Didn’t get a penalty fine

[smithjackson]

I was at hayes and harlington station and was in a rush, i used my phone to tap but it didn’t go through and looked as if i was tailgating.

The gentlemen took my details down and said i won’t make you pay a penalty because you seem honest and nice and gave me a ticket to cover my trip to whitechapel and also took down my details

he said you will have a letter sent to you to prove your side of the story.

i’m really nervous and scared, i had recently passed out due to the anxiety built up not knowing what letter im going to receive how’s the process going to go. please can someone advise me.

i hear people who pay the fine it ends there, why did he let me off without paying the fine of happily pay the fine if that’s the last stage.

would appreciate any help please i’m stressed.

 

[30907]

Bad news: I am not sure the gentleman was being kind. A Penalty Fare may not be appropriate when you have (apparently) tailgated, as this is specifically forbidden under the Byelaws.

When you are referred to "head office" they are likely to consider prosecuting you as that is their normal policy. They do not offer out-of-court settlements, but do sometimes let people off first time with a written warning.

The good news: if you are taken to court, assuming you have never been caught before, it will be a straightforward prosecution for a minor offence. It will probably all be done by post, and it won't have any significant impact on your future (only on your finances!).

So what next? You will get a letter from TfL warning that you may be prosecuted and asking for your side of the story. Reply truthfully (and fairly briefly).

To help, you should make a note of exactly what happened - when did you notice that the tap hadn't registered, for example? Was the service disrupted (claiming that you were in a hurry when there are 10 trains an hour isn't likely to arouse sympathy).

Also, did you receive any other paperwork apart from the free ticket?

.

 

[smithjackson]

Bad news: I am not sure the gentleman was being kind. A Penalty Fare may not be appropriate when you have (apparently) tailgated, as this is specifically forbidden under the Byelaws.

When you are referred to "head office" they are likely to consider prosecuting you as that is their normal policy. They do not offer out-of-court settlements, but do sometimes let people off first time with a written warning.

The good news: if you are taken to court, assuming you have never been caught before, it will be a straightforward prosecution for a minor offence. It will probably all be done by post, and it won't have any significant impact on your future (only on your finances!).

So what next? You will get a letter from TfL warning that you may be prosecuted and asking for your side of the story. Reply truthfully (and fairly briefly).

To help, you should make a note of exactly what happened - when did you notice that the tap hadn't registered, for example? Was the service disrupted (claiming that you were in a hurry when there are 10 trains an hour isn't likely to arouse sympathy).

Also, did you receive any other paperwork apart from the free ticket?

.

oh my god i thought he was being nice thanks for clarifying this brother, i’ve got a 3 more questions if you don’t mind.

what if i plead not guilty and don’t write a statement? are they just going to drop the case

second question, what’s the best possible route i can take because i have never been caught before

and finally will i be able to travel the world or am i restricted and how long will this last on my record before it is cleared?

also i did not receive any paperwork apart from the free ticket covering my journey. sorry for a lot i’m just confused and nervous and i really appreciate you helping out.

 

[HST43257]

Generally pleading not guilty when (if) there’s likely cctv that catches you in the act is hardly going to help your case

 

[Watershed]

what if i plead not guilty and don’t write a statement? are they just going to drop the case

Very unlikely; they will probably just start a prosecution based on the evidence they already have. Unfortunately there isn't a "get out of jail free" card in your situation.

second question, what’s the best possible route i can take because i have never been caught before

Be cooperative and apologetic, promise them that it won't happen again, and ask for an out of Court settlement. TfL don't tend to offer out of Court settlements very often, but there's no harm in asking.

If it does go to Court, you'll minimise any fine by pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity and providing details of your income so that the fine can be calculated as a percentage of this, rather than the default income which is based on some sort of average.

and finally will i be able to travel the world or am i restricted and how long will this last on my record before it is cleared?

That really depends on the country you are visiting - it's impossible to provide a general answer.

