New Met police video

[Fedster + 1,307]

Some roles within forces 'will not be ruled out'.

 

Date - 26th September 2019
By - Nick Hudson - Police Oracle

1 Comment

 

West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner David Jamieson is urging fellow PCCs, along with the whole of the public sector, to follow his lead in giving candidates with a criminal record a chance to be assessed on their ability to do the job before any convictions are considered.

The West Midlands Office of the PCC, which supports 39 full-time posts, is determined to “practise what it preaches” in signing up to Business in the Community’s Ban The Box scheme.

It is joining more than 125 employers, including the Civil Service, Boots and Virgin Trains, who are creating a fair chance for ex-offenders to compete for jobs and bring down the £15 billion-a-year cost of reoffending.

“It is an important and symbolic first step,” a spokesman for the West Midlands PCC told Police Oracle.

“We want PCCs and local councils to join us on this.

“It is unlikely we will see offenders as police officers but some roles within forces would not be ruled out.”

The spokesman added: “We also want the rest of the public sector to join us on this.

“It’s a question of practising what you preach.

“It would be hypocritical if we asked businesses to sign up to this and were not prepared to do it ourselves.

West Midlands assistant police and crime commissioner Waheed Saleem added: “By banning the box we can create more opportunities for ex-offenders and make sure that they aren’t stigmatised by an application form.

“We know that being in work reduces the chance of reoffending considerably which is why I am supporting this campaign.

“The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner has a history of supporting ex-offenders, through providing placements and working closely with the Longford Trust to give people another chance.

“We all have a responsibility to reduce crime and I will be continuing to call on businesses and other employers to do the same.”

Having a job can reduce a person’s chance of reoffending by up to 50 per cent and the Mr Jamieson is leading the way in offering people a chance to turn their lives around while helping to keep communities safer.

At his annual business summit in January, he called on companies and public sector organisations to reach out and give a second chance to those who may have served time in prison to help break the cycle of crime.

Through signing up to Ban the Box and considering whether, when and how to ask about criminal convictions, employers can play a vital role in keeping people out of prison while gaining access to a large and diverse talent pool, PCC Jamieson maintains.

Business in the Community’s Ban the Box campaign calls on UK employers to remove the tick box and ask about criminal convictions later in the recruitment process – putting an end to the unfair discrimination of ex-offenders.

In pursuit of the target to remove the barrier on one million jobs across the UK by next year, some 135 employers with a combined workforce of about 910,000 have signed up to the campaign to date – including the entire Civil Service.

The Ministry of Justice wants to see all companies Ban the Box – calling on employers to remove the tick box asking about unspent criminal convictions from job application forms and publicly commit to considering applicants’ skills, experience and ability to do the job before asking about criminal convictions.

It is not calling for any changes to the checks and processes that are legally required when recruiting for “regulated” roles as defined by the Disclosure and Barring Service, such as jobs with children or vulnerable adults.

The UK government’s own Social Exclusion Unit reported that ‘employment reduces the risk of re-offending by between a third and a half’, in its 2002 report ‘Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners’.

Business in the Community campaign manager Jessica Rose said: “Two thirds of employers admit to discriminating against people with criminal records but the employers we work with recognise the skills and loyalty this diverse group of people can bring to their roles.

“Removing the barrier of a tick box can make all the difference to someone deciding to apply to your company or not and we need more forward-thinking employers to join the campaign to help stop the cycle of reoffending.”

  View On Police Oracle

[Reasonable Man + 1,259]

Perfectly sensible approach. 

There will be those who think that only saints/Mother Theresa types should work for the police but we have officers with convictions and many others who, but for the grace of God, would have. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

Any conviction which involves any dishonesty should be a complete taboo. Let us be honest about this, PCC's have shown what was alleged before their inception, they are just Politically motivated which is a thing that the Police should not be.  Perhaps the suggestion is to try a legitimise some of the various PCC's employee's.

It would also depend on, just what, you regard as a criminal conviction, through from riding a bicycle without lights to Murder, Rape,  Fraud etc.

With CRB checks required for many occupations, the suggestion just looks ludicrous.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Zulu 22

[Reasonable Man + 1,259]

What’s the difference between a police officer with a CRO number for assault who has kept his job and an applicant with a CRO number for assault being employed? 

I recall two PC’s in the 80s telling stories of their regular taking a ‘Portsmouth Taxi’ back to base after a night out. Get drunk, no money for a taxi so TWOC a car to get back. Good officers and the sort you wanted with you in a bundle but clear signs of (previous) dishonesty. 

A conviction does not make a bad officer. 

[Beaker 817]

Lets be fair, getting rid of the check box doesn't mean a thing in policing.  Everyone gets vetted to the point they know your history, and and convictions are going to show up.

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

33 minutes ago, Reasonable Man said:

What’s the difference between a police officer with a CRO number for assault who has kept his job and an applicant with a CRO number for assault being employed? 

I recall two PC’s in the 80s telling stories of their regular taking a ‘Portsmouth Taxi’ back to base after a night out. Get drunk, no money for a taxi so TWOC a car to get back. Good officers and the sort you wanted with you in a bundle but clear signs of (previous) dishonesty. 

A conviction does not make a bad officer. 

Sorry but they were not fit to serve, and even telling (bragging) about it. A conviction like that certainly does make a a bad officer with Disgraceful discipline. The public have the right to expect better. I would like to see the authority for your recollection.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Zulu 22

[Reasonable Man + 1,259]

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

Sorry but they were not fit to serve, and even telling (bragging) about it. A conviction like that certainly does make a a bad officer with Disgraceful discipline. The public have the right to expect better. I would like to see the authority for your recollection.

