[Tahooper]

Guys, this person is a troll; they've done it before.

[Rancorous]

Figures. Tbh with 7 kids we should have known better. Thanks for awaring us.

[jjarvis]

(Original post by Rancorous)
But where did the OP say anything about being convicted of any crime???

My mistake, I see she merely mentions receiving cautions. That changes the SRA framework a bit.

[Terri46493]

(Original post by Tahooper)
Guys, this person is a troll; they've done it before.

you don't know me at all.

[Terri46493]

(Original post by Soft Cat)
You have a history of drug taking, assaulting a child and GBH/attempted murder and are surprised by people's reactions?

If it was a one off minor incident then it wouldn't be so bad but you've got a history of those from adolescence to adulthood it's not like it's somethign you grew out of.

There are hundreds and thousands of hard working Law students who have been high achievers and morally upstanding characters all their lives and why on Earth do you think they'd be denied a place in favour of you?

I'm not trying to shoot you down but you have be realistic and understand how this is going to be viewed by academic tutors, employers etc.

Lawyers are meant to be professionally upstanding individuals most of the time and I doubt any of even small/medium sized respectable law firms would even touch you with a barge pole.

You judge me but you know not a thing about me, all the charges were in the same two year period, the year before I was attacked and stabbed. That is why I was on drugs.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by Terri46493)
you don't know me at all.

I'd really hope that if I was ever in trouble that I didn't have an attorney who was a drug addicted child abuser.

Good day.

[*laura_23**]

OP,

I am not going to judge you, as I do not know all of the facts or circumstances. However, I will be blunt and straight to the point. Please do not take this the wrong way, it is meant with the best intention, but I am not in the habit of sugar coating what I say with BS.

1. With seven children, how the hell do you expect to be able to complete a law degree. I respect your determination but a law degree must be treated the same as full time employment if you wish to achieve a respectable mark. A 2:1 is the minimum most firms will look at for T.C, and for the Bar the standard is even higher. Law is one of, if not the most competitive fields out there. You must seriously consider with 7 children if not only will you have the time, but the stamina and mental strength to manage both. I have two children and had to consider this very carefully, and only after putting an extensive support network, and solid childcare arrangements in place, as well as waving my social life goodbye for now, did I take this on.

2. I to have just completed the access to law programme, and have accepted an offer at Warwick University. At the level of the access programme, there will not really be any barrier to you learning. However, as a mature student on a law degree course, you will almost certainly be expected to attend an interview, wherever you apply. Not only will your grades and personal statement be put under the spotlight, they will question you extensively about your personal life, committments and motivation. Warwick asked me about my children, child care arrangements, time management skills, reasons for returning to study, and in your case almost certainly about your past. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE SEEN AS A GOOD CHOICE. Warwick actually said 'Why should we choose you over an 18 year old with straight A's at A Level.' You must be prepared with a good answer, but also your criminal record WILL be questioned. Your answer will have to have a little more than its in the past now. Ensure your tutor at college is ringing the universities and asking how much of a barrier your past is, or at least supporting you when you do this. I don't mean to sound like a patronising, I've experienced the barriers, not only as a mature student, but a parent, and a student with a disability, I would rather tell you how it is.

3. You will have to sacrifice a lot of time with your children. Are you prepared to do this. The burden on you with this degree, and the children will be immense. Do you have the right support to ensure they are not at a disadvantage, and will you cope. I think mature student parents returning to education is fantastic, they are effectively recieving a second chance. The one thing, however, that irritates me more than anything, is when mature students think they can be a superhero, and take on all sorts, then not cope and drop out. That place has then been denied to someone who would have committed to it, and has then effectively been wasted. Please do not take this the wrong way, but be sure it is not too much. I would see how things go on the Access, that course is hard work, and requires a massive amount of work. This will be an indicator as to whether you can manage or not.

Im not being horrible, but you need to talk to your college and take advice on this. A law degree is a route into many different careers, as well as the access with certain subject combinations being a route into different degrees. A part time course may help with family committments. Your family and convictions are not a barrier to an education and a better life, or even a career in law to some degree, but you need to be sure your motivation will hold.

[yothi5]

(Original post by Terri46493)
I have worked so hard this year to get my level 2 in maths and English and I have a busy home life with my 7 children.