Most of the offences that you could be accused of, based on the circumstances you've told us, are known as "non-recordable". This means that whilst you do have a criminal record if you're convicted of them, for most purposes within the UK (e.g. job applications) the conviction is "spent" immediately - in other words, you don't need to declare it.

However, this is only the case because of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That Act doesn't apply in some situations, such as jobs where you're working with vulnerable people, or certain security clearances. The Act also doesn't apply to foreign countries, so their embassies are free to make you declare all criminal convictions - whether "spent" or not.

Some countries won't care at all about a conviction; others will still let you visit but will make you fill out more paperwork or visit their Embassy to get a visa instead of being eligible for visa-free entry. The harshest countries may say you're not eligible to visit at all with a criminal record.

 

[Titfield]

I am not sure that the Original Poster (OP) fully understands the situation and process.

1. TfL (Transport for London) or the TOC (if it wasnt TfL) will write to you asking you for your account of what happened.

2. You are strongly advised to reply to this. If you do not reply then TfL or the TOC will escalate the matter by taking you to court. If you post the letter on here when you receive it with all identifying features (name, address reference number etc) obscured the forum can advise on what to include in the reply and equally importantly what not to say. In complex cases or where there are multiple occasions of ticket irregularities the forum may advise seeking advice from a solicitor but for simple cases it is not recommended as any benefit the solicitor may be able to achieve will be outweighed by the costs you will incur for the advice.

3. Your reply will be considered by TfL (if it was a TfL service) or the TOC (if it was a service operated by a TOC). They will take time and research your booking and travel history to see if there are other occasions of fare evasion etc. They can request booking data from other TOCS, online retailers etc etc. This is not a breach of GDPR.

4. Depending on their view of your explanation: (1) You may just be given a strong warning or (2) TfL will take you to court or 3) A TOC will either offer you an out of court settlement OR take you to court. NB TfL rarely give strong warnings and do not offer out of court settlements. They normally go straight to court.

5. If you are offered an out of court settlement (the fares avoided at the single fare rate plus a hefty admin fee) by the TOC the forums advice is to pay it. Once paid the matter generally speaking is concluded. This is not a fine and you are not convicted. There are no repercussions except to your bank balance.

6. If you are taken to court you can plead guilty or not guilty. The forums advice usually is to plead guilty because TfL or the TOC will have a "slam dunk" case.

7. By pleading guilty the fine is reduced. You will also have to pay a victim surcharge, the fare you should have paid and any costs incurred by TfL or the TOC ask for.

8. By pleading guilty you will receive a criminal record. Depending upon the offence you are charged with the conviction may be spent immediately and may not show up on a DBS check. For reasons that are not totally clear sometimes convictions show up on DBS and sometimes they do not.

9. You may have to declare your conviction to an employer or when applying for a visa.It depends on a number of factors: employers policy, if you work in a regulated profession, the offence you were convicted of, the country you wish to visit. Most of this can be overcome but it will cause you some inconvenience and may put you in a bad light with your employer.

10. From what feedback we get on this forum a conviction is extremely unlikely to be a life changing or career threatening occurrence.

11. If you search on this forum you can see hundreds of similar cases and what the outcome has been.

12. Please be very very careful about the language you use. You said in your second posting "you havent been caught before". This suggests that you have committed this offence before but that you have not been caught before. If a TOC thinks you have evaded fares before then they will look for further evidence of wrong doing which may increase the fares you owe AND increase any admin fee they decide to charge. They may of course then decide that a better solution is to take you to court rather than offer an out of court settlement.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I was at hayes and harlington station and was in a rush, i used my phone to tap but it didn’t go through and looked as if i was tailgating.

The gentlemen took my details down and said i won’t make you pay a penalty because you seem honest and nice and gave me a ticket to cover my trip to whitechapel and also took down my details

he said you will have a letter sent to you to prove your side of the story.

My guess is he knew you were tailgating, and it wasn’t an accident. Why?

