Reply to post: Logical conclusion

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

Al fazed
Mushroom

Logical conclusion

So, if the worthy company actually decides that it will engage me for the post I just applied for, I shall have to refuse to take up the job, on the grounds that my work colleagues and superiors will know all about my own criminal history, but I will know nothing of theirs.

As an exoffender, with plenty of practice being stupid, I am unable to work with others who are currently offending, or at risk of offending. As a consequence, these vulnerable people have instead to rely on some do theoretical gooder who has a degree in social politics and very little experience of why people may be drawn into offending, and in particular, how bloody difficult it is for a child who grows up in some of UK's less well provisioned localities, to avoid becoming a criminal at 14-16 years of age.

Today, they are being categoried as NEETS (and just like the JEWS in Nazi germany) are thereby condemned through the Home Office's "worthiness triage process" being dished out by "proper pro's" like dentists and doctors, and who are then classed as a Social Security and Housing Benefit scroungers - for life. Along with all their kids.

Meanwhile, an ISIS refugee will be suitabley placed in UK and will receieve much support from other "proper pro's", in order that they can make a good recovery from their dreadful ordeal.

Meanwhile the victims of UK's upper class, "proper pro" scumbags like Lord Janner and his mates, will get fuck all other than some of the UK's finest rough justice.

What a fuckin shit and shot to fuck cunt tree this is.

I am left feeling that, as experienced and qualified as I am, I am unable to contribute.

ALF

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