Informing employer
Notifications OFF
What are people's experiences with regards employers? Is it just a given that employers will find out, and then will dismiss the person??
Anybody had good experiences with employers?
I've heard that sometimes the police / probation will inform employers, even if the employer themselves has no contractual obligation to do so..
Is this only in the case whereby the job could include contact with U18's?
My OH's job wouldn't ever involve being around U18's, so I don't see why his employer would need to be told?
But I wasn't sure if the person had a work laptop and phone for example then work would need to be made aware as it would likely mean putting monitoring software on devices as part of a SHPO
So scared about OH losing their job ????
Anybody had good experiences with employers?
I've heard that sometimes the police / probation will inform employers, even if the employer themselves has no contractual obligation to do so..
Is this only in the case whereby the job could include contact with U18's?
My OH's job wouldn't ever involve being around U18's, so I don't see why his employer would need to be told?
But I wasn't sure if the person had a work laptop and phone for example then work would need to be made aware as it would likely mean putting monitoring software on devices as part of a SHPO
So scared about OH losing their job ????
My person lost their job after the plea hearing, as the police informed them, it was a customer facing role though so may not always be the case. Good luck
Police will only inform if there is potential for interaction with U18s at work.
Most employment contracts have a clause about behaviour that reflects badly on the company, so if there is any media coverage it could be used as grounds for dismissal.
So, if no media & no police notification, employment can usually continue. Police & probation are very keen not to jeopardise employment as it is seen as a positive factor in reducing someone's risk.
Regarding SHPO restrictions, if the company IT has its own software that prevents access to certain websites then police have no need to add additional software. Biggest issue will be if they have a separate work smartphone, as that would need the monitoring software, but if they use their personal phone only (or totally office/landline based) then not a problem.
Good luck, we had a positive experience (if anything in this situation can be positive) where OH kept their job & even managed to change jobs at a later date with no problems.
Most employment contracts have a clause about behaviour that reflects badly on the company, so if there is any media coverage it could be used as grounds for dismissal.
So, if no media & no police notification, employment can usually continue. Police & probation are very keen not to jeopardise employment as it is seen as a positive factor in reducing someone's risk.
Regarding SHPO restrictions, if the company IT has its own software that prevents access to certain websites then police have no need to add additional software. Biggest issue will be if they have a separate work smartphone, as that would need the monitoring software, but if they use their personal phone only (or totally office/landline based) then not a problem.
Good luck, we had a positive experience (if anything in this situation can be positive) where OH kept their job & even managed to change jobs at a later date with no problems.
Our person (our son) had his WFH PC taken at his arrest but informed work he had moved to live with us and they sent him another with his boss saying that he didn't need to know the reason why and as long as he did his job well......he had started working for them when it was a small start-up and his contract is one side of A4 all about pay and holidays etc. Nothing about convictions or anything. He has been very lucky as it involves no U18s so the police have kept away, and he ignored my advice to fess up to start with thinking that honesty is the best policy which I still believe morally but as long as he hasn't lied I can see the sense. How this will change if it hits the media eventually remains to be seen, but one bridge at a time.
My one warning (although might be rare) is that the police know they have some power with whether or not to inform someone's work as our son was accused of not giving the OIC the right password for the work PC and he knew he had, but the OIC threatened they would just contact his work to find it and he'd lose his job if he continued being evasive. Our son asked to speak to someone technical (the OIC had no clue) and quickly worked out that the police had been entering the password incorrectly so it was their fault but they went straight to 'we'll tell on you' before trying to work out what the problem was so our son didn't lose his job which should have been their priority as they have a duty towards his mental health, but they didn't care and just threw their weight around to start with. Problem fixed but a near miss, although it might have been an empty threat I suppose to make him tow the line which he couldn't as he'd already done that. So stressful :(
My one warning (although might be rare) is that the police know they have some power with whether or not to inform someone's work as our son was accused of not giving the OIC the right password for the work PC and he knew he had, but the OIC threatened they would just contact his work to find it and he'd lose his job if he continued being evasive. Our son asked to speak to someone technical (the OIC had no clue) and quickly worked out that the police had been entering the password incorrectly so it was their fault but they went straight to 'we'll tell on you' before trying to work out what the problem was so our son didn't lose his job which should have been their priority as they have a duty towards his mental health, but they didn't care and just threw their weight around to start with. Problem fixed but a near miss, although it might have been an empty threat I suppose to make him tow the line which he couldn't as he'd already done that. So stressful :(
My OH was signed off sick so no 'danger' to anyone as not at work and the OIC took it upon himself to inform his employer months later!
OH didnt inform them as no contact with under 18's and was not at work but was receiving 80% sick pay. Needless to say he has now lost his job and awaiting (for God knows how long) an appointment for benefits!
Just another blow to deal with x
OH didnt inform them as no contact with under 18's and was not at work but was receiving 80% sick pay. Needless to say he has now lost his job and awaiting (for God knows how long) an appointment for benefits!
Just another blow to deal with x
My son lost his job ,due them seeing it on Facebook ,when it happened, if had not been charged then
They put it down to bad reputation on company
He found another one,but then let go after,he was charged,solictors advised him to tell employer
He then found another job,but someone recognised from Facebook and paper
So now unemployed
They put it down to bad reputation on company
He found another one,but then let go after,he was charged,solictors advised him to tell employer
He then found another job,but someone recognised from Facebook and paper
So now unemployed
My person was 'let go' the day after arrest due to employer's concern about the company's reputation. As he was arrested at work the boss wanted to know what it was about, and that was that. He has since found another job, with no requirement to disclose, tho there hasn't been any media coverage (yet), so things may change.