Iím unsure of how this should all play out, or even how it came to be.
Iím talking about the BBC news item re Mulumebet Girma, the ďposter girlĒ for Southwark Council who was fired when the Council miraculously discovered what a lot of people apparently knew, she had been sentenced to 10 years in prison, reduced to 5 on appeal, for assisting an offender, her brother-in-law, Hussain Osman, who was sentenced to a minimum of 40 years for allegedly taking part in the failed bomb attack on Shepherdís Bush station in July 2005.
According to BBC, she didnít declare her conviction at first, then when she did, didnít say what the conviction was for, Southwark should have checked this, but didnít.
This sounds like total B.S. to me, when I applied to do the Knowledge, the Public Carriage Office, (precursor of TFL), asked me if I had any convictions, I answered truthfully yes, for ABH in 1967, they asked for the circumstances, I again told the truth, someone pushed my then girlfriend to the floor in a Chinese restaurant, as he was making off without paying for his meal, I chinned him just as the police entered the door, and they nicked me, despite mine, and the staffís explanations.
They told me that that arrest precluded me from getting a taxi driverís licence, but that I could apply again in 5 years time.
I was disappointed, but I bit the bullet, and eventually prevailed.
How did Southwark Council apparently slip up so badly?
If she was in a role that did not involve a DBS check, it would have been unlikely that the Council would have looked into it. That being said, if they had known, they probably would have made her head of diversity!
Her role didn't require a DBS, there was no reason to check an apprentice. It would actually be in violation of the DBS rules to do checks on those who don't require it for their role. Southwark didn't do anything wrong as far as I can tell.
Difficult to call this one, Jules says that the lady did what she thought was right.
Iím unsure if that means Ms. Girma thought that harbouring her brother-in-law was right, or concealing her conviction from Southwark Council was right, or at least acceptable.
Zoe says that the role she applied for, which from what Iíve read, was a trainee customer services assistant, wouldnít require a DBS check.
Iím inclined to agree, but from there she rose to be a systems and performance analyst, but the Council says that didnít include access to any names that might be on a watch list.
Even if we accept, and I can accept it, that a DBS check was not required for her initial actual job application, I would think that itís SOP for any prospective employer to expect a truthful disclosure of any criminal convictions, or arrest record, particularly one that merited a 10 year prison sentence, even if it was reduced to 5 on appeal.
I have no axe to grind with Southwark Council, but Iím inclined to think that they dropped the ball with this one.