Failed vetting for a Police call handler job

Failed vetting for a Police call handler job

Author
Discussion

Funk

Original Poster:

26,254 posts

208 months

Wednesday 19th August 2015
quotequote all
I'm wondering if the collective wisdom of PH can assist with this one. A friend of mine recently applied for a role as a call handler for a Police force and was successful in her application. As part of the process she was then vetted prior to being offered the position and unfortunately has failed because she has a friend who is in prison, and with whom she has been in infrequent contact for several years. She was honest and upfront about declaring the association in line with the vetting requirement; ie. it's not something she withheld which later came to light.

In the run up to applying for the role she said that she would have to cease contact with this person and did so approximately 2 months ago.

The initial appeal was denied and she has the option to pursue a second stage appeal. The reason for the failure is "...you have recently ceased contact with one of your associates; however, your association with him up until this point has caused concern over your vulnerability if you were to work for XYZ Police Force."

Obviously my friend is upset that the job opportunity has been jeopardised by what can best be described as a loose historical friendship. Can anyone offer any advice for the second stage appeal and what might serve to help with making the appeal successful?

Is she on a hiding to nothing?

Ray Luxury-Yacht

8,910 posts

215 months

Wednesday 19th August 2015
quotequote all
Bloody hell, really? Wow, that seems a bit harsh! Since when did association and fraternisation with SOMEONE ELSE with convictions, become prejudicial to a person's own life?

Jesus, talk about Orwellian. Personally I would think that it would be a breach of equal opportunities rights, wouldn't it? Unless there is more to this story than we are being told...

I've just finished my University degree and am now a qualified Paramedic, however I have a bit of form from when I was in my teens - nothing major, just teenagers being teenagers really....but I started to get grumpy when, at every turn, these 25 year-old convictions kept being dragged up and scrutinised. That said, they haven't stopped me from training as a Paramedic, and gaining professional registration. I guess they're not viewed as being that bad. The main thing was that I was honest and upfront and declared them when asked.

So HOW on earth is having no convictions (I am guessing) but just knowing someone has prejudiced an application, when I've been trusted with registration WITH convictions, is right, I just don't know!

OP - is there anything else we need to know?


Funk

Original Poster:

26,254 posts

208 months

Wednesday 19th August 2015
quotequote all
I did think it was very harsh but then I guess there's a reason why they vet. My friend has no arrests, convictions or history with the Police at all. The quoted part of the letter is the reason why they've declined her.

It does seem somewhat unjust which was why I've posted here to see whether it's a) typical and b) surmountable. I'd guess with the second appeal it's probably the last opportunity to 'win'.

oldbanger

4,316 posts

237 months

Wednesday 19th August 2015
quotequote all
Vetting looks at the risk of employees being unduly influenced to leak confidential information to criminals or the public/press, through blackmail, financial inducement and friendship/family ties. Associations with high risk individuals will be looked at, as would things like debt, gambling habits, alcohol problems etc,

It will therefore depend what the person is in prison for. If it's anything which could be construed as organised criminality (drug supply, armed robbery, vehicle crime etc.) then that would be risk scored quite highly, as would an opportunistic but prolific criminal (e.g. Prolific burglar).

These are also recent(active) convictions, not historical youngster indiscretions. So again, these would be scored higher.

Due to the adoption of risk matrices over the last few years when looking at criminality, I think it's likely that there is less leeway than there used to be. Most known active criminals will already have has some kind of score or ranking assigned to them, even before any association to them is declared.

Funk

Original Poster:

26,254 posts

208 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
As I understand he's in prison for having pictures of his girlfriend on his phone - there was a couple of years between them and when he turned 18 she was still 15 so technically bang to rights.

Whilst that's still less than ideal, it's hardly organised crime or money laundering for international arms deals.

It seems harsh to tar her with his brush but technically he's a criminal and technically she associated with him.

Edited by Funk on Thursday 20th August 09:45

Jaska

722 posts

141 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
Is your friend the female in question in his case? I can see how that may be a strong enough reason not to take her on [i.e. when he is out, they could end up together (Which they may imply is on the cards as she continues to be in contact/visiting) and thus she isn't someone with "a friend with convictions" but rather is someone with "a partner with convictions"]. With the recent spotlight on that offence too they are likely to be very defensive on that front...

Just my thoughts though, no knowledge of vetting etc


Funk

Original Poster:

26,254 posts

208 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
No, completely unrelated. No relationship other than knowing him through college many years ago as a friend prior to his conviction.

S10GTA

12,645 posts

166 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
I think there is more to this, as similar happened to me with the RAF.

At the initial stage of the process I was asked if I'd ever had contact with drugs. I advised no. At the second interview they asked me again and I came clean about my step sister being in prison for a drug related offence. This wasn't an issue, but my integrity was now in question and I was turned down despite having a start date and having passed everything else.

I wonder if in this case she has done similar?

Edited by S10GTA on Thursday 20th August 12:38

Funk

Original Poster:

26,254 posts

208 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
It's possible but knowing her I'd say unlikely. She's had no history with the Police, no drugs or anything like that. She was asked as part of the vetting to disclose any association with anyone who has a criminal record and she duly put this guy's details down.

I can well believe it's possible that it's 'tripped the switch' on the application, it just seems particularly harsh in my view. I'd like to help her write a second-stage appeal that stands a chance at getting her the role which, incidentally, I can imagine she'd be excellent at.

KFC

3,687 posts

129 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
Funk said:
As I understand he's in prison for having pictures of his girlfriend on his phone - there was a couple of years between them and when he turned 18 she was still 15 so technically bang to rights.

Whilst that's still less than ideal, it's hardly organised crime or money laundering for international arms deals.

It seems harsh to tar her with his brush but technically he's a criminal and technically she associated with him.

Edited by Funk on Thursday 20th August 09:45
I don't think you're getting the full picture here.

I doubt he'd be in prison for that.

PAULJ5555

3,554 posts

175 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
Better safe than sorry.

Plenty of people out there to do the job who have no links to criminals.

Why take the risk.

PorkInsider

5,877 posts

140 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
KFC said:
Funk said:
As I understand he's in prison for having pictures of his girlfriend on his phone - there was a couple of years between them and when he turned 18 she was still 15 so technically bang to rights.

Whilst that's still less than ideal, it's hardly organised crime or money laundering for international arms deals.

It seems harsh to tar her with his brush but technically he's a criminal and technically she associated with him.

Edited by Funk on Thursday 20th August 09:45
I don't think you're getting the full picture here.

I doubt he'd be in prison for that.
Was thinking the same.

On the C4 24hrs in Police Custody programme last week there were 2 people (a doctor and someone who worked in a school) who were caught possessing and sharing child abuse pics, including very young kids, and neither went to prison IIRC.

silverous

1,008 posts

133 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
How do they avoid you becoming buddies with a criminal once you get the job? I think they should be more worried about stuff they don't know than something like this that she's been up front about. They can presumably monitor her connection with him if he's inside. Can she reapply after a period of non-contact?

944fan

4,962 posts

184 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
I worked as a civilian in the police force a few years back. I was DV vetted (the highest) and the rest of my team were SC vetted. One of my colleagues had a very similar case to this. He had an associate who was in prison. The chap didn't know his mate had gone back tom prison as he hadn't been in contact for quite some time. He was still cleared as he was upfront about it and hadn't been in contact for a long time.

Most of vetting is about identifying potential risks to manage and check a persons integrity. Lying during a vetting is a sure fire way to fail. Whereas having dodgy mates isn't always.

I think there is more to the story you don't know.

944fan

4,962 posts

184 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
silverous said:
How do they avoid you becoming buddies with a criminal once you get the job? I think they should be more worried about stuff they don't know than something like this that she's been up front about. They can presumably monitor her connection with him if he's inside. Can she reapply after a period of non-contact?
If you stay in the same role your vetting clearance lasts for 10 years IIRC so there are few further checks later on. If you become under suspicion though you will be investigated by Professional Standards (police police).