Well unless there is sufficient volume of traffic to form a queue at the barriers, so that people naturally follow each other through them in very quick succession before the gates start closing. a tailgater will be very obvious. You won’t get that volume at Hayes entering the station (yes I am familiar with it, since rebuilding it has a wide gateline making it even less likely). So it would be fairly obvious what you were doing.

So he decided to report you, not give a penalty fare, and then used the reason he did to avoid any confrontation.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

7. By pleading guilty the fine is reduced. You will also have to pay a victim surcharge, the fare you should have paid and any costs incurred by TfL or the TOC ask for.

7a. If you plead not guilty, there will be a trial. The magistrates will listen to the prosecution (the railway) and the defence (you) and decide if you are guilty or not. If they find you guilty you will be fined but there will be no reduction.

7b. If you don’t plead (so you ignore it and hope it will go away) you will be found guilty and face the full fine.

8. By pleading or being found guilty you will receive a criminal record. Depending upon the offence you are charged with the conviction may be spent immediately and may not show up on a DBS check. For reasons that are not totally clear sometimes convictions show up on DBS and sometimes they do not.

A few additions in italics to make this even more comprehensive.

 

[smithjackson]

Very unlikely; they will probably just start a prosecution based on the evidence they already have. Unfortunately there isn't a "

7a. If you plead not guilty, there will be a trial. The magistrates will listen to the prosecution (the railway) and the defence (you) and decide if you are guilty or not. If they find you guilty you will be fined but there will be no reduction.

7b. If you don’t plead (so you ignore it and hope it will go away) you will be found guilty and face the full fine.

A few additions in italics to make this even more comprehensive.

Be cooperative and apologetic, promise them that it won't happen again, and ask for an out of Court settlement. TfL don't tend to offer out of Court settlements very often, but there's no harm in asking.

If it does go to Court, you'll minimise any fine by pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity and providing details of your income so that the fine can be calculated as a percentage of this, rather than the default income which is based on some sort of average.


That really depends on the country you are visiting - it's impossible to provide a general answer.

Most of the offences that you could be accused of, based on the circumstances you've told us, are known as "non-recordable". This means that whilst you do have a criminal record if you're convicted of them, for most purposes within the UK (e.g. job applications) the conviction is "spent" immediately - in other words, you don't need to declare it.

However, this is only the case because of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That Act doesn't apply in some situations, such as jobs where you're working with vulnerable people, or certain security clearances. The Act also doesn't apply to foreign countries, so their embassies are free to make you declare all criminal convictions - whether "spent" or not.

Some countries won't care at all about a conviction; others will still let you visit but will make you fill out more paperwork or visit their Embassy to get a visa instead of being eligible for visa-free entry. The harshest countries may say you're not eligible to visit at all with a criminal record.

Thanks for the clarification.
For point 12, what is the best language to use in my case instead of saying “never been caught before”

and you said in the beginning “get out of jail free card” i don’t know if this was just a sayijg but i’m not going to go jail right?

 

[Brissle Girl]

No, you absolutely won’t be going to jail. It’s an expression - meaning there’s no way to escape punishment.

 

[ikcdab]

Thanks for the clarification.
For point 12, what is the best language to use in my case instead of saying “never been caught before”

and you said in the beginning “get out of jail free card” i don’t know if this was just a sayijg but i’m not going to go jail right?

Well if it true, just say "I have never done this before".
If you have done it before then probably best to say nothing. It depends on what the letter says when it comes.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

For point 12, what is the best language to use in my case instead of saying “never been caught before”

The simplest thing is not to say anything, as while you have the right not to incriminate yourself, you should also not lie.

So if you get a letter saying ‘tell us about what happened on 26 April’ then you say what happened then (you don’t lie) but you don’t have to mention previous times (you don’t incriminate yourself): neither do you say ‘I have never done this before’ (not lying).

But if the letter says ‘have you done this before’ then you need to give an honest answer.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@smithjackson. Which train company name is (presumably) showing on the "free" ticket which was issued to enable you to continue to your destination?

 

[Snow1964]

@smithjackson. Which train company name is (presumably) showing on the "free" ticket which was issued to enable you to continue to your destination?

