Armed robber employed as NHS Brent manager

[dipsydoodle]

A convicted armed robber has been working as a director for NHS Brent – overseeing multi million pound budgets.

Craig Alexander was dismissed from his post as interim borough director for NHS Brent last week after it was revealed that he had robbed a Tesco express store and threatened two cashiers at gunpoint, earning him a three-and-a-half year jail term in 2007, the Times can reveal.

His role was allegedly only terminated after a member of staff searched for his name online after complaining of his rudeness.

Since January 2012, Alexander had been in charge of Brent’s Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) budgets.

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/armed_robber_employed_as_nhs_brent_manager_1_2215872

[intaglio]

1. So by this argument once a criminal always a criminal, no chance of redemption

Essentially the man is being punished again for a crime for which he has already be punished.

One person who did not like this mans (admittedly poor) management style doxxed him and has had him removed, how charming ...

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. To be in charge of a budget of millions, only a few years after violent robbery?

I think it would have been quite reasonable of them to check for a serious offence like that at the time; and he failed to disclose it.

There can be a 'chance of redemption'; but a job paying £1,000 a day, and in charge of millions, shouldn't be it, I think.

[intaglio]

4. So there are time limits on the amount offenders can earn are there?

Is there any indication that the man defrauded or stole from the Hospital Trust? No

But there is evidence that he was the victim of a deliberate attempt to find some dirt in his past to justify a complaint to senior management. He is not a pleasant man but neither is the Donald and Donald Trump is still allowed to oversee a budget of millions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. No, Trump is not 'allowed to oversee a budget of millions'

He does not work for a public organisation. He works for himself. People underneath this man found him unpleasant, looked to see what his history was, and it turned out he had a conviction for armed robbery. These people did not choose to work for him - he was appointed as their boss. And he didn't disclose this when he was meant to, which shows dishonesty.

[intaglio]

7. Trump takes money from people

is deeply unpleasant, does have absolute say over the funds he controls that are not subject to tax and sometimes loses the investors money.

The man you are complaining about was doxxed, a search was made to deliberated find incriminating details about his past and publish those details. The search was more successful than the complainant hoped because the manager had served time for his criminal offense. But, and it is a big but, in law has paid the penalty, and should not be punished again.

If he had mishandled the financial affairs of his employer or if he deliberately concealed his criminal background then he should be fired; but there is no suggestion of either of those occurring. If, as it seems, he was a bad manager he should be given the chance to amend his behaviour and only if unable to do so should be dismissed or released from his contract.

Consider what sort of criminal behaviour should attract the sanction of reduced employment opportunity. Would a DUI be sufficient? I don't think so otherwise the fine congressman Ted Kennedy should never have been in Congress. What of treason? If the last then from a British point of view George Washington should never have become President and Henry Tudor should have immediately refused the monarchy. I will admit that I have not bothered searching beyond these admittedly trivial examples but I am certain that you could find examples of excellent criminals for all offenses.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. You seem to have read a more detailed, and quite different, version of the story

"a search was made to deliberated find incriminating details about his past and publish those details"

The OP story doesn't say that. It says "a member of staff searched for his name online after complaining of his rudeness"

Nothing about publishing details. You are talking about 'doxxing' - a new word, which I understand to be publishing private details of a person. That's the opposite - they found already-published news reports about this person's past, by looking at the web. They didn't publish them, as far as we know. They brought it to the attention of the NHS management, who decided the man should have told them about his record: “The person concerned was provided through an agency. We have terminated our contract for failing to disclose a criminal conviction.”

Here is one article from 2007: http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/1697317.dna_traps_armed_robber/

Where did your version come from, so we can compare them?

Yes, a conviction for armed robbery should need to be disclosed for a position that involves control over money. It shows you are both willing to threaten people with severe injury or death, and dishonest with money.

Is this whole thing a wind-up by you? I'm amazed that someone is saying it should be fine to cover up threatened violence and theft in someone's past, and that it shouldn't be taken into account when deciding whether to appoint someone to a position.

[intaglio]

9. Doxxing is not just private details

It is searching on-line for information (documents) to embarrass or harm the victim. If the employee was not searching for such detail with what other purpose was the search done? What is more if they had knowledge of the conviction prior to doing the search what was the motive except to publicise the matter and so damage the career of the manager.

