Pensioner told to prove he's no theif!

Hey ATS, I just saw this news article and was completely shocked by it. Heres a quote;

A PENSIONER has been restricted from volunteering at a nursing home - for a minor stealing offence 35 years ago that he says he did not commit.

Richmond man John Kallios, 69, says he simply wanted to give back to his community, but a routine police check detailed a 1977 larceny offence in his name.

Now police have told Mr Kallios he needs to prove it was not him who committed the offence, even though court records relating to the alleged crime have been destroyed.

He has offered to take a lie detector test, and believes the offence could have been committed by one of two other men with the same name and mistakenly added to his record.

Mr Kallios had applied for the police check to cook and clean at St Nicholas church at Thebarton and Greek Orthodox Community Care at Ridleyton but was shocked when it came up with the larceny offence - for which no conviction or penalty was ordered.

"I have never heard of it before, anything it takes to find out the truth I will do it, I'll take a lie detector test, anything. I'm not going to give up and I will win this," the Greek migrant said.

Its just ridiculous they won't let this guy volunteer just because he has a larceny offence to his name. Its even more ridiculous that the court documents have been destroyed? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

www.adelaidenow.com.au...


EDIT: Just realized I spelt thief wrong, lmao.

He should consider himself lucky. Nursing homes are horrible places. They are the settling tank for the dregs of the medical profession.

It is a sa society indeed that even has need for any such thing as a place for the old to rot in seclusion.

Originally posted by Numbers33four
He should consider himself lucky. Nursing homes are horrible places. They are the settling tank for the dregs of the medical profession.

It is a sa society indeed that even has need for any such thing as a place for the old to rot in seclusion.

Yeah I suppose I agree, my sister used to work at a nursing home and she sometimes ended up crying after learning a patient she had served died a few days later, not a happy place indeed.

But I suppose if this guy wants to volunteer why stop him? The minor offence whether he did it or not happened 35 years ago, and the court documents no longer exist? In fact I think its great for the elderly to do this sort of thing, it keeps their lives busy and they have something to wake up to every morning.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital

Its just ridiculous they won't let this guy volunteer just because he has a larceny offence to his name. Its even more ridiculous that the court documents have been destroyed? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Well, technically he was proven guilty by the record they are using in reference to him. But because the court records are destroyed, he's innocent. Whether or not it is a misfiling.

This is one of those bureaucratic nightmares caused by people who really think there job is important in some way shape or form.

reply to post by boncho


Yeah I agree, but without those court documents how can the minor charge still be put in his name? And why are the police harrassing an elderly man for such a trivial thing? Why don't they go charge some real criminals like murderers and pedophiles, oh I'm sorry they're too busy manning the speed cameras...

Just my opinion here,
But maybe the church is being polite about not accepting his voluntery work for a reason, Theres the rehabilitation act here in the UK to safeguard individuals from dicrimination from employment, Barring murders and the such.

Maybe theres a "local issue" with this 68year old voluntere we are not aware off.

Personaly i would be wary too to accept his offer, On insurance grounds alone.

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
reply to post by boncho

 

Yeah I agree, but without those court documents how can the minor charge still be put in his name? And why are the police harrassing an elderly man for such a trivial thing? Why don't they go charge some real criminals like murderers and pedophiles, oh I'm sorry they're too busy manning the speed cameras...

I think we are both skirting another issue.

For arguments sake lets say this is not a mix up and the fellow did steal something insignificant half a century ago. Why the hell would you hold it against him now. There needs to be a limit on how people are treated once they make a mistake. If they have served time or sentence to the justice system people really need to just drop it and move on. (Some cases of violence or sexual violence trumps this idea)

If you do not give people the chance to move on, you subject them to filling out your ill picture of them. Someone who is labelled an _____, called an _____ and treated like an _____, will not find it easy being anything but...

Fill in the blanks with just about any description.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
reply to post by boncho

 

Yeah I agree, but without those court documents how can the minor charge still be put in his name? And why are the police harrassing an elderly man for such a trivial thing? Why don't they go charge some real criminals like murderers and pedophiles, oh I'm sorry they're too busy manning the speed cameras...

I think we are both skirting another issue.

For arguments sake lets say this is not a mix up and the fellow did steal something insignificant half a century ago. Why the hell would you hold it against him now. There needs to be a limit on how people are treated once they make a mistake. If they have served time or sentence to the justice system people really need to just drop it and move on. (Some cases of violence or sexual violence trumps this idea)

If you do not give people the chance to move on, you subject them to filling out your ill picture of them. Someone who is labelled an _____, called an _____ and treated like an _____, will not find it easy being anything but...

Fill in the blanks with just about any description.

