So another Labour

[victor]

MP ,business secretary Jonathan Reynolds has been telling porkies,as he has claimed on social media ,Linkeden on his personal website and in the House of Commons that he has been a solicitor over 10
Years!!!
The Solicitors Regulatory Authority has been asked to investigate with a view to prosecuting him.
To falsely make such a claim is a
CRIME.
Let's watch to see what happens

Sent from my SM-A156B using Tapatalk

[medsec222]

It seems that times have changed Vic. I am of the generation who meticulously compiled a curriculum vitae in readiness for any future job application. I seem to remember at the time many firms would ask for copies of qualification certificates to be included with any such application. Back then it would have been unthinkable to embellish the information on a CV as it would definitely have been considered as misleading and untrue.

I have heard some commentators expressing the view that 'what's the problem, if they are doing the job OK they should be left to get on with it'. Nothing is said by these people about honesty or whether the person embellishing their CV could have been appointed over someone who actually did have the right qualifications.

[Workingman]

CVs have always been a bit 'iffy'. All of mine were factual but embellished somewhat depending on the job application. We have all done it so let's not get too high and mighty about others who have done the same, eh? Claiming, or hinting, to have been a solicitor or HGV driver or commercial pilot is not illegal. Operating as one without the relevant qualifications, is. There's a big difference.

[medsec222]

Not having seen the CVs in question Frank, we don't know what is on them. Certainly most people when compiling a CV will quite naturally put down the relevant facts in the best possible light when applying for a new job, there is nothing wrong with that, but embellishment can only go so far before it slides into the realm of the not quite true. As regards dates, in my day the end of one job and the start of another had to match up, so it was a bit difficult to lose a few months never mind a few years. Still - it can be done - as Rachel Reeves has proved

[Workingman]

"With" and "for" are very different, but both can imply the same thing depending on context. Sometimes it can be difficult to unpick one from the other. I did 12 years in the RAF and six years on contract. I worked both 'with' and 'for' the government over 18 years. I could imply that I was with the RAF for 18 years, as does my military pension, but I only served for 12 years. It's a murky world.

[victor]

Maybe so WM but you aren't part of the Govt.
According to the SRA it is a criminal offence carrying a 2 year jail and fine.
I assume the SRA knows what it's talking about.
They are looking at fresh evidence of his claims.
Although some of his colleagues say " it was all a bit of a muddle".

Sent from my SM-A156B using Tapatalk