I have applied to do an Access To Law course in September, but I have a little bit of a past. I had a bad experience a few years ago in which I stabbed. This led to other things i.e I received two cautions for drug and a driving ban, I also got a caution for assault on a minor. This was an incident in which I am not proud, I lost my temper with one of my children and slapped him.

I am wondering if it is worth doing even though I really want it. I need help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel bad enough about what i did so please do not judge me too harshly.

Jesus Christ. Not if sure you are serious. How on earth does one manage to have 7 children in modern day society?

And no, I do not think you could study law/proceed to do any kind of job.

[J.Nalbandian14]

You stabbed someone, harmed a child. Are these characteristics of a lawyer?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[brendonbackflip]

oh the irony

[Rancorous]

(Original post by *laura_23**)
OP,

I am not going to judge you, as I do not know all of the facts or circumstances. However, I will be blunt and straight to the point. Please do not take this the wrong way, it is meant with the best intention, but I am not in the habit of sugar coating what I say with BS.

1. With seven children, how the hell do you expect to be able to complete a law degree. I respect your determination but a law degree must be treated the same as full time employment if you wish to achieve a respectable mark. A 2:1 is the minimum most firms will look at for T.C, and for the Bar the standard is even higher. Law is one of, if not the most competitive fields out there. You must seriously consider with 7 children if not only will you have the time, but the stamina and mental strength to manage both. I have two children and had to consider this very carefully, and only after putting an extensive support network, and solid childcare arrangements in place, as well as waving my social life goodbye for now, did I take this on.

2. I to have just completed the access to law programme, and have accepted an offer at Warwick University. At the level of the access programme, there will not really be any barrier to you learning. However, as a mature student on a law degree course, you will almost certainly be expected to attend an interview, wherever you apply. Not only will your grades and personal statement be put under the spotlight, they will question you extensively about your personal life, committments and motivation. Warwick asked me about my children, child care arrangements, time management skills, reasons for returning to study, and in your case almost certainly about your past. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE SEEN AS A GOOD CHOICE. Warwick actually said 'Why should we choose you over an 18 year old with straight A's at A Level.' You must be prepared with a good answer, but also your criminal record WILL be questioned. Your answer will have to have a little more than its in the past now. Ensure your tutor at college is ringing the universities and asking how much of a barrier your past is, or at least supporting you when you do this. I don't mean to sound like a patronising, I've experienced the barriers, not only as a mature student, but a parent, and a student with a disability, I would rather tell you how it is.

3. You will have to sacrifice a lot of time with your children. Are you prepared to do this. The burden on you with this degree, and the children will be immense. Do you have the right support to ensure they are not at a disadvantage, and will you cope. I think mature student parents returning to education is fantastic, they are effectively recieving a second chance. The one thing, however, that irritates me more than anything, is when mature students think they can be a superhero, and take on all sorts, then not cope and drop out. That place has then been denied to someone who would have committed to it, and has then effectively been wasted. Please do not take this the wrong way, but be sure it is not too much. I would see how things go on the Access, that course is hard work, and requires a massive amount of work. This will be an indicator as to whether you can manage or not.

Im not being horrible, but you need to talk to your college and take advice on this. A law degree is a route into many different careers, as well as the access with certain subject combinations being a route into different degrees. A part time course may help with family committments. Your family and convictions are not a barrier to an education and a better life, or even a career in law to some degree, but you need to be sure your motivation will hold.

Even if thread were serious, for God's sake if you don't know ****, don't post. Warnings/cautions are not the same as convictions and you never have to declare them for university! Even for the Law Society, it's unlikely to pose much of a problem. Don't try to argue.

[*laura_23**]

Rancorous, that post is unbelievably rude, arrogant, and completely uncalled for. FYI the solicitors regulation authority, with whom the OP would be required to register with to persue her implied career, has published clear guidance in relation to the cautions etc the OP has described. An example from the handbook:

3: Behaviour not compatible with that expected of a prospective solicitor or authorised role holder

3.1

Unless there are exceptional circumstances we will refuse your application if you have:

(a)

been responsible for behaviour:

(i)

which is dishonest;
(ii)

which is violent;
(iii)

where there is evidence of discrimination towards others;

(b)

misused your position to obtain pecuniary advantage;
(c)

misused your position of trust in relation to vulnerable people; and/or
(d)

been responsible for other forms of behaviour which demonstrate that you cannot be relied upon to discharge your regulatory duties as a solicitor or authorised role holder.

