[raydan]

I've always been checked out. Started working in my early 20s in a bank and of course, they wanted to know if I'd been a good boy... although in reality they only check if you've been caught. Then I worked as a programmer and often had to go into schools and daycares, where there were young kids... so I got checked again, but for a different reason. Now I've just got a job with the Federal government and start training on Monday. Since I'll have access to "sensitive" information, I got checked again... to make sure I can keep my mouth shut I guess.

[Ronan]

andyt wrote:

Since you've had all sorts of jobs in the past 30 years, it doesn't sound like the criminal record is really the prime obstacle.

It wasn't an issue until recently.

[Ronan]

EyeBrock wrote:

If the offence was committed as a young offender/person, a records check would not show that offence unless further criminal offences resulted in a criminal conviction once the offender became an adult.

Basically if you committed an offence as a young person 30 years ago, the record will have been expunged into a deep and distant file in Ottawa somewhere and would not appear on a background check unless it was an offence of serious violence or of a sexual nature.

Obviously, if it is showing up now the young offender's act didn't even exist then. It was, in fact, 1 year before it came into effect.

[DrCaleb]

Ronan wrote:

andyt wrote:

Since you've had all sorts of jobs in the past 30 years, it doesn't sound like the criminal record is really the prime obstacle.

It wasn't an issue until recently.

I have to concur. I've got almost 30 years experience in my field, and it wasn't until a couple years ago that any company even did a criminal records check. (I have a little pot smoking incident back in my University days.)

Some companies don't care about my experience - the thing they want to hire me for, but somehow they do care about that. Most stop caring when I tell them what my record is for, but some still have a zero tolerance attitude. And it's their loss.

And the process to get pardons! What a shitstorm! I'm on my second attempt, because the first schiesters I hired to 'expedite' my pardon had a policy that if there was no activity on an account for 12 months, the file went 'inactive'. Meaning they closed the file and kept the money. Why can't we shoot lawyers on sight again?

[DrCaleb]

Reminds me of a joke;

In an old village in Scotland, an old man was takling to a young boy about all his accomplishments.

"Laddy, you see that fine dock down there. I built it! But do they call me 'Duncan the Dock builder'? No."

"Laddy, you see that Church there? I built that. But do they call me 'Duncan the Church Builder'? No."

"But you fuck one goat. . . "

[EyeBrock]

Ronan wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

If the offence was committed as a young offender/person, a records check would not show that offence unless further criminal offences resulted in a criminal conviction once the offender became an adult.

Basically if you committed an offence as a young person 30 years ago, the record will have been expunged into a deep and distant file in Ottawa somewhere and would not appear on a background check unless it was an offence of serious violence or of a sexual nature.

Obviously, if it is showing up now the young offender's act didn't even exist then. It was, in fact, 1 year before it came into effect.

And you know for a fact that this 'theft under' is still on an active record?

[Ronan]

I didn't actually go through a company for my pardon. I want directly through the Pardons Division.

My first attempt to send my information in, the documents were returned unprocessed because one of the forms was reported missing. The same form they stamped as received just before sending them back.

My second attempt to send my information in, the documents were returned unprocessed because legislation changed while the application was in the mail. I argued with them that it wasn't my fault, as I sent it before the change and if they hadn't screwed up the first time I would have had it processed before the legislation change. It didn't matter.

My third attempt to send my information in, the documents were returned unprocessed because due to the legislation change they now needed the court documents form filled from the city courts where the charges were laid. I am living in Regina, and the charges were laid in Calgary. I sent the form away for Calgary courts to fill out, waited for them for two months to get back to me.

My fourth attempt to send my information in, the documents were returned unprocessed for the same reason. Apparently the flunkies that are on the front line there didn't notice the court document. I had been on the phone with the supervisor who apologized and advised me to send it all back to his attention.

My fifth attempt to send my information in, the documents were returned unprocessed because of the same damned reason they were returned the last couple times. Apparently, when it says attention to someone it doesn't matter. So I was on the phone again with the supervisor, who again apologized and told me to send it back. I printed a huge label that said specifically not to open the envelope and give it directly to the supervisor.

Finally it got processed. This is why it took an extra year, because those that work in the Pardons Division are complete morons.

[Ronan]

EyeBrock wrote:

Ronan wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

If the offence was committed as a young offender/person, a records check would not show that offence unless further criminal offences resulted in a criminal conviction once the offender became an adult.

Basically if you committed an offence as a young person 30 years ago, the record will have been expunged into a deep and distant file in Ottawa somewhere and would not appear on a background check unless it was an offence of serious violence or of a sexual nature.

Obviously, if it is showing up now the young offender's act didn't even exist then. It was, in fact, 1 year before it came into effect.

And you know for a fact that this 'theft under' is still on an active record?

Of course I do. I have the records check right here.

[EyeBrock]

Ah well. Keep plugging away and get a pardon.

[Ronan]

EyeBrock wrote:

Ah well. Keep plugging away and get a pardon.

I don't mean to be sarky, but... really? Ya think?

BTW, I did say I'm in the 4-10 month waiting period.

[EyeBrock]

Well don't post your life history on the internet if you 'aint ready for the advice given.

You've had 25 years to sort this out.

[Ronan]

EyeBrock wrote:

Well don't post your life history on the internet if you 'aint ready for the advice given.

You've had 25 years to sort this out.

First, I didn't post my life history, if I did you'd know better than to try and make me look ungrateful when you offered useless advice and I called you on it.

From the OP you should already be aware that I'm in a state where I'm fed up and unwilling to put up with BS. The fact that I posted this in the Rants section should have given you another clue.

You were already told, along with everyone else, that I was in the waiting stage, yet you still felt it necessary to tell me to keep plugging at it, as if that sage advice is worth anything anymore after I already completed everything I needed to do for the pardon.

You have to start paying more attention, Brock.

I haven't been here long and already I get the sense that this is a mistake.

[Brenda]

Hang in there, here too. You'll get to know the way different people react to certain topics and responses. It's worth it.

[Ronan]

I'm getting the idea... now. Thanks, Brenda. I'm unsubbing this.

[Scape]

Locked