Train Cleaner Job Offer, now asked for DBS check

[K12r]

No, what if you are speeding way over and cant stop in time. And the drugs argument could be considered weak. I was on a course once and was taught by a specialist drugs officer, backed up by medical proffesionals that drugs actually rarely kill, other than an overdose it is usually what they are cut with e.g bleach, scouring powder etc .


Then it would be the appalling driving that caused the harm not the speed alone .

The assertion that drugs have victims isn't weak. Drugs alone rarely kill but they frequently cause mental health issues, destroy families and undermine the fabric of society both by causing dependant and promoting negative role models .

Drugs supply and use is, corrosive. Hence the consequences when suppliers are caught. They don't get offered a drugs awareness course like speeders may !

 

[tiptoptaff]

Having read the thread, I gather convictions aren't yet spent? So RoOA1974 actually states that they must be declared if asked for and will show on a basic disclosure.

Also I'd hardly call drug production and supply a "minor petty crime of youth" especially the OP also mentions the conviction for tampering with an electricity meter, which leads me to suspect it wasn't growing the odd plant for home use but a commercial cannabis farm.

Organised crime, not petty law breaking.

I'm sorry OP but your assertion you deserve that job more than anyone else is wrong.

The railway has a zero tolerance policy and if I was looking at your application and drug production convictions came up unspent, I have to be honest, I wouldn't be able to convince myself you could be guaranteed to be drug free.

 

[baz962]

No, what if you are speeding way over and cant stop in time. And the drugs argument could be considered weak. I was on a course once and was taught by a specialist drugs officer, backed up by medical proffesionals that drugs actually rarely kill, other than an overdose it is usually what they are cut with e.g bleach, scouring powder etc .


Then it would be the appalling driving that caused the harm not the speed alone .

The assertion that drugs have victims isn't weak. Drugs alone rarely kill but they frequently cause mental health issues, destroy families and undermine the fabric of society both by causing dependant and promoting negative role models .

Drugs supply and use is, corrosive. Hence the consequences when suppliers are caught. They don't get offered a drugs awareness course like speeders may !

Very shortsighted of you . I am in no way condoning drugs , i fully expect and hope anyone doing or supplying feel the full force of the law, but i think no one, not you or i can pick or choose which laws speeding or otherwise to break. Also you should not try and dismiss it as bad driving that kills , not speeding. Speeding is in and of itself bad driving by definition. And as for the drugs, medical pro's strongly believe smoking and drinking are far more dangerous, yet they are legal, and you only have to see the mental health issues of alcoholics such as Paul gascoine to see the bad effects, but the government allow it. Some illegal drugs are actually Still used for medical purposes around the world. But the law is the law, speeding or otherwise, dont Pick and choose.

 

[GB]

You cannot say speeding is bad driving when the speed limit is purely an arbitrary figure. Inappropriate speed is what I would consider bad driving...and that includes speeds within the limit.

 

[baz962]

You cannot say speeding is bad driving when the speed limit is purely an arbitrary figure. Inappropriate speed is what I would consider bad driving...and that includes speeds within the limit.

If you break the speed limit its inappropiate, and bad .

 

[GB]

So why is doing 72mph on a motorway inappropriate and bad?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So why is doing 72mph on a motorway inappropriate and bad?

Because the law has been set based on the level of safety and pollution that is considered acceptable for all. Laws are the framework for us all to live together in a civil society.

(Though I doubt many drivers have not ever exceeded 72mph on the motorway)

 

[K12r]

Very shortsighted of you . I am in no way condoning drugs , i fully expect and hope anyone doing or supplying feel the full force of the law, but i think no one, not you or i can pick or choose which laws speeding or otherwise to break. Also you should not try and dismiss it as bad driving that kills , not speeding. Speeding is in and of itself bad driving by definition. And as for the drugs, medical pro's strongly believe smoking and drinking are far more dangerous, yet they are legal, and you only have to see the mental health issues of alcoholics such as Paul gascoine to see the bad effects, but the government allow it. Some illegal drugs are actually Still used for medical purposes around the world. But the law is the law, speeding or otherwise, dont Pick and choose.

Most drugs that are illegal for individuals to produce/supply/possess have some medical use and can be used by trained licensed medical practitioners, and alcohol and tobacco use are indeed harmful. More harmful than Class A drugs ? No. More harmful than Class B, debatable though the medical opinion that sways towards this argument certainly isn't shared by the majority of "medical pro's" . Either way the rights and wrongs of the misuse of drugs act matter not. The offences therin are mostly considered serious - hence folk get sent to prison.

Comparing speeding with supplying illegal drugs is preposterous. We DO all decide which laws we abide by, and which we don't and we pay the consequences of these decisions if caught. So we can and do choose which laws to break.

