On Fri 12 Jan at 11:53pm Local man wrote:
Nothing like a bit of good old-fashioned transparency by LTC. Refusing to say whether this woman's actions have been condoned by the Council...
Check it out here »
On Sat 13 Jan at 8:52am P.c john wrote:
Bloody bitch hope she looses her job
On Sat 13 Jan at 9:55am Nevillman wrote:
Why should a representative of the council give a statement? I have no sympathy for the woman but if in a similar situation, I would not expect my employer to make a public comment.
On Sat 13 Jan at 11:36am concerned wrote:
I think this posting is inappropriate. Emma is well known as a face of LTC; In my experience she has always been most helpful and pleasant.
She has done wrong and is paying the price. But she does not deserve to be pilloried. Anyone is capable of making dangerous decisions and errors at
some point in their life. I'm not excusing her. The damage of drink driving to families and communities is horrendous. Im sure she is causing herself pain from shock and guilt and the realisation that she could have seriously injured or killed someone.
It must very hard to face the public, a necessary part of her job. So lay off - we don't for good reason take the law into out own hands in this country, thank goodness.
On Sat 13 Jan at 3:48pm Mavis wrote:
Being on the council means she in public life. Maybe we need an election.
On Sat 13 Jan at 4:14pm Transparency wrote:
LTC should not declined to say whether the vehicle was ciuncil owned. We don't take the law into our hands for good reason yes, but court business is also a matter of public records as yes the public does have a right to know if you have commuted a criminal offence. The thread is appropriate for the same reason, LTC should have commented on whether she is still employed, she is now a criminal after all.
On Sat 13 Jan at 7:50pm P.c john wrote:
I apologise may have been a bit harsh for my coment any drink driver should get what they deserve
On Sat 13 Jan at 11:44pm A Person wrote:
I don't like drink drivers any more than anyone else. But this person has been dealt with according to the law of the land and last time I looked the law didn't say that she should be thrown out of her job and pilloried on a public forum as part of her sentence. By the way, what exactly is dismissing her from her job going to achieve? Are those with a conviction not allowed to work? Perhaps you'd like to throw her into the stocks and let her starve?
On Sun 14 Jan at 7:18am P.c john wrote:
Thats why i posted a new post
On Sun 14 Jan at 9:04am A Person wrote:
You did PC John. Sadly an example not followed by others.
Perhaps they were in their cups.
On Sun 14 Jan at 10:35am Transparency wrote:
A few points you're all missing (even though I did point them out), it could be a council owned car she crashed, her job could involve driving, she now has a criminal record. So it's fine for her to be employed if any of the above are true? What criminal records do you suggest are ok for council employees to have?
She has not been dealt with according to the law yet, she has been given a criminal record that needs to be declared to employers for the next 10 years, that is the final part of the punishment. You have to remember she wasn't just caught drink driving, she caused a serious accident and as a result she was caught. Quite literally she has risked people's lives. 4x over the limit, she should have gone to prison, should she have kept her job if that had happened?
On Sun 14 Jan at 11:40am A Person wrote:
She's been banned for 32 months so if her job does indeed involve driving then yes, she could well lose her job. However it seems quite unlikely that the job of admin asst to the town clerk involves driving a council vehicle, so I'm not sure why you're so keen to speculate otherwise. She's also been told to do 200 hours unpaid community work. Why do you say she hasn't been dealt with according to the law?
I don't know what proportion of the population has a criminal record, but are you really suggesting that none of them should be employed after they've served their sentences? Were you on the magistrate's panel deciding what punishment should be apportioned? Have you heard the facts of the case, so that you think a period of imprisonment would be appropriate? What danger can she possibly present to anyone if she continues her job at the council? If you take away someone's ability to provide for themself, what happens when their house is repossessed and they can't feed a family? What good can that possibly do?
I've answered your questions. Now answer mine, and also explain why someone who has made a bad mistake should have everything stripped from them? And explain why this isn't straightforward online bullying, while you're at it.
On Sun 14 Jan at 12:22pm Transparency wrote:
Gladly, I do not have a problem with her, I have a problem with LTC refusing to answer either questions.
They should clearly have stated not a council vehicle, her job does not involve driving therefore she has retained it (if that is the case).
The 200 hours of community service is not the end of it, in 10 years when the record expires, that is the end of it. Why do you think the criminal record is applied?
I know people that have done much less and lost there jobs, including getting caught drink driving ( minus the very serious crash), yet again it's one rule for the public, one for public sector workers. Or maybe it isn't as LTC have declined to say.
I also had a criminal record at 18 (many decades ago), the fact is once it's been to court it's public record, the reason for that is the public has a right to know and the right to think less of that person, she is now a criminal after all. If it was none of our business the court record would be sealed.
LTC should provide clarity.
And no you didn't answer my questions, what criminal records is it ok to have?
Theft, burglary, drink driving, dangerous driving, abh, gbh?
I don't know what job she does at the council which is why LTC need to provide clarity.
As for online bullying, get a grip. Court records are public for a reason.
On Sun 14 Jan at 12:33pm Transparency wrote:
One other point, if the job was advertised today, would one of the requirements be "no criminal record"?
LTC need to provide clarity.
On Sun 14 Jan at 2:35pm Pete wrote:
Yeah, I agree. The whole thing should have been kept secret. Reporting restrictions should have been imposed. In fact, reporting restrictions should be imposed on every criminal case and then, nobody would be any the wiser. I don't want to know who has committed murder, who is a paedophile, who has stolen etc. Live and let live I say.
