Story Type: Struggles & Stigma

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)

Why don’t the job centre and work programme know what they’re talking about?

I’ve just come back from my latest meeting with my work programme advisor. That experience, and others recently, have driven me to write about the failures that I think are contributing to the difficulties that people with convictions face.

Okay, so I’ve got convictions. The most recent, seven years ago, was fairly serious – I was sent to prison for a few months. But since then, I’ve tried my best to rebuild my life and provide for my family. I’ve had a few jobs since then, but for various reasons, they’ve not worked out.

So, I’ve been unemployed for a couple of years now. My first ‘frustration’ came from the Job Centre. As soon as they found out that I had a criminal record, their attitude towards me changed completely. To be fair, that’s how I found out about Unlock, but annoyingly, they didn’t really know what Unlock did – they said that Unlock could help me find a job. It seemed like they just wanted rid of me, so were clutching at straws to ‘pass me off’. I’m glad I found out about Unlock, as I’ve learnt so much about what I do and don’t have to disclose, and how to go about disclosing to employers, but it annoyed me that the Job Centre thought they could simply wash their hands of me like that. Even worse, when I went back armed with the knowledge I’d got from Unlock, they looked at me clueless. They clearly didn’t know much about the rules on disclosure. I’ve since learnt that the job centre office I went to had an ‘ex-offender lead’ – what a joke she was! She hadn’t had any training on disclosure – apparently, the job centre can’t afford it (so she said)!

Then, eventually, I moved onto the work programme. I’ve was full of hope and optimism. It quickly drained away. As soon as I told my advisor about my record, they pretty much told me I’d never find an employer than was willing to give me a chance, and that I may as well just do enough that’s needed to keep me receiving my benefits!

This paints quite a bad picture, I know. I guess what I’m keen to be clear about is that I’m somebody who wants to work. I don’t want to be claiming benefits. I’m willing to take anything. I don’t think I fit the mould of being ‘work-shy’ and picky about the work I do – I just want people to look beyond my criminal record.

The Job Centre and Work Programme should be there to help me do that – words fail me when trying to describe how much I feel let down by the people who are there to help me. Organisations like Unlock do a fantastic job, but it’s not the job of a small charity to find work for the 10 million people in the UK who have a criminal record. The Job Centre and Work Programme need to step up to the plate! I’ve suggested to both my job centre work coach and my work programme advisor that they go on the Unlock training on disclosure – I’ll wait and see if they know what they’re talking about the next time I see them!

By Andy* (name & details changed to protect identity)

Job hunting with a criminal record – New York Times Editorial

This was originally published by The New York Times. See the bottom of this post for more information.

There is no dispute that far too many Americans carry the burden of a criminal record — at least 70 million, by recent estimates — or that the easy accessibility of these records in the information age imposes debilitating obstacles, especially when it comes to finding a job.

The harder question is what to do about it.

Employment is, after all, an important factor in keeping people out of the criminal justice system, yet, in a struggling job market, employers are often tempted to turn away anyone who appears to pose even the slightest risk. Thanks to the proliferation of companies offering instant online background checks, a vast majority of employers now run such checks on all job applicants. They can, and do, refuse to hire people on the grounds of an arrest itself — let alone a conviction.

People with criminal records often face all manner of entrenched and unjustified prejudice. Studies have found that job applicants who reported having a criminal record were 50 percent less likely to receive a callback or job offer. And, as with virtually every part of the criminal justice system, the effect was more pronounced when the job candidate was black.

Over the last five years, according to a recent report by the Vera Institute for Justice, 23 states have passed more than three dozen laws aimed at sealing or expunging criminal records for certain offenses so that low-level offenders do not continue to suffer for relatively minor transgressions. The convictions that may be sealed commonly include misdemeanors like disorderly conduct, shoplifting, or, in some cases, low-level drug possession.

The laws generally impose a waiting period of several years from the end of a sentence before a convicted person may ask a court to seal his or her record.

But record sealing, however well-intentioned, is not an optimal solution. For one thing, trying to keep anything secret in the 21st century is no sure thing. Anyway, sealing laws regularly include significant exceptions, leaving criminal records available to law enforcement and the courts, as well as to certain employers who are legally required to perform background checks.

Also, record-sealing laws do not and cannot address the underlying problem of overcriminalization. Many of the misdemeanors the laws single out should never have been prosecuted in the first place. Does it make sense that a 21-year-old who is caught, say, driving without a license will then be burdened by a criminal record that trails him and keeps him from getting jobs into middle age?

A better approach, though admittedly longer term, is to emphasize the need for a change in attitudes about people with criminal records. So-called ban-the-box laws now on the books in about a dozen states and many municipalities require employers to consider applicants more fully before asking about their criminal history. Some states offer employers tax breaks or reduce their legal liability for hiring applicants with a conviction in their past.

In the end, everyone benefits when people with criminal records are not shut out from the opportunity to be productive members of society.

This content originated from: The New York Times, Editorial Board (2015), Job Hunting with a Criminal Record

Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/opinion/job-hunting-with-a-criminal-record.html [Last accessed 19th March 2015]

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

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

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.

A DBS check scares me

In the 1980’s, at the age of 16, I was convicted of ABH and given a 12 month conditional discharge. After this happened my solicitor told me that, when I turn 18, the conviction will become cleared. At that time, the offence didn’t play on my mind and, until the early 2000s, I was getting on with my life. I became a parent, went to college and then onto university.

Then, in 2003, I got a job as a Teaching Assistant in a secondary school, and this was when I had to do a CRB check. When asked on the form if I had any criminal records, I answered no because I thought that the conviction was spent.