Hayes and Harlington to Whitechapel would be Elizabeth Line

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Hayes and Harlington to Whitechapel would be Elizabeth Line

So, likely Transport for London? That's not so good!

 

[Brissle Girl]

@smithjackson. Which train company name is (presumably) showing on the "free" ticket which was issued to enable you to continue to your destination?

TfL operates Hayes & Harlington, so there's no ambiguity that they were stopped by TfL. I doubt they will do other than prosecute if the report from the inspector was that it was a clear case of following someone through the gateline with intent.

 

[WesternLancer]

I am not sure that the Original Poster (OP) fully understands the situation and process.

1. TfL (Transport for London) or the TOC (if it wasnt TfL) will write to you asking you for your account of what happened.

2. You are strongly advised to reply to this. If you do not reply then TfL or the TOC will escalate the matter by taking you to court. If you post the letter on here when you receive it with all identifying features (name, address reference number etc) obscured the forum can advise on what to include in the reply and equally importantly what not to say. In complex cases or where there are multiple occasions of ticket irregularities the forum may advise seeking advice from a solicitor but for simple cases it is not recommended as any benefit the solicitor may be able to achieve will be outweighed by the costs you will incur for the advice.

3. Your reply will be considered by TfL (if it was a TfL service) or the TOC (if it was a service operated by a TOC). They will take time and research your booking and travel history to see if there are other occasions of fare evasion etc. They can request booking data from other TOCS, online retailers etc etc. This is not a breach of GDPR.

4. Depending on their view of your explanation: (1) You may just be given a strong warning or (2) TfL will take you to court or 3) A TOC will either offer you an out of court settlement OR take you to court. NB TfL rarely give strong warnings and do not offer out of court settlements. They normally go straight to court.

5. If you are offered an out of court settlement (the fares avoided at the single fare rate plus a hefty admin fee) by the TOC the forums advice is to pay it. Once paid the matter generally speaking is concluded. This is not a fine and you are not convicted. There are no repercussions except to your bank balance.

6. If you are taken to court you can plead guilty or not guilty. The forums advice usually is to plead guilty because TfL or the TOC will have a "slam dunk" case.

7. By pleading guilty the fine is reduced. You will also have to pay a victim surcharge, the fare you should have paid and any costs incurred by TfL or the TOC ask for.

8. By pleading guilty you will receive a criminal record. Depending upon the offence you are charged with the conviction may be spent immediately and may not show up on a DBS check. For reasons that are not totally clear sometimes convictions show up on DBS and sometimes they do not.

9. You may have to declare your conviction to an employer or when applying for a visa.It depends on a number of factors: employers policy, if you work in a regulated profession, the offence you were convicted of, the country you wish to visit. Most of this can be overcome but it will cause you some inconvenience and may put you in a bad light with your employer.

10. From what feedback we get on this forum a conviction is extremely unlikely to be a life changing or career threatening occurrence.

11. If you search on this forum you can see hundreds of similar cases and what the outcome has been.

12. Please be very very careful about the language you use. You said in your second posting "you havent been caught before". This suggests that you have committed this offence before but that you have not been caught before. If a TOC thinks you have evaded fares before then they will look for further evidence of wrong doing which may increase the fares you owe AND increase any admin fee they decide to charge. They may of course then decide that a better solution is to take you to court rather than offer an out of court settlement.

Ref this post. The detailed and helpful nature of it would seem to me to be useful info for many ppl who come to this forum seeking help and who have little or unclear understanding of how things are likely to progress for them.

Worth keeping for future use on other threads I suspect. Sure to be of value to others.

 

[smithjackson]

what does “spent convictions” mean and i don’t have to “declare it” mean?

 

[Pushpit]

what does “spent convictions” mean and i don’t have to “declare it” mean?