On Sun 14 Jan at 3:11pm A Person wrote:
She is the admin assistant working to the Town Clerk. I cannot for the life of me grasp why you think she might present a danger to the public or to her employers and co-workers. I cannot for the life of me think why you think the Town Council should be making public pronouncements about her either. I don't suppose LTC has a fleet of cars for use by all and sundry either, and I can't think of any reason why an admin assistant to the Town Clerk would need to drive on council business.
I'm not disputing the public's right to know; I am disputing the motive for apparently urging the council to dismiss this person. What would this achieve exactly? And I'm sincerely surprised that you think it would be appropriate to advertise jobs with a "no criminal records" clause, if in fact it's even legal to do so. I'm sure you're a splendid and upstanding member of society: probably not a status you'd have achieved had your criminal conviction prevented you finding work.
I didn't realise silly rhetorical questions with no context needed answering. Is it okay to have a conviction as a child murderer if you're applying for a job as youth team leader? No, obviously not. Is it okay to have a conviction as a drink driver when you work as a secretary to a council worker? Why ever not? Where is the harm?
On Sun 14 Jan at 5:05pm Transparency wrote:
I don't have a problem with the woman, we all make mistakes a court has punished her for hers,
I have a problem with LTC answering "no comment" to who owned the vehicle., if it was hers the answer should be hers, if it was theirs the answer should not have been "no comment".
The public has a right to know if a council owned vehicle was involved, surely?
Why the secrecy from LTC.
On Sun 14 Jan at 11:00pm A Person wrote:
Excellent. I'm glad that's sorted then.
On Mon 15 Jan at 12:15am A Person wrote:
The answer, by the way, to the question of how many people in the UK have a criminal conviction (spent or current) is one in four. So no, I don't think it's a great idea to prevent 25% of the population from finding honest work...
On Mon 15 Jan at 9:13am @A Person wrote:
"one in four"
What complete rubbish, 1 in 4 are on the police database, this includes VICTIMS of crime.
On Mon 15 Jan at 9:38am Sashimi wrote:
Transparency, I don't often defend the Town Clerk. But, it's not for him to disclose the personal details of a council employee, any more than the HR manager of eg Tesco would in the same circumstances. If you think there may be other issues with Emma's employment or her terms of employment that is a matter for you to take up with your elected councillors. The tone of this thread seems to be that Emma has now paid the price for a serious mistake. Why prolong her public humiliation by debating this further?
On Mon 15 Jan at 9:58am @Sashami wrote:
How is answering "was it an LTC car" disclosing personal information?
Tesco are a private company and not accountable to the public, LTC is.
On Mon 15 Jan at 10:14am A Person wrote:
Re criminal records: there's surprisingly little reliable information on this, but spending ten minutes googling this results in estimates varying between 20% to 33%. These estimates include all convictions and don't exclude driving convictions, and include spent ones. One thing most commentators seem to agree on is that one third of those under 30 have a criminal record, and also that one third of people seeking work have a criminal record. So whatever the actual figure it's clearly a high proportion of the population. Excluding everyone who has ever offended from employment does seem to be a really bad idea...
On Mon 15 Jan at 10:51am @A Person wrote:
The national wasn't launched until 2011, so I doubt it covers anything before that.
Driving convictions (a few exception) are not criminal offences, so are held by the DVLA not the police.
Spent convictions are exactly that, spent. Criminal record checks do not return them (they are only available to courts, I believe even the police cannot see a spent conviction).
1 in 3 MEN under 30, not 1 in 3.
Any public position will require a DBS/CRB check, yes you are excluded from a lot of jobs if you have a criminal record.
On Mon 15 Jan at 11:46am A Person wrote:
Agreed: it is one in three men. My omission. Obviously the driving offences included are those which are criminal convictions, such as drink driving, dangerous driving etc.
You keep insisting that "any public position requires a DBS check". It just doesn't. In fact there's a lot of guidance which discusses the inappropriate use of DBS checks, and several government sites which allow you to check which jobs need one. I do not believe that a fairly junior employee (not elected official) in the town council would need to have one. Also, bear in mind that a conviction showing up would not preclude that person from being employed - and why would it? Why would you want to exclude people with a criminal conviction from honest employment? Doing so seems to be a very fast route to creating an underclass of people who are unable to earn their own living and would thus turn straight back to crime to live.
On Mon 15 Jan at 12:25pm @A Person wrote:
"You keep insisting", I said it once.
Ok not "any", but "most" jobs dealing with the public; education, police, NHS (from doctors through to porters), traffic wardens, probation officers, HMRC, taxi and minicab drivers, courts, buses, trains, etc (it's a long list).
On Mon 15 Jan at 6:30pm Cam wrote:
On Wed 17 Jan at 2:31pm pete wrote:
Just a general question. Does LDC have the use of, or own cars for staff use? I can't think of any reason why they would need them. Does anyone know?
On Wed 17 Jan at 4:15pm Clueless wrote:
Not a clue, but I would be seriously surprised if they don't.
Dataset from ESCC is in the link below.
Information supplied by Philip Baker, Assistant Director, Legal and Democratic Services, East
Sussex County Council, County Hall, St Anne’s Crescent, Lewes, East
Sussex. BN7 1UE
Check it out here »
On Wed 17 Jan at 5:15pm Sylvia wrote:
LDC used to have pool or leased cars and they absolutely need them for planning site visits, environmental health inspections, housing officers need to visit properties and sometimes tenants, etc etc
On Sat 20 Jan at 12:18pm Belle wrote:
We're talking LTC, not LDC.
The town clerk needs to be transparent and accountable. This was a serious offence and the local tax payers have a right to know if LTC property (if they have any cars) was used. I would also expect her terms of employment to be reviewed. Every job I apply for asks if you have any criminal convictions and what they are. It undoubtably has a bearing on whether you will be employed. I would say drink driving calls into account someone's ability to make judgements and be trustworthy.