Speeding of itself is not necessarily bad driving. I have on many times driven at well over 100 mph, and on one occasion over 170 mph on public roads ( legally and safely ).

 

[baz962]

So why is doing 72mph on a motorway inappropriate and bad?

Er the limit is 70, and yes the Police excercise discretion, however last week a senior police officer said he wants six points and fines for even one mph over.

 

[baz962]

Most drugs that are illegal for individuals to produce/supply/possess have some medical use and can be used by trained licensed medical practitioners, and alcohol and tobacco use are indeed harmful. More harmful than Class A drugs ? No. More harmful than Class B, debatable though the medical opinion that sways towards this argument certainly isn't shared by the majority of "medical pro's" . Either way the rights and wrongs of the misuse of drugs act matter not. The offences therin are mostly considered serious - hence folk get sent to prison.

Comparing speeding with supplying illegal drugs is preposterous. We DO all decide which laws we abide by, and which we don't and we pay the consequences of these decisions if caught. So we can and do choose which laws to break.

Speeding of itself is not necessarily bad driving. I have on many times driven at well over 100 mph, and on one occasion over 170 mph on public roads ( legally and safely ).

Then you must be a blue light driver , 170 , legally yes , safely debateable.

 

[Biker]

Sorry but I think that's wrong.
Certain convictions WILL always show up such as sexual or violent crimes.
Other, less serious, convictions will be filtered after the appropriate amount of time has passed, and is then considered spent.
One cannot be punished over and over for discretions made when younger.
There has been a change in the DBS system to stop exactly this from happening, people changing and becoming law abiding citizens but being followed everywhere by their past.
If your convictions were minor there is no way they should be still affecting your employment prospects.

Unfortunately I am right, believe me I wish I wasn't. There is no rehabilitation of offenders now if you have 2+ convictions. Totally wrong in my opinion but there's nothing you can do.

I have copied the text from the DBS site, check it out for yourself.
Convictions – Only single convictions that didn’t lead to a suspended or custodial sentence can be filtered, so long as the offence is eligible and the relevant time period has passed.

 

[baz962]

And as for we do chose, i know that , my point was not that you dont , it was you shouldnt, and thats why you pay if you do, it was someone else that compared it to drugs, i was simply pointing out that , that could be a weak argument.

 

[EastMidsMatt]

Unfortunately I am right, believe me I wish I wasn't. There is no rehabilitation of offenders now if you have 2+ convictions. Totally wrong in my opinion but there's nothing you can do.

I have copied the text from the DBS site, check it out for yourself.
Convictions – Only single convictions that didn’t lead to a suspended or custodial sentence can be filtered, so long as the offence is eligible and the relevant time period has passed.

I know you're right, I said so in the very next post.

 

[GB]

Er the limit is 70, and yes the Police excercise discretion, however last week a senior police officer said he wants six points and fines for even one mph over.

He did say that and clearly he is an idiot. Speed detection is not that accurate, most of his officers would also be done for "speeding" and people will be glued to their dash board rather than looking at the road ahead. Even a mother, whos son was killed by a speeder spoke out and said that it was not a good idea.

 

[Biker]

I know you're right, I said so in the very next post.

I saw that after I'd replied, sorry

 

[K12r]

You ( rightly ) have to disclose spent convictions if you have more than one, r received a custodial for the offence. This doesn't mean that you won't get the job, disclosing it is one thing, how the empoyer treats this is another.

 

[baz962]

He did say that and clearly he is an idiot. Speed detection is not that accurate, most of his officers would also be done for "speeding" and people will be glued to their dash board rather than looking at the road ahead. Even a mother, whos son was killed by a speeder spoke out and said that it was not a good idea.

So a Mother had a son killed by a speeder, yet people think its A: ok and B: not bad driving, speed kills, its bad driving then, my point proved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is an enhanced DBS check required for railway staff? I'm not clear why it would be; normally it is only required for jobs involving direct supervision of children or vulnerable adults, or in some cases (for a different reason) for charity trustees.

Any employer can conduct a Basic check (you can even do one on yourself if you want to pre-empt what they will see on it), but this only includes non-spent convictions.

(What you're required to disclose is separate from this, of course).

 

[K12r]

He did say that and clearly he is an idiot. Speed detection is not that accurate, most of his officers would also be done for "speeding" and people will be glued to their dash board rather than looking at the road ahead. Even a mother, whos son was killed by a speeder spoke out and said that it was not a good idea.

He said it:
1. Because he's an idiot, and
2. Because he sees it as part of his role to promote public discussion. He will write about it on his next promotion / appraisal form.