Most convictions have a date attached to them as to when they are "spent" - so you are allowed to not mention them when asked in many settings. This is about rehabilitating criminals. So if you apply for a job with say Starbucks and they ask about criminal convictions then if it is spent you are entitled to not mention spent convictions. And Starbucks must not ask you about spent convictions. Byelaw offences get "spent" immediately, RoRA, fraud and other offences may have different periods of time. Note that overseas governments may not have this concept. Most EU states do, but elsewhere you may have to mention offences when travelling or getting a work visa and this may make life difficult.

However! Some jobs, notably in healthcare, childcare, the armed forces and police, finance, civil service can declare the jobs as requiring disclosure regardless. It's a complex area, so you would expect someone working with vulnerable children not to have a criminal record, so employees must declare all offences. However if you were cautioned for smoking cannabis when 14 years old then normally that is not declared and should not show up on Disclosure Scotland or Disclosure and Barring. But computers do things their own ways so as someone who looks at DBS inputs I do occasionally see inappropriate cases mentioned. There again I've been sufficiently well trained that I know what to ignore so I wouldn't normally hold that against someone.

To answer your question more precisely you would need to give more information about your career choices, but there again there are good reasons for not doing so here. But as a general point, people often feel that their life is somehow wrecked by this process - I can tell you that is rarely, if ever, going to be true.

 

[Titfield]

Convictions becoming spent is not the easiest of questions to answer because it varies by sentence and some occupations require all convictions to be declared whether spent or not.

https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/ask-the-police/question/Q89 provides some guidance in this matter.

Generally speaking a minor conviction is not life changing or career threatening.

 

[Snow1964]

what does “spent convictions” mean and i don’t have to “declare it” mean?

It depends on wording of question, if it asks if you have ever been convicted, then everything goes down, and they choose to ignore what isn't relevant.

If it asks for current convictions then don't need to mention ones that have reached their expiry date (are spent).

Can have very serious consequences depending on what is being applied for, here in Wiltshire they had to expensively re-run a whole County election 3 years ago for PCC because a Conservative candidate didn't answer correctly and got elected although disbarred from the role.

 

[AlterEgo]

It depends on wording of question, if it asks if you have ever been convicted, then everything goes down, and they choose to ignore what isn't relevant.

The wording of the question is usually not relevant. If your conviction is spent then you are entitled to withhold the information unless the employer or position is one which requires absolute disclosure as @Pushpit says. It is usually clear if a job is exempt from the ROA when applying.

If you are applying to be a barista in Costa then they will not be allowed to expect you to answer any questions about spent convictions. They would not be allowed to discipline or dismiss you if they found out about a spent conviction. They would also not be able to take any action against you for using your legal right to withhold the information of the spent conviction from them. They would also have a legal obligation to protect you from bullying or prejudice if the spent conviction came to light.

People should know their legal rights about being a rehabilitated offender and understand that in the majority of circumstances, once a conviction is spent, it will no longer need to be disclosed.

In this forum it is a common misconception that if you use your legal rights as a rehabilitated offender to refuse to disclose a conviction in line with the Rehabilitation of Offenders act then it will lead to bad consequences.

Unlock is a charity which can help with this.

 

[Fermiboson]

Probably OT at this point, but I wouldn’t call it a misconception so much as an (unfortunate?) reality that you should disclose convictions voluntarily to employers. How many employers, upon learning one of their employees hid a criminal conviction, however minor, from them will go “ah, the legislation says I’m not allowed to care, so I shan’t care”?

Fare evasion is one of those offences - when it doesn’t involve long term behaviour and/or falsifying of materials - which is viewed rather lightly in wider society. (Whether this is right or wrong is, again, a completely different discussion.) I suspect that your average coffee shop owner will not mind employing someone who evaded £100 in fares when they were 18, but very much mind employing someone who tried to hide that fact. And if an employer wants to fire you, there are a multitude of ways they can make you leave without contravening legislation, or at least make life quite difficult for you. Moreover, even if that wasn’t the case, who wants to work for someone whose only reason for employing you is literally because they are not allowed to do otherwise?

