Interesting factoid I picked up today while smoking in the shelter at work.
It was raining
Turns out that for gainful employment that requires MOD certification a “full” background check is carried out.
MOD and civilian employment requirements with regards to criminal activity are pretty uniform.
This particular codicil raised an eyebrow.
As a given all documentation to crimes committed before the age of 18 are sealed and not available to an employer - except the MOD it seems.
Turns out a cheeky chappy who applied for a job at our workplace had previously been in trouble with the law.
He had recieved a ‘Caution’ from the police as being part of a gang who raided a Post Office. He had not participated in the raid but stood around giggling as the others kicked in the window and ransacked the joint.
Fast forward to present day some 15 years later.
When going for security clearance this fellow is arbitrally dismissed due to an ‘Attack on the Crown’ so clearance is not given and so the job is unavailable to him.
While the MOD is a different beast to HMG it seems a little churlish to on the one hand pass laws to absolve misguided teenagers of previous infractions. On the other insist that anyone who breaks a post office window and nicks a packet of a fags is guilty of treason.
The only reason I mention this is that the guy was only cautioned by the police and the target had been a Post Office.
Had he kicked in the door to a Granny flat and taken everything she owned he would have been Scot free with regards to the MOD clearance procedures.
Anyone else know of any other absurd vaguaries like this outside of the UK.
In the U.S. any robbery of a postal facility is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The act of robbing Granny would be dealt with by the local police, unless crossing state borders was somehow involved.
If the OP is in the UK (and his use of the terms “chappy,” “Crown,” “fags” [cigarettes], and “Granny flat” makes that highly likely), then MOD probably stands for Ministry of Defence.
To get a security clearance here it is a little more serious than your basic background check. It’s probably not any different here. Yes it’s a bit hypocritical seeing that the gummint wants to give juvenile delinquents a fair shot at a job as long as it’s not with them.
That’s not true. If he was convicted of a sexual offence he would have been barred from working with children or the vulnerable as a matter of course. So his record would be available to the agency (Criminal Records Bureau) involved in performing background checks on prospective doctors, nurses, teachers etc.
I think it would actually be investigated by the US Postal Inspection Service, also Federal agents, but not Bureau boys. Might be a nitpick, but I hate when people refer to all Feds as Feebs.
From the way you put it I’m guessing that you belong to a different Federal police agency. I’m no Federal agent but I agree with your sentiment, if only for the sake of accuracy.
Is it also true that after you get arrested for robbing the post office, you will be tried in Federal court and probably wind up in a Federal prison?
While I cannot answer the question, I can’t help myself from commenting on the fact that that is seriously the most British OP I’ve ever read on this board.
Cheeky!
(I only have a fairly vague idea of what that word means, but I’m using it anyway.)
Strike that - a quick Google search confirms what I’ve always heard about laws here in the U.S., and does sort-of answer the OP’s final question (which is more of an IMHO kind of thing depending on what part of the world the responding poster is from):
I realize that this has been addressed to some extent by previous posters, but I just wanted to add that even mailbox baseball is a Federal offense here in the States.
ETA: if this was enforced for every infraction to the maximum penalty, I know plenty of kids I went to school with who could get life in prison and millions of dollars in fines for a single night of drunken assholishness. :eek:
Sorry to tack on another consecutive post and hijack the OP, but does anyone know what a realistic punishment would be for stupid teens (or, if it differs, immature adults) who get caught red-handed bashing twenty or thirty mailboxes in a night in the U.S.? I’m sure they wouldn’t lock them up forever or fine them millions of dollars for a few $10 mailboxes, but what generally happens in those situations?
I have no idea what the actual punishment might be, but i’m pretty sure you’re right that “they wouldn’t lock them up forever or fine them millions of dollars.”
The problem, i think, is that some people tend to assume that, just because a crime falls under federal jurisdiction, the penalties are always and automatically much harsher than for similar crimes dealt with at the state level. But that’s not true. While some federal crimes attract harsher sentences, the designation of a federal crime is generally descriptive and procedural, referring to something that falls under federal rather than state or local jurisdiction. “Federal crime” is not a synonym for “really harsh sentence.”