Exactly, there are more important things for the police to do and this just wastes further resources and for what? All he wants to do is volunteer his time to help out the community? Gee the police really have their priorities right.

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
reply to post by boncho

 

Yeah I agree, but without those court documents how can the minor charge still be put in his name? And why are the police harrassing an elderly man for such a trivial thing? Why don't they go charge some real criminals like murderers and pedophiles, oh I'm sorry they're too busy manning the speed cameras...

I think we are both skirting another issue.

For arguments sake lets say this is not a mix up and the fellow did steal something insignificant half a century ago. Why the hell would you hold it against him now. There needs to be a limit on how people are treated once they make a mistake. If they have served time or sentence to the justice system people really need to just drop it and move on. (Some cases of violence or sexual violence trumps this idea)

If you do not give people the chance to move on, you subject them to filling out your ill picture of them. Someone who is labelled an _____, called an _____ and treated like an _____, will not find it easy being anything but...

Fill in the blanks with just about any description.

Exactly, there are more important things for the police to do and this just wastes further resources and for what? All he wants to do is volunteer his time to help out the community? Gee the police really have their priorities right.

But the Australian police department are merly carring out a personal security check on behalve off the church,
The local community officer would be only carring out this procedure at there request.
The church has an issue with the volunteer, So whats he hiding ?
Theres alot off "kiddies" worried about there inheritance monies, so caution and duty of care has to be there main consideration in this case. Imo..

reply to post by foxhoundone


But the reason for the security check is just ridiculous, who cares if he committed a minor offence 35 years ago (which there is no evidence for anyway since the courts lost the documents), move on catch some real criminals.

reply to post by foxhoundone


There is something called discretion. And in some cases it can mean the difference of knowing your ass from a hole in the ground.

Whoever dealt with this case was slightly confused.

His not guilty why would he make a big a deal of it.

A guilty person would not bring it to a news paper.

reply to post by amraks
Without comming across as a prat you sure do not know many "wizened" ex cons,
They can tell a lie and prove it and make you believe white is black convicts (the really smart ones) pride themselves on this "journeyman" trade.

There not the most moral of people in the world when it comes to a nice little handy number with vunerable seniors in care and with there fellow ex con muckers (fraudsters say) thats a recipe for some fraud, I think your taking a bit of a moral high ground here without the relivant background checks needed. By the way he is flagged as a thief and presumably lied on his application form hence the query about his creditbity as a primary care assistant .

He was convicted of the crime, so for the system's purposes he was a thief. Losing the records caan't change guilt to innocence. If the system bans him from this job, it does. My advice? Get a pardon or the conviction expunged. Some politician would get a few extra votes for an act of mercy. (Of course, if he steals from the nursing home, everything hits the fan.)

Originally posted by charles1952
He was convicted of the crime, so for the system's purposes he was a thief. Losing the records caan't change guilt to innocence. If the system bans him from this job, it does. My advice? Get a pardon or the conviction expunged. Some politician would get a few extra votes for an act of mercy. (Of course, if he steals from the nursing home, everything hits the fan.)

There is no court records of the conviction. Therefore, the system is flawed and there is no proof of his guilt. Not to mention the fact that the fellow says it was not even him to begin with who was convicted. But someone with the same or similar name/birthdate.

My advice? Consider how flawed the system is when you try and support something as ridiculous as this.

reply to post by boncho

Dear boncho,

Is there a misunderstanding here? I certainly don't want you as an enemy, let me try again.

My assumption, and correct me where I go wrong, is that somewhere in the bowels of the vast, unaccountable, system is a check mark in the box that says "So and so was convicted of theft years ago." I'm also assuming there isn't anything else to back up that check mark.

I'm certainly not supporting any system, I'm saying the system has created this mess, and we have to deal with it as it is.

I'm simply suggesting that it might be smart to go to whichever politician or board has the power to erase that mark. Something like a presidential pardon.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952
Did a bit off a trawl on this article in the Austrailian news media sites and found out abit more about this kallios fellow.

"Mr Kallios has been licensed to drive taxis since 1980 and said he would not have been granted accreditation had the larceny offence been on his record when he applied for his accreditation.

Mr Kallios, who came to Australia when he was 11, said he had a criminal record of * four minor illegal gaming * offences in the 1970s and a speeding offence in 2008"

He states creiditation as a passenger service driver as a defence, Indeed !

reply to post by charles1952


I think we only disagree on the fact that a conviction with no court record should be held as a conviction at all. Or that was my first interpretation when I read your post. I reread it and realized you are more stating the events more than anything.

But I don't see a need for pardon or the like. This was a clerical error and should be rectified easily.