Jump to content
Spam messages. Please stop reporting messages from Orange 15, Ivsa and Pupyh. They’ve been banned. ×

Human Rights


Recommended Posts

If you dont sign it you dont get a job, why have the Rehabitation of Offenders act that was set up to give those that had offended and paid the price a second chance, that act is a Human Right.

 

So your saying people shouldn't have to sign it!!!

 

Good one, we'll just get another Ian Huntley working somewhere again smart ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they may still give you the job even if you have a criminal record. It doesn't say they wont. I assume it is to cover them so they can check anyway.

 

Like a serial Paedophile is unlikely to get the 'Youth Centre Worker' job against some dude done for speeding for example.

 

That's a Human Right to protect children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you dont sign it you dont get a job, why have the Rehabitation of Offenders act that was set up to give those that had offended and paid the price a second chance, that act is a Human Right.

 

It's not clear what the job is. I didn't know there was a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act on the island - I see it's dated 2001 so quite new. In the UK there are many positions which are exempt from the Act especially if they are jobs with the police service, courts or prison service.

 

I'd be more worried about their possible breaching of the Data Protection Act as they say that information may be revealed (to who?) which is a possible breach of the Act as data shouldn't be given to a third party - however this may be OK if you give permission which you would be doing if you applied.

 

What's the job?

Link to post
Share on other sites
... information may be revealed (to who?) which is a possible breach of the Act as data shouldn't be given to a third party

 

I think this is covered by the line following straight afterwards that says:

 

"I understand that personal data will not be disclosed to third parties..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's security vetting, usually a requirement for any job that deals in confidential information, particularly in Government. Having a spent criminal record does not in any way preclude you from obtaining a job. Indeed, having a current record doesn't either. In fact, the company that is used for this process does not inform your employer of your record or give them any details other than a simple Yes or No for clearance. The rehabilitation act is not compromised as you have not been forced to disclose your data to your employer.

 

I should know, I have a spent record and I've been security vetted with no problems. Apart from the conviction that magically appeared out of nowhere which I had a bit of a battle to get them agree that it was nothing to do with me so they took it off.

 

This thread is just misinformed scaremongering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Job was for a labourer at the new prison site, the request for the applicant to sign away his rights to have is personal records kept secret is not clearly explained on the form. Mistakes can be made by disclosure of information an example being, A electrician from the Island was excluded from visiting Florida due to his wife putting on the waiver form that he had been fined for breaking a window over 15 years ago, under the act this information does not need to be given.

Ans is quite right in saying its for a type of job, but this has to be explained on the application forms as not all jobs come under the vetting process

Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon if you had a conviction you would know if/when it would be spent. If not, ask the police or probation?

Certain jobs are quite rightly exempt from the Rehab of Offenders Act, although I once applied for one when I wasn't sure why they'd been allowed to exempt it. I can see however why building at the prison site would mean the job was exempt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this has to be explained on the application forms as not all jobs come under the vetting process

 

Given that you've conveniently forgotten to include the rest of the form in your oversized scan (please, learn to crop for all our sakes), we only have your word for that. And I personally wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you one handed into a strong breeze.

Link to post
Share on other sites
By virtue of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 2001 (Exceptions)

Order 2001 (as amended)

 

The personal questionnaire on the FSC website (http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/fsc/PersonalBankers/pq.pdf) explains this in section G. I notice that they now include Juvenile convictions.

 

As I see it, the '4 Eyes' Declaration in Section J of that form is more appropriate for being against the human rights:

 

You have been proposed as a person with the requisite experience, qualifications and integrity to fulfil

the Commission’s requirement that the business of each licenceholder shall be effectively conducted by

at least two individuals (“the 4-eyes criterion”).

 

Discrimination, what if you only had one eye? Would you be disqualified because there were only '3 Eyes' and it didn't comply with “the 4-eyes criterion” ?

 

Stav.

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...