They weren’t convicted. That’s my point. There must be plenty of officers who have committed a crime either before or since joining but were never caught or at least never convicted. Most go on to be perfectly acceptable officers. 

As for the authority for my recollection I guess you’ll have to either read my mind or get a psychologists report on my recollection ability. 

I will admit to being a burglar prior to joining. As a10/11 year old us kids found our way to a disused mill that was a great adventure playground. I found a rusty old gin trap there and took it home. Got blasted for it and playing in such a dangerous place. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,642]

21 minutes ago, Reasonable Man said:

They weren’t convicted. That’s my point. There must be plenty of officers who have committed a crime either before or since joining but were never caught or at least never convicted. Most go on to be perfectly acceptable officers. 

I will admit to being a burglar prior to joining. As a10/11 year old us kids found our way to a disused mill that was a great adventure playground. I found a rusty old gin trap there and took it home. Got blasted for it and playing in such a dangerous place. 

The comment you made relating to this was Quote "I recall two PC’s in the 80s telling stories of their regular taking a ‘Portsmouth Taxi’ back to base after a night out. Get drunk, no money for a taxi so TWOC a car to get back. Good officers and the sort you wanted with you in a bundle but clear signs of (previous) dishonesty".    From what you now say you must have known about the offences of TWOC being committed as they were regularly telling their stories. That leaves the question What did you do about it ? or did you condone it. There is no way that they could even be regarded as "Good Officers".   Once a thief, always a potential thief. Defence lawyers would have a field day.

There used to be a English Rugby International in Staffordshire who had a conviction for TWOC as a teenager. The then Chief decided to ignore the conviction because of his sporting ability. He went on to turn as a Professional Rugby League player. On retiring he applied to join the GMP and he was turned down, using the excuse that he was not up to the standard of fitness required.  We all knew what the true reason was.

[Reasonable Man + 1,259]

12 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

The comment you made relating to this was Quote "I recall two PC’s in the 80s telling stories of their regular taking a ‘Portsmouth Taxi’ back to base after a night out. Get drunk, no money for a taxi so TWOC a car to get back. Good officers and the sort you wanted with you in a bundle but clear signs of (previous) dishonesty".    From what you now say you must have known about the offences of TWOC being committed as they were regularly telling their stories. That leaves the question What did you do about it ? or did you condone it. There is no way that they could even be regarded as "Good Officers".   Once a thief, always a potential thief. Defence lawyers would have a field day.

There used to be a English Rugby International in Staffordshire who had a conviction for TWOC as a teenager. The then Chief decided to ignore the conviction because of his sporting ability. He went on to turn as a Professional Rugby League player. On retiring he applied to join the GMP and he was turned down, using the excuse that he was not up to the standard of fitness required.  We all knew what the true reason was.

I think I failed to say that the ‘Portsmouth Taxi’ is a matelot term and this was apparently a regular activity by matelots in that town in the 70s and 80s. 

I did nothing, neither did any of the other officers who heard the tales. No identified victims to a crime that the statute of limitation had run out 10 years previously - no point in breathalysing them all those years later either. 

That’s not condoning the behaviour but being pragmatic to the situation. As for that they could not be good officers, both did 30 years, one on traffic (but I don’t hold that against him). The other a great thief taker who had a commendation for bravery in a particularly hairy situation and another for helping people out of a house on fire. Both had their LSGC medals. But I guess 30 years of unblemished service in the police counts for nothing as they must have been terrible officers because of their behaviour in their late teens/ early 20s. 

[SD + 714]

3 hours ago, Reasonable Man said:

What’s the difference between a police officer with a CRO number for assault who has kept his job and an applicant with a CRO number for assault being employed? 

I recall two PC’s in the 80s telling stories of their regular taking a ‘Portsmouth Taxi’ back to base after a night out. Get drunk, no money for a taxi so TWOC a car to get back. Good officers and the sort you wanted with you in a bundle but clear signs of (previous) dishonesty. 

A conviction does not make a bad officer. 

They were not good officers.

[BlueBob + 701]

Mixed views on this.  I understand the issue about breaking the circle etc. and to that extent I see it as a potentially reasonable approach.  In some instances a crime record can be from a single unplanned incident and unlikely to arise again.  And for that reason ending the application due to a tick of the box is a silly elimination method.  However, there are loads of job applications where you can be eliminated by having ticked or left un-ticked a box in the form for far less challenging issues - tats the nature of the job selection process.
Working within the police 'family' with CRo may be less of a challenge that for the police officer - more so from the perspective of the defence brief, who may (will) regardless of its relevance to the evidence, be liable to use the pre-cons as part of the web of the reasonable doubt strategy.
As long as it is not a carte blanche acceptance, and I'm sure it won't be, and the person would, except for that tick box have been found to be an acceptable candidate then why not give it a go.  IMHO, there is far more to gain than to lose.

[skydiver + 1,099]

I can't believe that the PCC employs 39 full time staff!

[BlueBob + 701]

21 minutes ago, skydiver said:

I can't believe that the PCC employs 39 full time staff!

Was that a typo....did you mean ONLY 39 full time staff😱

[David + 4,981]

I can't believe any Force is that desperate it even needs to consider it.

[Beaker 817]

48 minutes ago, David said:

I can't believe any Force is that desperate it even needs to consider it.

Not yet, but if you consider the potential uplift that will require about 40k or more officers employing over the next three years it does make some sense.  You're going to have a lot of people who are staff and will be applying (all of the police staff who are SCs I know are applying in spring.  Every.Single.One) Once they're gone they will need replacing (and indeed in some areas they'll need even more).  Should they turn down a potential member of civvie staff for a D&D from 15 years ago if they've an otherwised unblemished record?  What if the selection comes down to someone with no experience or someone who is experienced but has a 'moment of stupid' offence from when they were a teenager?