People will make their own judgements about other people until the end of time, then act accordingly, and a piece of paper won’t change that.

 

[smithjackson]

The letter has not arrived, i’m still waiting on it. until then i’m gonna start drafting bc he said to me at the station your gonna have a chance to explain your side.

i’m trying to have an out of court settlement, so i’m not sure if i should just include my side of the story? or emphasis how remorseful i am and embarrassed and understand where i went wrong and going forward what i’m going to do differently?

would appreciate some feedback and i’ll start drafting. Thanks for all you help guys definitely calmed my nerves

 

[WesternLancer]

The letter has not arrived, i’m still waiting on it. until then i’m gonna start drafting bc he said to me at the station your gonna have a chance to explain your side.

i’m trying to have an out of court settlement, so i’m not sure if i should just include my side of the story? or emphasis how remorseful i am and embarrassed and understand where i went wrong and going forward what i’m going to do differently?

would appreciate some feedback and i’ll start drafting. Thanks for all you help guys definitely calmed my nerves

This is probably where the main focus should be:

emphasis how remorseful i am and embarrassed and understand where i went wrong and going forward what i’m going to do differently?

unless there are extenuating circumstances for why you did what you did that you feel worth explaining

 

[Pushpit]

Probably OT at this point, but I wouldn’t call it a misconception so much as an (unfortunate?) reality that you should disclose convictions voluntarily to employers. How many employers, upon learning one of their employees hid a criminal conviction, however minor, from them will go “ah, the legislation says I’m not allowed to care, so I shan’t care”?

Employers have to be very careful in this space, since the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does protect employees. If the employer asked questions outwith the Act then they too could be committing an offence, so it would be daft to go down that rabbit hole. If someone was fired for not disclosing an offence then they may have grounds for unfair dismissal. Plus if you went after everyone with a motoring offence, the economy would probably grind to a halt. One Solicitor General (a senior Crown legal post) stayed in office when she was caught doing 98 MPH on the M4, with 7 points on her licence already. Her criminal backstory didn't greatly impinge her career.

 

[smithjackson]

This is probably where the main focus should be:

unless there are extenuating circumstances for why you did what you did that you feel worth explaining

what happened is i was in a rush bc i was running late for work, i had my phone in my hand and tapped the reader but the gates closed last second. the staff came up to me, i said i paid and looked over at another staff member for reassurance because my phone was on the reader. he said no i’d didnt pay, i said what do i do now? and walked over to tap my phone on the exit thinking it’ll stil take the £1.75 payment. i didn’t want to extend my arm over and pay from the entrance barriers incase that’s violating rules or not the correct way to go about the matter.

A member of staff told me to come to the side in which he asked for ID i said no but i got my bank card, took down my details, at first i wasn’t honest because i didn’t feel comfortable giving it but once he told me we legally have to take this down i felt more comfortable as he does have that authority and gave it to him.
i said to him how can i resolve this issue. he said just wait for the letter to explain your side of the story you should be good if the payment went though.

24 hours later looking at my statement the payment didn’t go through however i had no intention to tailgate or fare evade, on numerous occasions i had made an effort to pay and tailgating was just the product of my payment not going through due to me not holding my phone on the reader long enough etc.

obv this is really embarrassing and despite it not being intentional i understand where they are coming from. you think i can get an out of court settlement bc an offense was committed by accident,
considering my actions demonstrated right intentions with me tapping my phone and going back to tap the barrier despite it being the exit and constantly asking how can i resolve this and remaining compliant through all of this. i’m 19 btw if age plays a factor and never been in trouble with TFL Before

 

[AlterEgo]

Probably OT at this point, but I wouldn’t call it a misconception so much as an (unfortunate?) reality that you should disclose convictions voluntarily to employers. How many employers, upon learning one of their employees hid a criminal conviction, however minor, from them will go “ah, the legislation says I’m not allowed to care, so I shan’t care”?

