In October 2025 I told the Criminal Justice Alliance, quietly and in good faith, that their shortlisted “Outstanding Small Organisation” carried live equality, safeguarding and data protection concerns. Today, in January 2026, CJA is still platforming The Recruitment Junction as a model of success. So this time, I am not doing it quietly.
What we told CJA the first time
On 22 October 2025 I published a short piece, TRJ: Sunlight over spin at the CJA Awards. The point was simple. Fairness needs facts.
Alongside that article I emailed the Criminal Justice Alliance and the three other shortlisted organisations. I set out headlines only, kept factual and restrained:
- I am an autistic ex offender who was referred to The Recruitment Junction for support into work.
- I requested a straightforward reasonable adjustment, written communication only.
- After I challenged a standardised CV template and withheld consent to use it in my name, support was withdrawn in about twenty minutes and my contact was blocked.
- A harassment allegation about me was passed to Probation. I categorically deny it and hold contemporaneous evidence.
- ACAS early conciliation closed because TRJ refused to engage. An Employment Tribunal claim and a County Court claim are prepared.
- A wide scope Subject Access Request is outstanding, alongside concerns raised with the Charity Commission about data handling and governance.
I offered to provide a short evidence pack so that judges were not kept in the dark. I did not ask CJA to “cancel” anyone. I asked them to treat awards as a reputational signal that requires basic due diligence.
Anyone who wanted to look more closely at TRJ’s public funding could already start here: Caught in 4K: The Recruitment Junction and public funding, and here: Newcastle City Council FOI: The Recruitment Junction archive. Together they map out the money trail that sits behind the awards night praise, including what I later called the “fundception” problem: The Recruitment Junction: Fundception.
What happened next, out of shot
Since then, several things have happened that CJA does not mention when it posts about The Recruitment Junction.
First, the Charity Commission responded to my concerns. Their letter of 21 November 2025 confirms three uncomfortable points for TRJ and anyone platforming them:
- They confirm The Recruitment Junction has received public funding, contrary to earlier public claims that suggested otherwise.
- They repeat my description of “a governance and integrity problem with public money at stake”. That phrase now sits on the charity’s regulatory file.
- They point my pre action protocol route toward the courts. In other words, this is not closed.
Second, TRJ has continued to block my lawful attempts to exercise data rights, including blocking multiple email addresses that were used only for formal contact. That pattern is now fully documented.
Third, there has been no meaningful engagement from CJA with the substance of any of this. No request for an evidence pack. No clarification of their due diligence. No sign that disabled service users matter as much as award night photos.
I documented the Charity Commission response in full here: What the Charity Commission really said about The Recruitment Junction. It is available to every funder, commissioner and awards judge who cares enough to click.
CJA’s choice: keep posting, pretend nothing is wrong
On 12 January 2026, CJA posted a new LinkedIn update celebrating The Recruitment Junction as the 2025 Outstanding Small Organisation. They repeated the talking points about hundreds of people into work and low reoffending rates. They linked to TRJ. They thanked them.
Under that post, I left a calm, documented comment. I introduced myself as the autistic ex offender currently on TRJ’s Charity Commission record. I summarised the November regulator letter and linked to the article above so readers could see the paperwork for themselves.
TRJ replied with a single line thanking CJA and boasting that “904 into work” figure, then tagged CJA.
That response speaks volumes. Faced with a disabled service user raising live concerns and referencing the regulator, the charity ignored the substance and repeated its headline figure. CJA, at time of writing, has stayed silent.
CJA is entitled to make that choice. They can ignore uncomfortable evidence and continue platforming whoever they like. That is on them. Our choice is different. When polite private warnings are brushed aside, we move the conversation into the open.
Post-edit note: Shortly after I posted that comment and follow up, both disappeared from the LinkedIn thread. The award post and The Recruitment Junction’s “904 into work” reply remain. The screenshots above are from before the deletion.
Why this matters beyond one award
Awards in the criminal justice space are not party balloons. They are reputation machines. They influence which organisations get funding, whose case studies are copied, and where people with convictions are signposted.
If an organisation withdraws support from a disabled ex offender twenty minutes after they question a template, passes a baseless harassment allegation to Probation, blocks Subject Access Requests, and attracts a Charity Commission file that talks about “governance and integrity” with public money on the line, that is relevant context for any award panel.
When awards bodies ignore that context, they are not neutral. They help launder the reputation of organisations that treat inconvenient service users as problems to be blocked, not people to be heard.
It is particularly grim to see this happen in a sector that talks so often about “lived experience”, trauma informed practice and the importance of second chances. It turns lived experience into a marketing asset, as long as the person agrees to stay grateful and quiet.
Sunlight over spin, round two
The Reasonable Adjustment exists for moments like this. We take the material that institutions would rather keep in side channels and inboxes, and we put it where the public can see it.
So here is where we are now, in plain language:
- CJA was told before the awards that there were live, evidenced concerns about TRJ’s equality, safeguarding and data protection conduct.
- The Charity Commission has confirmed public funding and recorded a governance and integrity concern involving that funding.
- The courts remain an open route. None of the complaints about email blocking, SAR handling or retaliation have been dealt with transparently.
- Despite this, CJA continues to promote TRJ as an “Outstanding Small Organisation” without any visible caveats or acknowledgement of the dispute.
Readers can decide what that says about the award, about the charity and about the alliance that chose to keep clapping.
If you are a funder, nominee or candidate
If you fund TRJ or any other justice charity, ask for more than slide decks and success stories. Ask how they handle complaints from disabled people. Ask how many people have been removed from their books after requesting reasonable adjustments or exercising data rights. Ask whether they block email addresses rather than respond to Subject Access Requests.
If you are a future CJA Awards nominee, you deserve a process that takes due diligence seriously. You should not have to share a shortlist with an organisation that carries unresolved equality and governance issues nobody told you about.
If you are someone with a conviction looking for support into work, you deserve better than glossy stats. You deserve honesty about how organisations behave when you stop being a neat success story and start asking awkward but lawful questions.
Right to reply
We maintain a standing right to reply. The Criminal Justice Alliance, The Recruitment Junction or any funder mentioned in our TRJ case file is welcome to provide a response. We will publish it in full, alongside any evidence they wish to add.
Until then, we will continue to do what we said from the start. We will take the parts of the story that are kept in the dark, and we will put them where the people who live with the consequences can finally see them.
Be First to Comment