 

[Bletchleyite]

He did say that and clearly he is an idiot. Speed detection is not that accurate, most of his officers would also be done for "speeding" and people will be glued to their dash board rather than looking at the road ahead. Even a mother, whos son was killed by a speeder spoke out and said that it was not a good idea.

FWIW Switzerland does have penalties for 1km/h over. I have seen such a ticket which a colleague received, it was for 111km/h on a motorway with a 110km/h limit.

TBH most people wouldn't be caught out if they didn't allow their needle over the specified number, as most car speedos overread by about 5% because it is a Construction and Use offence for them to underread even by a tiny fraction of a mile per hour. So it would only really make a practical difference if you ignore your speedo and use a sat-nav for speed readout, or if you habitually do limit+10%+2mph because you know you can get away with it rather than just using that as a "safety margin" but aiming to drive at or below the indicated limit.

(FWIW anyone doing "80mph" on the motorway is probably actually doing about 76 which is within that boundary. Though forces don't have to use it, most notably Northamptonshire does not)

 

[K12r]

So a Mother had a son killed by a speeder, yet people think its A: ok and B: not bad driving, speed kills, its bad driving then, my point proved.

The excess speed was indeed a factor in the incident, and the driver was driving badly. Speed did not kill. The disgraceful driving and appalling bad judgement of the driver did.

 

[Bromley boy]

You ( rightly ) have to disclose spent convictions if you have more than one, r received a custodial for the offence. This doesn't mean that you won't get the job, disclosing it is one thing, how the empoyer treats this is another.

This is complete rubbish. There’s no requirement to disclose spent convictions. Having more than one makes no difference.

I suggest you read the relevant act, and there is plenty of online guidance available:

https://www.nacro.org.uk/resettleme...riminal-records/rehabilitation-offenders-act/

allows most convictions and all cautions, reprimands and final warnings to be considered spent after a certain period. This period – known as the rehabilitation period – is determined by the sentence or disposal given, rather than by the type of offence. The ROA gives people with spent convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings the legal right not to disclose them when applying for most jobs, most courses and all insurance purposes.

 

[baz962]

The excess speed was indeed a factor in the incident, and the driver was driving badly. Speed did not kill. The disgraceful driving and appalling bad judgement of the driver did.

So apart from the speeding factor, in what way was the driver, driving badly.

 

[GB]

So a Mother had a son killed by a speeder, yet people think its A: ok and B: not bad driving, speed kills, its bad driving then, my point proved.

Again, context. Doing (for example) 32 in a 30 outside/near a school is obviously inappropriate...I don't see how you can say the same for 72 on a motorway just because someone, 50 years ago said that was the limit. But I guess this is veering wildly off topic.

 

[Bromley boy]

(What you're required to disclose is separate from this, of course).

Only if the job is exempt from the act. Otherwise, even if asked, there is no obligation to disclose spent convictions. It’s important people appreciate this point.

 

[K12r]

So apart from the speeding factor, in what way was the driver, driving badly.

By not being able to stop in the distance he knew to be clear, by losing control owing to misjudging the road / road conditions. If he'd simply been speeding then no collision would have taken place. INAPPROPRIATE speed causes harm , not simple speeding.

 

[baz962]

Again, context. Doing (for example) 32 in a 30 outside/near a school is obviously inappropriate...I don't see how you can say the same for 72 on a motorway just because someone, 50 years ago said that was the limit. But I guess this is veering wildly off topic.

Perhaps because, that is how i was taught, and brought up, that when driving if you break a law, rule or regulation it is wrong and is bad driving, but abiding by the law, driving sensibly and responsibly, showing respect to the law , and fellow road users cannot be a bad thing and i make no apologies, old law or not it is not hard to keep to the law, and no excuse to break it, except for an emergency.

 

[baz962]

By not being able to stop in the distance he knew to be clear, by losing control owing to misjudging the road / road conditions. If he'd simply been speeding then no collision would have taken place. INAPPROPRIATE speed causes harm , not simple speeding.

Did it stop in the distance, would have if doing less speed.

 

[K12r]

Did it stop in the distance, would have if doing less speed.

So the decision of the driver to travel at that speed in those conditions lead to the collision. It wouldn't have happened but for the choices the driver made in those circumstances. Failing to look / understand what you're driving towards, and to adopt a correct position and speed for the circumstances causes accidents. Speed doesn't.

 

[baz962]

So the decision of the driver to travel at that speed in those conditions lead to the collision. It wouldn't have happened but for the choices the driver made in those circumstances. Failing to look / understand what you're driving towards, and to adopt a correct position and speed for the circumstances causes accidents. Speed doesn't.

Well guess we will have to agree to disagree, im sure many people believe speed kills. Did the old advert say kill your speed , not a child. Pretty sure it was not , only speed when appropriate its ok sometimes, and why we are at it , just get rid of all speed limits.