I suggest you read through it. Though for the mean time, to save provoking your inner keyboard warrier, I will bow to your alleged superior intellect, and pompous sense of self importance. For the record, I was asked about whether I have any cautions or convictions upon my applications to different Universities. The process for mature students is slightly different. Whilst the above is not the Law Society, the OP expressed a wish to practice, so yes there will be a problem. The vast majority of my post was me asking her about her committment and how she would manage with a family. The post was asking for advice/opinion which is what I gave. Please refrain from being so rude, I did not come on here for an argument, please go find someone else to be foul to.

[Rancorous]

(Original post by *laura_23**)
Rancorous, that post is unbelievably rude, arrogant, and completely uncalled for. FYI the solicitors regulation authority, with whom the OP would be required to register with to persue her implied career, has published clear guidance in relation to the cautions etc the OP has described. An example from the handbook:

3: Behaviour not compatible with that expected of a prospective solicitor or authorised role holder

3.1

Unless there are exceptional circumstances we will refuse your application if you have:

(a)

been responsible for behaviour:

(i)

which is dishonest;
(ii)

which is violent;
(iii)

where there is evidence of discrimination towards others;

(b)

misused your position to obtain pecuniary advantage;
(c)

misused your position of trust in relation to vulnerable people; and/or
(d)

been responsible for other forms of behaviour which demonstrate that you cannot be relied upon to discharge your regulatory duties as a solicitor or authorised role holder.

I suggest you read through it. Though for the mean time, to save provoking your inner keyboard warrier, I will bow to your alleged superior intellect, and pompous sense of self importance. For the record, I was asked about whether I have any cautions or convictions upon my applications to different Universities. The process for mature students is slightly different. Whilst the above is not the Law Society, the OP expressed a wish to practice, so yes there will be a problem. The vast majority of my post was me asking her about her committment and how she would manage with a family. The post was asking for advice/opinion which is what I gave. Please refrain from being so rude, I did not come on here for an argument, please go find someone else to be foul to.

Ironically, perhaps, I wonder whose post is ruder.

The fact is you are unable to discern between a caution and a criminal conviction. Universities do not run criminal record checks. A caution does not constitute a criminal offence. The process for mature students is broadly the same - through UCAS where you are asked whether you have unspent convictions. Some universities may ask in an interview, or in a letter, but they do not run criminal record checks and you are not required to disclose the information. Additionally, cautions and warning become spent immediately (unless it is a conditional caution in which case that can be up to 3 months) which means when asked if you have a caution/warning on an application form, you can reply no legitimately. This applies retrospectively too.

The fact is you were speaking in relation to the degree; and your post was obviously wrong.

Secondly, i of course am aware of the SRA guidelines and am due to start my training contract shortly; having completed a law degree, and the LPC.

i have advised above in another post, however, that nothing will come of it - if you read the post above you will see a standard CRB check is run. The usual procedure which has been directly reported to me is that cautions/warnings are not by themselves sufficient to prohibit a candidate. A serious conviction pertaining to fraud, however, is usually devastating. There is a rather large gulf between them.


I consider the way you've responded to me to be unnecessarily hostile - even by my standards - and exorbitantly rude. Especially given, of course, that you are genuinely wrong. i do understand that you surely must have quite poor academics, but please don't take it out on me.

[*laura_23**]

To clarify, the OP has two cautions for drugs, another one for assaulting a child in her care, a driving ban to which I do not know the circumstances so may or may not be relevant, and has stabbed somebody. I fail to see that the SRA would accept the application. The cautions are for different offences, the drugs cautions being an example of how she failed to learn from her mistakes. I will go by what I have read in SRA written literature, versus a stranger posting on a forum.

The information I quoted previously taken from the handbook written by the SRA, states they will only accept applications with cautions in exceptional circumstances. That is very different to, 'not by themselves sufficient to prohibit a candidate', especially when you consider all of the supporting evidence required by the SRA in the event of having a caution. The handbook appears to directly conflict with what you are saying.