A criminal, released as time served or on license or on probation following a sentence for a serious criminal offense has a reasonable expectation that their past misdeeds will remain confidential unless suspicion or evidence shows they committed a further crime. My version is culled from the original article and a knowledge of how the law in the UK stands regarding employment of offenders.

You say

Yes, a conviction for armed robbery should need to be disclosed for a position that involves control over money

I agree - but it does not have to be disclosed to employees other than in personnel or security and again I point out there is no suggestion that knowledge of the conviction or sentence was actually or unlawfully withheld from the employer.

I agree that a history of violence is not good but you have to ask yourself when, if ever, is that history spent? Where do you start drawing lines? In the UK when you have served your time you have paid for your crime subject too the conditions of your sentence or parole. A history of violence will restrict this persons chance of employment - for example there would be no chance for them to retrain as a nursery teacher - but what jobs would you have open to this man? Would you allow him to be a burger flipper, with access to the tills and a fine chance he could be pushed too hard by some snotty member of the public? Even the most menial job would, by your standards, place the employer or the public at too much risk.

It comes down to these points:

1) If ex-cons are not to be offered jobs what do you expect to happen to them?

2) If ex-cons are to be employed what jobs should be open to them?

3) Are these ex-criminals to be allowed promotion to more responsible jobs?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. OK, it's fairly pointless of you to make up definitions as you go

and then use them. What this person did was google him. What they found was a newspaper report. You know, like the things we link to on DU all the time. Are we 'doxxing' people when we point out convictions for armed robbery or similar crimes?

to embarrass or harm the victim

the story doesn't say that. And 'victim' my arse - you mean the bullying armed robber, don't you?

If the employee was not searching for such detail with what other purpose was the search done?

To find out what the arsehole that they were afraid of did before he was brought into their area. "He has been at Brent over a year and was a big bully. Everyone was scared of him. You get in his way and you are sacked. There had been many complaints about Craig to the executive team but nothing was done about it."

What is more if they had knowledge of the conviction prior to doing the search what was the motive except to publicise the matter and so damage the career of the manager.

You don't make any sense. If they had knowledge of the conviction, then they wouldn't have done the search. When they found out his conviction, they thought "holy shit, this guy bullying us is an armed robber! Maybe now management will listen to us about him".

A criminal, released as time served or on license or on probation following a sentence for a serious criminal offense has a reasonable expectation that their past misdeeds will remain confidential unless suspicion or evidence shows they committed a further crime.

No; you do know how newspapers work, don't you? Not only are the media reports that date from the time of the conviction allowed to remain in existence, people are also at liberty to talk about them. I'm allowed to point out Jeffrey Archer is a convicted criminal, for instance.

a knowledge of how the law in the UK stands regarding employment of offenders.

Given your ridiculous claim that a criminal on probation should be able to expect the conviction to be confidential, I don't think you have any knowledge whatsoever.

it does not have to be disclosed to employees other than in personnel or security

And he didn't disclose it to personnel; hence the quote in #8 about why they terminated the contract.

no suggestion that knowledge of the conviction or sentence was actually or unlawfully withheld from the employer.

I refer you again to the quote in #8.

when, if ever, is that history spent?

Under current law, a 3 and a half year sentence is never spent - nothing over 2 and a half is: http://www.unlock.org.uk/xoffenders.aspx?sid=62 . From November 2013, sentences up to 4 years become spent 7 years after the end of the sentence.

Even the most menial job would, by your standards, place the employer or the public at too much risk.

No; I haven't said that. I pointed out that his control over others is a problem - we know that, because the problem was people found him a bully, and were scared of getting sacked. And I pointed out his control of a budget of millions was a problem, because he's been convicted of stealing - with threats of violence.

2) If ex-cons are to be employed what jobs should be open to them?

3) Are these ex-criminals to be allowed promotion to more responsible jobs?

Ones in which the employers are aware of their convictions, can take into account what they've done since, and can take responsibility for the way they will behave in the job.

I'm still shaking my head at your use of 'victim'.

[intaglio]

11. My definition is the generally understood one

Doxx from searching for documents, any documents.

Yes, a bully and an ex-criminal can be a victim and I can see no reason for the employee to search the internet for information on this man other than to victimise him.