We don't do this with other civil or employment rights. Some employers will feel prejudiced against people who observe certain religions, or who are gay or transgender, or who belong to certain ethnic groups, or who are disabled, or who have successfully claimed asylum, or any other number of protected or sensitive characteristics. We wouldn't advise anyone on this forum to either conceal or proactively reveal their religion, or their sexuality, or their gender orientation, or disability, or whatever else in order to avail of the basic right not to be discriminated against in a free country.

And to put you quite straight - no, availing of your right under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act as a rehabilitated person is not "hiding" anything. Employers who are not entitled to ask about spent or irrelevant convictions, and who do so, are committing offences.

People will make their own judgements about other people until the end of time, then act accordingly, and a piece of paper won’t change that.

Nonsense. The ROA provides protection from discrimination under the law. As people's civil rights have advanced, discrimination has actually gone down, unless you are suggesting that the law is totally useless in this respect. I think you will find gay, disabled, and ethnic minority people for example quite prefer the Equality Act to exist than not, because it stops employers from discriminating against them and provides them with legal recourse if they do.

 

[Fermiboson]

Nonsense. The ROA provides protection from discrimination under the law. As people's civil rights have advanced, discrimination has actually gone down, unless you are suggesting that the law is totally useless in this respect. I think you will find gay, disabled, and ethnic minority people for example quite prefer the Equality Act to exist than not, because it stops employers from discriminating against them and provides them with legal recourse if they do.

As a person satisfying several of the criteria you have mentioned - the Equality Act does not stop employers from discriminating against anyone, it only provides them with legal discourse, which does not get them their job/degree/etc back. And while it is true that more and more people have a well rounded view of various civil rights including those of rehabilitated offenders as time progresses, we have not yet reached the stage where I would be willing to stake my livelihood on it, or advise anyone else to stake their livelihood on it. And yes - if a gay person was applying for a job they really wanted, they had passed all the interviews and tests, and the only obstacle was that the boss was homophobic, I would 100% advise them to conceal their sexuality.

I am not saying that the Equality Act is useless, but it is not a license to pretend that difficulties faced by various vulnerable groups and the actions they need to take to protect themselves have simply been swept away because they may or may not be able to sue.

 

[AlterEgo]

As a person satisfying several of the criteria you have mentioned - the Equality Act does not stop employers from discriminating against anyone, it only provides them with legal discourse, which does not get them their job/degree/etc back.

Yes, it can, and does. People who are wrongfully dismissed may be reinstated or be due compensation. This has not resulted in a world where there are people in love circles dancing underneath rainbows, but it has resulted in a much fairer society than before, where there are now far fewer employers who will actually take the risk of discriminating against people.

And yes - if a gay person was applying for a job they really wanted, they had passed all the interviews and tests, and the only obstacle was that the boss was homophobic, I would 100% advise them to conceal their sexuality.

That is not how you improve people's civil rights. It is up to each individual to choose whether to reveal or conceal any part of themselves as long as they know what the law is and what protections they have. "I would advise a gay person to stay closeted" (and, by extension "I would advise a Muslim to hide their religion" "I would advise a disabled person to not tell their employer about their disabilities and reasonable adjustments" "I would advise a trans woman to say straight up in the interview they used to be male")...

- is quite a stretch from the more supportive "Hmm, the employer is homophobic - are you sure this is someone you'd like to work for, and are you sure that you will feel comfortable being yourself at work?"

Incidentally your advice to the hypothetical gay friend is “you do have the legal right and the option to conceal this part of you, and you should do it” yet you give no thought to “what happens if the homophobic employer finds out (even if illegally?)”. This is simply inconsistent.

In my view, kowtowing to prejudice does nothing. It’s also my view that other forum members probably hold this moral inconsistency about whether or not people should proactively disclose their spent convictions when they are legally entitled and protected to choose not to. Remember this is a question most employers are not even allowed to ask. It shouldn’t even come up in the course of employment.

TL;DR: people who have criminal records should get advice from charities like Unlock who will advise them about their rights, and not worry about internet posters encouraging them to spill the beans about their embarrassing past to prospective employers when there is no need.