and speak with my probation officer and maybe make some sort of formal appeal.

I really hope that my probation officer has just made a mistake but at the moment it feels really personal. It seems as though she is deliberately putting obstacles in the way.

I’m not asking for special treatment and I know that I’ve done wrong in the past. I’ve been told that probation officer’s use some sort of computer programme to assess how risky an offender is. I’ve met my probation officer regularly over the last year and I thought that she had gotten to know me well. Surely she should make a decision based on the face to face contacts she has had with me rather than looking to a computer for an answer.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed that I can continue with my business. If I can’t, I really don’t know what I’m going to do. As the business grows, I want to give other ex-offenders a chance of employment so please probation it’s not just my future that’s going to be affected but the future of others as well.

Problems with employment for serving inmates

I am an inmate at an open prison. I have been at the establishment for around 6 months now, already having served a sizable amount of time, and I am in the process of rebuilding my life. I am fortunate enough to have good family support and a stable background with which to go back to upon my eventual release – a lot of my peers are not so fortunate. I am already going home to visit my family at weekends, and I also have a very worthwhile voluntary part time job. In the very near future I will be able to go home for ‘overnight resettlement leaves’.

And that leaves me only one final hurdle; finding paid employment whilst still serving my sentence…

Part of the work I do within the jail (when I’m not out) is helping my peers to find paid employment themselves; I work as a mentor. We have various means by which potential opportunities can be generated, indeed many inmates source their own leads for work, or at least they try. I am lucky enough to work with some very professional people from outside organisations. Serco, SOVA, the National Careers Service, and the staff within the jail. A large percentage of the inmates in the jail are long term or ‘life’ (indeterminate) sentence prisoners, with some very serious offences and – in some cases – criminal histories. There has been a lot of focus from both media and government recently on the open jail estate following several high profile absconds and incidents.

But the problems we are experiencing are not necessarily what you would expect (i.e issues to do with disclosure, criminal record checks, unspent convictions). Neither are the problems often other obvious issues such as an inmate’s poor work history, and/or lack of qualifications and references.

On the contrary, we have several local companies extremely keen to take inmates on. After all, they would be getting (in theory at least) staff who are keen to get on with lives in the real world, desperate not to screw anything up, physically fit, willing and able. Grateful for what they can get, probably more reliable than the average applicant for a similar job, due to the potentially disastrous consequences of being anything other than a reliable and trustworthy worker. People who have been through a lot to get to where they now are. People who may have had extremely recently all relevant training taken care of as part of their sentence plan. People who will often be employable at minimum wage for starters, who won’t have demands for annual leave. In many ways, inmates can be highly employable people.

Getting interviews and job offers has not been the problem. The stumbling blocks we are increasingly encountering are with company insurance, and problems getting clearance from the Police Liaison Officer (P.L.O).

On the subject of insurance, I have very little knowledge aside from observations made: Insurers are wanting more and more disclosure information, and subsequent big delays are sometimes scaring employers off.

But the biggest problems are coming more and more often from the Police Liaison Officer. The P.L.O’s job is to clear any prospective companies as suitable and safe for a serving inmate to work for, although it should be pointed out that the Prison Governor has the final say and can in theory overturn a negative decision made by the P.L.O. A Governor will rarely overturn a P.L.O decision, which is understandable given that if something went wrong it would be down to one person making a decision against other ‘intelligence’, and therefore becoming a focal point for any blame.

Recently we have had several opportunities for voluntary work, paid work, and training placements turned down by the P.L.O. It seems to me that there have been more rejections than we previously had, and it does make you wonder if some sort of ‘shift in climate’ or pressure from above, such as at government level, have been the motivating factor. Within the last few weeks we have had a handful of P.L.O refusals on the grounds that the prospective companies had not been trading for long enough… upon closer inspection, one of these companies had been trading for over 4 years, plenty of time you would think – especially given how many businesses and companies have gone to the wall during the last 6-7 years. Subsequently you will obviously have many new start-up businesses. Not that 4 years is even within this remit; it’s clearly an established entity already.

If there have indeed been any unknown changes as a result of new government directives or criteria’s, one thing that you can be certain of is that the shift – if there has been one – will have been implemented extremely poorly. Half-baked directives given with no clear statement of intention, no back up training or clear instruction, no structure in place. Every single recent change to regime in open estate jails – and there have been several, I can assure you – have been exactly that.

A colleague of mine who suffered an inexplicable refusal by the P.L.O (and saw all his hard work and diligence come to nothing on little more than a whim) requested an appointment with the P.L.O, which, surprisingly he got.