You see in respect of the bullying it unsupported testimony both you and I are accepting. But if he was so great a bully why were the unions not involved? Unions in the UK have a great deal more power than in the US and public service unions even more so. Then there is the tale of the dismissals. The problem here is that even agency workers have some employment rights and no manager in public service has the power to dismiss, ad hoc, other employees because of possible breaches of employment law it has to go through a procedure and this is true even in the London Borough of Brent and in the EU not even agency workers are denied the right to be unionised.

In the matter of agencies, Craig was employed through an agency. This can mean one of 2 things; firstly that he was working on an agency contract or, secondly, that an agency was used to do HRs job by advertising, interviewing and submitting his name to the Borough for employment. This second case is more likely because Craig was dismissed by the Council; in which case how did he manage to jump through all the hoops of past employment history and references without committing fraud and if fraud why is he not under arrest or returned to prison?

TBH the whole thing is starting to smell because in either case the agency either was not acting with due diligence in checking employment history or they did not tell Brent about the criminal record. Additionally Brent was not doing CRB checks and they were not checking with DfWP for Social Security records. Mind you this is The Peoples Republic of Brent and so, admittedly, this is all too possible.

Even if Craig did personally withhold information about his record there remains the problem of who should have known if it had been revealed. Well, the staff any ex-con manages have no need to know of a past criminal record. Other managers who are not his line managers do not need to know his past record. The only people who need to know this record are his line managers and the Personnel (Human Resources) Department. Choosing less emotive case would a manager who had been convicted for DUI whilst an alcoholic have a right to conceal this from staff he was managing? I think the answer is "Of course".

I know how newspapers work but the legal reasonable expectations of the ex-con does not allow for the modern methods of access and malice. In the past a seriously nasty employee could go the BL Colindale to search old papers or could (for a small fee) ask local papers to search their graveyard but such action was so unusual as to be outside reasonable expectation. Nowadays such searches are easy and the "reasonable expectation" is just that other staff, line managers and Personnel will not reveal these details to other staff.

Your point about Jeffery Archer is quite good except that there is the difficulty that JA deliberately courted publicity but let's say he changed his name in an attempt to separate himself from his past taking a job as a bin man. In such a case he would have a reasonable expectation that his employer would keep his background quiet.

Thanks for the info on spent convictions - it used to be that only Life sentences remained unspent.

The problem remains when, if ever, do you consider that any ex-con would be trusted enough to be in charge of anything.

Could they be a manager? Forget the bullying, it is often found in management convict or not.

Could they have control over only petty cash, or would you extend it to the stationary budget?

Assume that the employers were aware of such history when would you let them put him in a position managing millions?

Note, that at no time has anyone, aggrieved staff member or otherwise, said or implied that this man defrauded the borough or mishandled the budget. Note that no-one, aggrieved staff member or otherwise, said or implied that this man committed acts of violence at work.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. The generally understood meaning it to publish private information

Noun

dox (plural only)

(slang) Documents, especially information sought by hackers about an individual (address, credit card numbers, etc.).

Verb

dox (third-person singular simple present doxes, present participle doxing, simple past and past participle doxed)

(slang, transitive) To publish an individual's personal information on the Internet.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dox

Now, a newspaper article is not a 'document', and the public record of his conviction is not in the same category as 'address, credit card numbers, etc.' The people concerned went to the NHS with the information; they didn't publish it on the internet.

Personal information about people on the Internet, often including real name, known aliases, address, phone number, SSN, credit card number, etc.

Dox, or being doxed, in terms of online forum sites, is the physical equivalent of being butt-raped irl. Just as all the greats have, when a person is "doxed", all their personal information is made available for all users to see. Names, addresses, phone numbers and school/work are not spared, and this usually leads to the person ceasing all ties with said websites, if not the interwebs as a whole.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dox

Again, putting the information on the internet is central to the meaning.

I can see no reason for the employee to search the internet for information on this man

Because he was a bully. Because they feared for their jobs. I can't believe you are saying that people bullied in the workplace should just sit there and take it. Why are you standing up for a bully? Worse, a bully with a serious criminal conviction that he tries to hide from his employers?

But if he was so great a bully why were the unions not involved?