PurpleTurtle

6,940 posts

143 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
PAULJ5555 said:
Better safe than sorry.

Plenty of people out there to do the job who have no links to criminals.

Why take the risk.
This. How many applicants for the job who are 'clean sheets' (whether actually clean, or not admitting to knowing anyone dodgy).
Just not worth the risk when there are plenty of other people suitable for the role, some who perhaps might not be so honest.



Funk

Original Poster:

26,254 posts

208 months

Thursday 20th August 2015
quotequote all
PorkInsider said:
KFC said:
Funk said:
As I understand he's in prison for having pictures of his girlfriend on his phone - there was a couple of years between them and when he turned 18 she was still 15 so technically bang to rights.

Whilst that's still less than ideal, it's hardly organised crime or money laundering for international arms deals.

It seems harsh to tar her with his brush but technically he's a criminal and technically she associated with him.

Edited by Funk on Thursday 20th August 09:45
I don't think you're getting the full picture here.

I doubt he'd be in prison for that.
Was thinking the same.

On the C4 24hrs in Police Custody programme last week there were 2 people (a doctor and someone who worked in a school) who were caught possessing and sharing child abuse pics, including very young kids, and neither went to prison IIRC.
You may well be right.

I guess it highlights the risk of having any links with someone convicted of a crime.

TheAngryDog

12,394 posts

208 months

Thursday 27th August 2015
quotequote all
Funk said:
PorkInsider said:
KFC said:
Funk said:
As I understand he's in prison for having pictures of his girlfriend on his phone - there was a couple of years between them and when he turned 18 she was still 15 so technically bang to rights.

Whilst that's still less than ideal, it's hardly organised crime or money laundering for international arms deals.

It seems harsh to tar her with his brush but technically he's a criminal and technically she associated with him.

Edited by Funk on Thursday 20th August 09:45
I don't think you're getting the full picture here.

I doubt he'd be in prison for that.
Was thinking the same.

On the C4 24hrs in Police Custody programme last week there were 2 people (a doctor and someone who worked in a school) who were caught possessing and sharing child abuse pics, including very young kids, and neither went to prison IIRC.
You may well be right.

I guess it highlights the risk of having any links with someone convicted of a crime.
I wonder how many people we all know who have a criminal record that we are unaware of?

snobetter

1,145 posts

145 months

Friday 28th August 2015
quotequote all
PurpleTurtle said:
PAULJ5555 said:
Better safe than sorry.

Plenty of people out there to do the job who have no links to criminals.

Why take the risk.
This. How many applicants for the job who are 'clean sheets' (whether actually clean, or not admitting to knowing anyone dodgy).
Just not worth the risk when there are plenty of other people suitable for the role, some who perhaps might not be so honest.


The interviewer has to pick somehow, and how, if needed, could he justify giving the job to someone with a known potential risk, as opposed to someone with the same skills but no known risk?
Tell you friend to cut all contact and apply again in the future.

9mm

3,128 posts

209 months

Sunday 30th August 2015
quotequote all
Funk said:
PorkInsider said:
KFC said:
Funk said:
As I understand he's in prison for having pictures of his girlfriend on his phone - there was a couple of years between them and when he turned 18 she was still 15 so technically bang to rights.

Whilst that's still less than ideal, it's hardly organised crime or money laundering for international arms deals.

It seems harsh to tar her with his brush but technically he's a criminal and technically she associated with him.

Edited by Funk on Thursday 20th August 09:45
I don't think you're getting the full picture here.

I doubt he'd be in prison for that.
Was thinking the same.

On the C4 24hrs in Police Custody programme last week there were 2 people (a doctor and someone who worked in a school) who were caught possessing and sharing child abuse pics, including very young kids, and neither went to prison IIRC.
You may well be right.

I guess it highlights the risk of having any links with someone convicted of a crime.
It highlights the benefits of self-employment. Clean slate is a laughable notion in this country despite the legislation.

Having said that, I agree that it sounds as if you're only getting part of the story.