Futher to your other points, the information I gave in the first post was based on my experience. All of the Universities I applied to, contacted me for additional information as I was applying as a mature student. In addition to having to successfully complete interviews, and written assignments, four out of the five asked about criminal convictions/AND OR CAUTIONS recieved to date. Yes, after seeking advice at the time, you are correct, in that they are deemed as spent from the moment they are given. However, I would argue that if the OP or anybody else with a caution answers no to having one, which is their right, it will pose a problem. Mainly, in that the SRA will require references, one normally from a tutor in relation to the offences. It would prove a problem, if asked about cautions directly, and lying, to having to admit later on you have been dishonest.

I can assure you, I am not in any way poor academically. I am not taking anything out of anybody. If you are rude to people, is it not logical to assume some may be hostile towards you? There was absolutely no need for the way you orginally responded to me, and you now wonder why you were met with further rudeness. I'm sure your colleagues will find you a joy to work with.

[Rancorous]

(Original post by *laura_23**)
To clarify, the OP has two cautions for drugs, another one for assaulting a child in her care, a driving ban to which I do not know the circumstances so may or may not be relevant, and has stabbed somebody. I fail to see that the SRA would accept the application. The cautions are for different offences, the drugs cautions being an example of how she failed to learn from her mistakes. I will go by what I have read in SRA written literature, versus a stranger posting on a forum.

The information I quoted previously taken from the handbook written by the SRA, states they will only accept applications with cautions in exceptional circumstances. That is very different to, 'not by themselves sufficient to prohibit a candidate', especially when you consider all of the supporting evidence required by the SRA in the event of having a caution. The handbook appears to directly conflict with what you are saying.

Futher to your other points, the information I gave in the first post was based on my experience. All of the Universities I applied to, contacted me for additional information as I was applying as a mature student. In addition to having to successfully complete interviews, and written assignments, four out of the five asked about criminal convictions/AND OR CAUTIONS recieved to date. Yes, after seeking advice at the time, you are correct, in that they are deemed as spent from the moment they are given. However, I would argue that if the OP or anybody else with a caution answers no to having one, which is their right, it will pose a problem. Mainly, in that the SRA will require references, one normally from a tutor in relation to the offences. It would prove a problem, if asked about cautions directly, and lying, to having to admit later on you have been dishonest.

I can assure you, I am not in any way poor academically. I am not taking anything out of anybody. If you are rude to people, is it not logical to assume some may be hostile towards you? There was absolutely no need for the way you orginally responded to me, and you now wonder why you were met with further rudeness. I'm sure your colleagues will find you a joy to work with.

No, the OP is a troll. And you have no idea as to the circumstances of the cautions. There are few threads where I am as completely comfortable with my position and the way I've reacted as this thread.

On both points: a) admission as a solicitor and b) university admission - you are incorrect.

You have admitted you were incorrect on university admission. Yet you still insist on puerile ad hom attacks. I quoted you on your ignorance of b), not a); you've changed what you were talking about deliberately to try to make yourself not look as hopelessly clueless as you are. I felt it necessary to point out how stupid your post was because you could not distinguish between cautions and convictions.

Your retaliation is absolutely risible. This is why I wrote 'don't try to argue'. To say that it would negatively affect a reference is so stupid and so out of touch with the real world and how universities operate, I shouldn't give you the time of day. Universities have different departments, different people in admissions and for applications - there are thousands of applications, your lecturers, professors - everyone - don't even know your name. Universities don't conduct criminal record checks, they hold no record of criminal offenses, only academic results. It's so stupid because if someone asks for a character reference; a) you might very well have been cautioned whilst at university b) the SRA has no reason to inform a tutor of the nature of the offence be it a caution, warning, conviction or something unsavory which a public body might hold on you. If a character reference is asked for, a character reference based on how well this person knows you is what is provided. You clearly don't know anything about universities - why do you pretend to? You're literally googling this to respond to me instead of actually knowing the stuff - because you haven't gone through this stuff and you've never been to university.

The SRA guidelines do not say they will refuse an application under these circumstances or even convictions. The SRA guidelines stipulate what they take into consideration and what will go against you. Having gone through the process, and knowing people who have gone through with cautions, yes, I know a hell of a lot more than you. Just as you may know more than a 15 year old school student about UCAS. I have emphasised having a caution alone means you DO NOT have a criminal record. Having a criminal record is very serious. I think one guy couldn't be admitted because he had a conviction for stealing a bag of crisps when he was 15. If something is sufficiently serious, people will be prosecuted. I've said this is a grey area to some extent, and whilst no one can say 100% not knowing the circumstances without taking advice, the SRA generally uses convictions as the main bar to admission, and the most serious type offence is fraud, so it's virtually certain that a few spent cautions will be fine for admission - BUT this is all a damp squid because that's not what sparked my responses - what sparked my responses was your misunderstanding as to what cautions and convictions are, and how universities, not the SRA, operate. Having spent some time on google educating yourself on this, finding out you were wrong, you've come back to the forum, admitted you were wrong in a very snide way and launched into a series of aggressive, rude and ad hominum remarks, all the while pretending you were arguing something quite different. Pathetic.