Perhaps the people involved weren't union members. If, however, you think that British unions can get bad management fixed or fired whenever they want, you've got a very misleading picture of the UK.

how did he manage to jump through all the hoops of past employment history and references without committing fraud

Maybe he will be arrested for fraud; normally, it's easier to get rid of someone for breach of contract than it is to get them arrested.

TBH the whole thing is starting to smell because in either case the agency either was not acting with due diligence in checking employment history or they did not tell Brent about the criminal record.

Oh, a pisspoor agency. Are you shocked? Surely not. Yes, Brent appears to have screwed up too. None of this means that he should have been able to keep his conviction confidential, which is what you want.

You seem to be arguing as if it was someone in the NHS personnel department who decided to broadcast the facts to all his fellow workers. What happened was a fellow worker looked on the internet, and found published material, the main facts of which were in official public records. Somehow, you think that looking on the internet is 'malicious'. You also think that it's unfair for convicted armed robbers to have their crime easily found by the public, or that one worker shouldn't say to another "you know that guy who's bullying you? He's a convicted armed robber". This is truly bizarre. We have people arguing about whether victims of some crimes need anonymity, or those accused of rape; and you're saying those convicted need anonymity, because it used to be a 'reasonable expectation' that they could hide their past the moment they were out of jail.

Perhaps an armed robber can show himself to be a responsible, non-violent, honest person. But he has to work at that, and if that's by being employed, those doing so should be completely aware of his past.

[intaglio]

13. No I have said that if known to HR then ...

there is no need for his staff or his management peers to have knowledge of his conviction and that anyone has a reasonable expectation that embarrassing past history not be broadcast within the organisation, I am using the broadest definition of embarrassing.

Also I am not saying that anyone in NHS Personnel dept broadcast anything, I am saying that a deliberate search was made for a past history of this man probably for the sake of gossip or possibly to provide ammunition to be used against him. What was found out was more problematic in that it showed a criminal record. At that point it becomes a matter for Personnel and the question becomes "Was the history known?" If the history was unknown it then becomes a possible dismissal or termination of contract event.

Now in any normal case this would not attract the attention of the newspapers but somehow this tidbit was put out to the papers and I'm forced to ask "who?" and "why?".

So far we have a search for personal information made, detrimental information was found, this information was given to the newspapers together with personal opinions of the mans team management. Sorry but that is Doxxing IMO - the malicious publication of personal detail found on the internet.

These events are very different from how it should be handled i.e. detrimental information found, HR informed (possibly via the good offices of a Union), man dismissed or confirmation given that his history was known. Yes he may well have been a bully but very many managers are bullies and the fact of a criminal conviction does not make that any worse or any better.

[T_i_B]

3. I'm very surprised by this

As the NHS is normally very keen on CRB checks for potential employees. It's quite something for a man of this sort of background to get through the process.

[intaglio]

5. He will have had a CRB check

And as there was nothing about abusive behaviour towards people in his everyday life ...

I am not saying he is perfect but that I would prefer a known and (probably) reformed crook in charge of a budget than one we who has never been charged.

[LeftishBrit]

14. Anyone else of a Certain Age reminded of the song by The Clash?

'Daddy was a bank robber
But he never hurt nobody.
He just loved to live that way,
And he loved to steal your money!'


I tend to agree that such records need to be disclosed through the CRB check before people are given responsibility for large amounts of money and people. If the conviction were in 1987, I'd agree that he shouldn't be hounded for it now; but 2007 - that's a bit recent. And even if he never committed a violent crime, armed robbery involves a threat of violence.

In organizations like the NHS, I think people should be selected carefully for such posts. Yes, there are plenty of dishonest and abusive individuals who manage to stay within the law and are yet just as unsuitable as this man for responsibility for budgets for looking after patients. To quote Woody Guthrie, 'Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen'. But this still doesn't make this man an ideal candidate for looking after multi-million budgets for vulnerable people!!!!

As regards the person who looked him up on the internet - it sounds as though it was not stalking or snooping into private info, but simply looking up readily available information, which should have been disclosed, or picked up on the CRB check.

[dipsydoodle]

15. Check the maths

If he got 3 1/2 years in 2007 chances are he served at least 2 years which takes us to 2009. I find it difficult to believe that his employment record wasn't checked back beyond at least 5 years from 2012 which means either there was a gap or he lied.