The outcome of that meeting is almost too embarrassing to write about. The officer gave completely irrelevant comment about individual cases he had dealt with where an offender had been caught in unlawful circumstances, and even started talking about individual inmates still within our jail that he had dealt with – by name! He regaled an instance where he had reconsidered a decision, given the green light, and there had subsequently been a ‘mishap’. As a result he would “never change his mind again”. All this falls under ‘blanket punishment’ – one person’s misdemeanour being used against everyone else. The government have clear directives about such treatment not taking place. Talking about individual cases by name is downright incompetent, reckless and irresponsible, and the man had clearly no real guidelines or notion of what he was doing, let alone any concern about even taking it seriously.

Even when the clearance is eventually given, the fact remains that companies tend to advertise for jobs when they need staff. They cannot afford to wait for 2 months with no idea as to whether or not they will even ever get to employ someone they have offered a job. Why would they have advertised in the first place?

The current government have the party line that they are very pro offender resettlement. They have over the last 12 months nominated several closed conditions jails as becoming resettlement focused establishments. But it’s only a throwaway comment.

Many long term or ‘lifer’ inmates have virtual certainty that they will not gain parole without having found paid work. They will remain in open conditions costing the tax payer around £45k a year, clogging up a system already on its knees with population rise, and we are supposed to find paid work in this climate of seemingly increasing limitation.

And then they wonder why so many lifers are suddenly running away when they are out on temporary release…

I think there could be a link.

by Anonymous

The prizes in life we fail to win, is because we doubt the strength within

As my Mum always told me throughout my sentence, I urge you to listen, “The prizes in life we fail to win, is because we doubt the strength within”.

In the May of 1999 my life fell apart! I was convicted of the importation of a class A drug and sentenced to four years in prison. I was 19.

I made the most of my time inside, determined that if I would be granted my parole and I kept my head down I would make my time away as productive as possible. So therefore, I worked long hours in the prison kitchen, attended computer courses and I even got addicted to cross stitch! I did anything that would make the time away from my Mum, my Nan and friends more bearable. My hard work paid off and I was granted parole. I then, thankfully, left HMP after serving only two years of a four year sentence.

Life outside was strange. Going out in the dark and even everything generally taken for granted like the feel of a carpet between my toes.

On release the whispers start. ‘ She has been released’…..’ Bet she won’t go anywhere in life’…. Really?!!

I had my first interview two weeks later. The first thing I told my potential employers was that I was released from prison two weeks ago. I had to disclose my conviction as it was not spent and at the time would never become spent. That evening I got the call ….. The job was mine. I was 21.

I am now nearly 35 and for the past 13 years I have worked nonstop. I have never been out of work and now run the UK division for a global company. I go on fantastic holidays. Drive a wonderful car. Eat in lovely places and……………… fill in the gaps! Am I boasting?? Yes maybe I am because people love to see other people fail. Even more so when you have ex-offender printed on your forehead.

So it goes to show that by working hard, having focus, vision and sheer determination then your dreams really can come true.

For me now the old book is well and truly closed because of the information I have learnt from the Unlock website. The new legislation that came into effect in March 2014 means my conviction has now become spent, which I am so thankful for. I know now that I am a different person to the one I was from when I was 19. I have worked hard to make something of my life and no longer have the stigma of an ex-offender on me.

So as I said at the start: ‘My Mum always told me throughout my sentence and I urge you to listen: “The prizes in life we fail to win, Is because we doubt the strength within”’

A Past without End, or a Future with Dignity?

At the time of my conviction in 2010, I was a Church of England Minister. I had been going through a marital breakdown, and found myself in court for forgery and fraud against my former wife and her daughter. Upon conviction, I received a Community Order to do unpaid work. There were a small number of press reports. The headlines were the most damning: “Vicar stole from family,” etc. But the content of the reports were broadly accurate and anyone with a modicum of intelligence would see that this was, in essence, a matrimonial matter that had become horribly acrimonious.

The Church of England had to be seen to take action and, although they were aware of the circumstances, I was barred from acting as a clergyman for a year and had to resign my post.

For a number of years I had been looking at joining a different church denomination, one that was more inclusive and liberal. I decided that I would do so once my year’s ban was up, as I didn’t want anyone to read into the situation anything that wasn’t true – namely that I had been kicked out of the C of E. So, I waited until my legal ban was up and I was able to practice again as a minister and advised the C of E that I would not be returning to them.

The archbishop of my new church held extensive interviews with me, required me to obtain 12 references, an enhanced CRB check and trawled through the papers relating to the conviction. After meeting with fellow bishops, I was advised that I could join them and that I would be given a full license to minister.