Mature students usually have poor school academics - 99% of the time worse to far worse than other students on the course, and are made lower entry offers. I made a logical insinuation that you are lacking some IQ points because you can't read properly in the post above. You reacted in a very aggressive manner which I supposed was due to your sensitivity to your poor academics. To be sure, mature students can have previously poorer academics, but be brilliantly intelligent people and do really well at university. I think you probably do have poor academics (do you have course requirements of A*AA+?), but regardless you certainly are pretty thick given what you've just tried to argue. I responded in a perfectly legitimate way to a very stupid post. I can't believe you got into a good university without serious mitigation.

[zaliack]

(Original post by Rancorous)
x

I can't be bothered reading both Laura and your posts (think whatever you want of that), however doesn't the regulations merely specify that a person may be barred from practice if they have acted violently/dishonestly, regardless of whether or not they have been charged/cautioned, or even caught doing so? The OP would be under a legal obligation to disclose the information (Admittedly, I'm just presuming this in relation to an Inns of Court application). So, even if it isn't found out via a CRB, it is still possible for it to be leaked, which would result in disqualification from practice.

[Soft Cat]

(Original post by Terri46493)
You judge me but you know not a thing about me, all the charges were in the same two year period, the year before I was attacked and stabbed. That is why I was on drugs.

I know enough and if you are serious then let's be serious; you'll never be a lawyer not in this country anyways and no self-respecting lawyer would even look at your CV for more than 5 seconds before binning it or putting it on the rejection pile.

That's even if you manage to get onto and complete a degree to the required standard and with 7 children and more experience in crime and drug-taking than hard-grafting or academic study, I seriously doubt your ability.

Jail is probably the best place for you.

[danny111]

(Original post by Terri46493)
I have worked so hard this year to get my level 2 in maths and English and I have a busy home life with my 7 children.

I have applied to do an Access To Law course in September, but I have a little bit of a past. I had a bad experience a few years ago in which I stabbed. This led to other things i.e I received two cautions for drug and a driving ban, I also got a caution for assault on a minor. This was an incident in which I am not proud, I lost my temper with one of my children and slapped him.

I am wondering if it is worth doing even though I really want it. I need help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel bad enough about what i did so please do not judge me too harshly.

You "assaulted a minor" - by slapping your kid? I smell troll.

[danny111]

(Original post by Soft Cat)
I know enough and if you are serious then let's be serious; you'll never be a lawyer not in this country anyways and no self-respecting lawyer would even look at your CV for more than 5 seconds before binning it or putting it on the rejection pile.

That's even if you manage to get onto and complete a degree to the required standard and with 7 children and more experience in crime and drug-taking than hard-grafting or academic study, I seriously doubt your ability.

Jail is probably the best place for you.

Get lost imbecile. You know nothing about her except this sparse information and you feel you have the right not only to judge her, but to determine jail would be the best place for her?

ps I still think op is a troll, but whatever

[Rancorous]

(Original post by zaliack)
I can't be bothered reading both Laura and your posts (think whatever you want of that), however doesn't the regulations merely specify that a person may be barred from practice if they have acted violently/dishonestly, regardless of whether or not they have been charged/cautioned, or even caught doing so? The OP would be under a legal obligation to disclose the information (Admittedly, I'm just presuming this in relation to an Inns of Court application). So, even if it isn't found out via a CRB, it is still possible for it to be leaked, which would result in disqualification from practice.

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. As memory serves, it's all pretty vague stating what will be taken into consideration, and what you should disclose. The standard CRB check - not enhanced which is much more thorough - brings up only warnings, cautions, convictions. That's about it, google it - that's all the SRA looks at, as far as I'm aware. I'm not suggesting a caution should not be disclosed - if it's not, it will be brought up by the CRB check and the person's application would be seriously, seriously prejudiced against them.