When my CRB came back, the head teacher asked me about it. I tried to explain the situation, saying what I could remember about the circumstances around the offence, and telling her that I had been told it would be cleared. She was saying that there would have to be a meeting to discuss the matter, and I guess really to see if I would be keeping my job. I was in shock because of whole thing, and I decided to leave because I thought that I was going to lose my job, and also because I felt (and still feel) ashamed.

It is really good that there have been some changes to the ROA, and now how minor offences can be filtered, but I ask myself, what about the people who committed an offence when they were teenagers? Because of the nature of the offence, it will never be cleared or wiped, or filtered. That just doesn’t seem right.

People tell me that I have nothing to worry about, and employers will not even ‘bat an eyelid’ because it happened almost 30 years ago. I was in my teens, and it’s my one and only offence. The thing is, this one offence feels like 30 offences, and 10 years on from when it all came out, I am still trying to come to terms with it. I am angry and I feel ashamed. I look at the jobs which I know I have the skills for, but seeing the words ‘a DBS check will be required’ scares me. Why? Because it means that I will have to explain something that happened decades ago, and I think ‘why?’

On the few occasions that I have disclosed for work purposes, the response has been negative. I know some people can quickly get over things, and get on with things, but I am finding the criminal record and DBS checks difficult to deal with. I just want to apply for a job without this hanging over my head.

Yes, I can say to myself that ‘it happened 30 years ago’, but because it’s an offence that for certain jobs like teaching (an area of work that interests me) it won’t ever be spent. Those 30 years, are like 30months ago. So, I will always be seen as a ‘risk,’ and this doesn’t help my confidence one bit.

I want to thank you Unlock for the work you do, for wanting the government to make further changes, and for giving us a voice.

by Nicola

New Life, New Business – New Problems

Ten years ago I received a conviction for a sexual offence. I can’t tell you how hard it is for me to say that, I am still filled with feelings of disgust and utterly ashamed at what I did. At the time, my life was out of control, don’t get me wrong I’m not making excuses, I shouldn’t have done what I did. I pleaded guilty and I received a custodial sentence.

I’m not one of those people who constantly whinge and feels sorry for myself. I don’t blame ‘the world and his wife’ for what’s happened to me. We all make our own choices and I have to live with mine.

All things considered, I think I’m doing OK. Yes it was hard when I first came out of prison just coming to terms with what I had done and what had happened to me. Prison was certainly never on my list of ‘places to visit before I die’. I did everything that my probation officer asked of me and I am always totally up front and honest with my PPU officer. I don’t consider myself a risk. I’m not going to reoffend and I have nothing to hide. Being a very private person, I initially found questions from the PPU officer quite intrusive but I realised very early on that she was only doing her job. I had allowed myself to be in this position by offending but if I co-operated with her, then hopefully in time, she would be prepared to put more trust in me. That’s exactly what happened. She appreciated my openness and honesty and has always been extremely helpful and supportive.

I met a lovely lady approximately 4 years ago and I disclosed my conviction to her (as I was told to do). I think she was surprised and I am sure there must have been moments when she wondered whether a relationship with me was worth the effort (although she never voiced this to me). We set up home together and made the ultimate commitment – we got a dog.

Like anybody with my sort of conviction getting work has been difficult. Many times my application was never acknowledged even though I knew I had the necessary skills and experience. On other occasions when I disclosed at interview I could see the look of disgust on a manager’s face. I just kept on trying and applied for everything I could and eventually I managed to secure a job. I worked hard, got promoted and then got head-hunted by a competitor.

As my relationship with my partner developed, we made the decision to move house and set up a business together. We wanted to spend more time together and I wanted to move away from the high-pressured, stressful environment that I was working in.

Our new business needed insurance and as I had pretty much put my conviction behind me taking out a commercial insurance policy did not worry me unduly. Oh dear – how wrong I was. Unlike personal insurance, I was duty bound to disclose my conviction as a ‘material fact’. I rang a couple of companies advertising on the internet but didn’t even get the chance to explain the nature of my conviction, the minute I answered yes to the ‘have you got any criminal convictions’ question they told me they could not help. In desperation I turned to the Unlock website – excellent there were brokers who stated that they insured people with my type of conviction. I rang the first one and had to disclose the nature of my offence, when it occurred and the sentence I received. I had achieved so much over the last few years that I had forgotten what it felt like to disclose but that sense of shame and humiliation came flooding back. The broker was great, I guess he’s heard it all before. He said he would ring around and come back to me with the best quote. He did come back to me and told me that although as a broker he had no issue with the nature of my conviction, but due to the fact that I was looking for commercial insurance, he could not find anybody to underwrite the policy.

I rang two more brokers on the Unlock list and got the same answer. They all said that if I had wanted personal insurance they would have no problem sourcing something but commercial insurance was a big ‘no’. For the first time in a very long time, I was reminded of those early days when rejection was a regular occurrence. It was like being on trial all over again. I could see my plans for the new business and future with my wonderful partner just slipping away. Worst of all, it felt like my partner was being punished for my convictions.

Further searches on the internet and many phone calls later and I managed to find somebody willing to insure me. I know that I am paying 3 times more than somebody without a conviction which is not great and an expense that a new business could well do without. However, astonishingly I have only just realised that whatever I have done since leaving prison and whatever I achieve in the future, I am never truly going to be free from my conviction. I have always been able to remain positive, I have never felt sorry for myself and I have never shouted about ‘discrimination’ but I have been really shocked that my conviction should have such a massive impact on purchasing an insurance policy.

I understand why employers need to know about my past, I have accepted that I needed to disclose to my new partner and her family but I fail to see how my conviction has any bearing on a commercial insurance policy.

I am determined not to become bitter about this. If nothing else, it has just given me even more motivation to make a success of my business and provide for my new family.