Reply to post: leads me to believe the story has greater errors and omissions than just the date.

Criminal records checks 'unlawful' and 'arbitrary' rules High Court

WatAWorld

leads me to believe the story has greater errors and omissions than just the date.

@Cynic, from what I read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_record#United_Kingdom

what you suggest is how it currently is -- except on enhanced disclosures.

a) Unless the position you are applying for requires an enhanced disclosure your conviction is not disclosed once it is spent.

b) Allegations and not guilty verdicts aren't disclosed either.

"Enhanced disclosures are typically used to screen applicants for positions such as police officer, social worker, teacher which involve contact with vulnerable groups and children."

Which leads me to believe the story has greater errors and omissions than just the messed-up dates.

Possibly she was applying for jobs like police officer, social worker, or teacher. But then I'd expect that the managers for such jobs, and their HR department managers, would have the experience on their own to ignore irrelevant old stuff.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon