Hiring a rioter

[Mojooo]

So... you are employing and you interview someone who was involved in the riots and has a record


Would you

a- not consider them for being knobhead
b- treat the crime as any other - discarding the fact that it was in the riots
c- treat the crime even wore because it was in the riots
d- not be that bothered if it wouldnt affect the persons ability to do the job and they apepared 'reformed'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14556347

[RemainAllHoof]

For my bailiffs business?

[hondafanatic]

B - Until I read other, better and more sober thinkers than me.

The BBC link was interesting to read. I don't actually have that much any sympathy for people that were 'caught up in the moment'. However, when it comes to employing, there are so many factors to consider that this would not be the only thing to reflect upon.

[Ray Singh]

Rioting is a crime. Treat it as such.
Use your own judgement depending on what your business deals in day to day.

[chukka64]

Although in this wonderfully liberal/pc world that we live in it is now a form of discrimination to reject an applicant solely on the basis of their criminal record.

Of course in the real world there are a million and one reasons that you could use without it specifically being their record.

[Miguel Alvarez]

I think it would depend on the age of the person, the type of riot/looting and time since. I'm thinking 10 years on an 18 year old who maybe stole some trainers and hasn't been in trouble with the law since then I'd give them a bly. It would have to be a case by case basis.

[Rude-boy]

Ignoring the fact that there is no way I would employ anyone with a criminal record where I work for obvious reasons...
If their conviction came as a result of their involvement in the recent Riots then they have no hope. Not only are they obviously stupid to think that with the attention of the entire country on the riots they would get away with their part but also, especially if they stole and used the excuse “caught up in the moment”, they have shown that they are untrustworthy and opportunistic without regard for the potential fall out from their actions.

“Caught up in the moment” is when someone pushes into your girlfriend, words are exchanged and punches thrown, not when you walk past a load of shops with broken shutters and people running out with armfuls of German washing up liquid and think I’ll have a bit of that...

[monkey gland]

Mojooo said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14556347

So a stupid, thug bh realising 20 years too late that actions have consequences.

My heart bleeds.

[STW2010]

I would go for B. If they declared a criminal conviction then they won't provide details other than the name of the crime, and unless I asked further questions (I wouldn't, they just wouldn't be employed) or matched up the dates I wouldn't know it was specifically the riots.

[Mattt]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You can get them to provide their own record though - it's easy to obtain the information, I've used 'Disclosure Scotland' before.

I can see the flip side of the argument though, if a serial offender wants to go straight - then how are they supposed to if no-one will employ them? They then turn back to crime.

[davepoth]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 makes it illegal to discriminate against offenders once their offence has become "spent", except in a number of exempt professions (lawyers, police and such).

That law is the reason why the insurance companies can ask if you've had any speeding tickets in the last 5 years when the points come off earlier - the speeding fine is not "spent" for 5 years.

[lestag]

Mojooo said:

So... you are employing and you interview someone who was involved in the riots and has a record


Would you

a- not consider them for being knobhead
b- treat the crime as any other - discarding the fact that it was in the riots
c- treat the crime even wore because it was in the riots
d- not be that bothered if it wouldnt affect the persons ability to do the job and they apepared 'reformed'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14556347

If you are a farmer looking for sheep... then clearly employ them

[jonah35]

possibly i could potentially choose a and b

it could be considered a good thing that it hinders you in later life as it could stop people from doing things now

[Simon Brooks]

No defence for being involved in riots, anyone stupid enough to not realise that it is just plain wrong would be better suited working elsewhere for someone who thinks their actions are socially acceptable

[wiffmaster]

Option a).

Plenty of high caliber people looking for work at the moment who managed not to get involved and are conviction free.

[niccy b]

Employ them then steal stuff out of there bags and c how they like it!!

[niccy b]

looking for a decent green laming areas in the Surrey area?! anyone know of any?? thanks

[Mattt]

niccy b said:

looking for a decent green laming areas in the Surrey area?! anyone know of any?? thanks

Eh?

[Fatman2]

I don't give a damn what the law says. If this was my business and my financial well being depended on who I employ I'd let them go and find alternative employment elsewhere.

People that got involved were a special type of wker in my book so deserve a life of st. Why would you want to employ anyone that made a conscious decision to cause such havoc is beyond me.

Being good at your job is one thing but showing the world the type of character you are is something else.

[whoami]

Fatman2 said:

I don't give a damn what the law says. If this was my business and my financial well being depended on who I employ I'd let them go and find alternative employment elsewhere.

People that got involved were a special type of wker in my book so deserve a life of st. Why would you want to employ anyone that made a conscious decision to cause such havoc is beyond me.

Being good at your job is one thing but showing the world the type of character you are is something else.

+ many