Shortly after leaving the C of E I volunteered to work with a hospice charity and, after discussing the conviction, I was accepted to work as a bereavement supporter. I also secured work with a homeless charity during the year that I had been unable to minister.

Since then, everything has gone fine. With the exception of a couple of cases (for which I have no hard evidence) of a senior C of E minister bad-mouthing me locally, I have had few problems rebuilding my life, carving out a successful ministry and combining it with my work as a funeral director.

Then, in early 2013, I read an article about a man who wished to travel to Switzerland to end his life, but who had no-one to go with him. This led me to have a strong desire to help people in this predicament – i.e. to accompany them on their last journey when no one else would do so. I wrote to the clinic in Switzerland. They gave me some very helpful information, not least with regard to the legal situation in the UK, where it is illegal to assist with suicide, as it is in Switzerland: the person has to commit the act themselves, but it is not illegal to give them emotional support or to be with them, as long as I gained nothing personally.

During neither conversation was I asked anything about my background, save my ministry and what underpinned that. Neither was I asked to produce any references or undergo and CRB checks. I was invited along to a meeting in London. I went, and it further solidified my desire to give support.

Then, about a month ago, I was asked whether I would be happy to accompany someone to Switzerland. I agreed, and the person was given my name and contact details. Then, the following day, I received a very terse email advising me NOT to contact this person, questioning why I had failed to mention my conviction as detailed on the MailOnline and advising me that I could not accompany anyone to Switzerland because of this. It appears that the person had searched for me on Google and had put two and two together in relation to the fraud and forgery convictions.

What is appalling, in many ways, is that none of the press reports show a photograph of me, and although my own website alludes to having gone through a difficult time, there is no obvious link. There are at least another thee clergy in this country with the same name, so I could have screamed mistaken identity – but I didn’t; I was honest. I advised them that they could have just picked up the phone, that I do not have to disclose spent offences and that I am clear on my CRB to work with vulnerable adults, children etc. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be able to work as a church minister in any capacity. I advised them that it is illegal to discriminate against me because of an irrelevant spent conviction. I told them that I felt a call to accompany people, and that this was my only reason for joining the charity, as a good Samaritan helping those in need. I also told them that, as the charity taken such punitive action, I wanted nothing further to do with them. Needless to say, I have heard nothing since.

I contacted Google and asked them to remove the five reports relating to my case as my conviction is now spent. They have refused to do so, stating that the reports do not breech any data protection laws. So, it looks like I am stuck with this situation.

From the point of view of someone who has devoted their life to helping others, often at considerable personal and emotional cost, I feel very bruised by the way that this organisation has acted, and the fact that my spent convictions are all over the internet for anyone to read and make a judgement based on that information alone. I do understand, in part, the charity’s reservations, but they are completely unfounded, as has been proven by my current work and can be vouched for by those I work for in other capacities.

It is rather ironic that I have had no problems until now, when the conviction is spent. It is also very upsetting that the press reports sit there, often higher up the first page of a Google search than my own website! It all seems very wrong that a charity that didn’t ask the questions can axe someone based simply on a Google search. And I am sure I am not the only one who has fallen foul of this. So I hope some sense can be made of the right to a future, unencumbered by the past, and rules for search engines such as Google can be established.

Kind regards,

Christopher.

Convictions on your DBS isn’t the end of your employment chances

Some refreshing news for those of us who have convictions that will apparently forever overshadow our possible career ambitions.

The Unlock helpline recently received a call from a person with a very serious conviction (causing death by dangerous driving). The caller had been offered a place at University to study Psychology, and was understandably worried about the DBS check which would be needed as the degree included some work experience placements involving working with vulnerable adult patients.

However, during the course of the conversation the caller revealed that they were already working within the NHS… Upon questioning we learned that their role had indeed required an enhanced DBS check, and that they had got the position anyway, albeit after a stressful and thorough interview process. Basically they had won through by persistence and being both confident and committed enough to give a good, honest and heartfelt account of themselves, and doing everything they could to demonstrate their fundamental decency, integrity, and ultimately – employability.

This is obviously a fantastic and inspirational story. Whilst it may seem to be unusual, perhaps the lesson here is that it is only so unusual because so many people in comparable situations believe that they have literally no remaining chance of their target career, and therefore understandably lack the willpower and sheer audacity to give it a go regardless of their records.

Always remember – the worst that can happen is that you don’t get the job, and you are no worse off than you were before trying. In fact, you could argue that even an unsuccessful outcome can be used as a positive; a learning experience, and a boost of self-esteem and confidence for the fact that you felt able to apply in the first place.

Therefore the message from me is – Go for it, and hold your head up… You have nothing to lose, and plenty to gain.

by Stuart