Hello, I am 69 in 2 months, living in Central Europe. In 1962, yes 1962, I stole a bicycle. That was the start of a few years of stupidity and stealing-related offences which ended with Borstal and one final count of Theft by Finding (a wallet) in 1972.
Since then, I've had a variety of jobs and retired recently from a position as a Senior University Lecturer in Linguistics. So I've been out of trouble for too many years to count, have been an upright and sober citizen, contributing to the education of others.
I was taken on as a consultant for a UK based educational business and for 3 years I worked with them, training teachers etc for about 5 weeks a year. Then they required an enhanced DBS and here we are! All those offences show up despite the fact that I have no barring for any kind of job. Now I really don't know what to do and that's kind of why I'm here. I feel it's grossly unfair that I should be exposed after all these years - I paid a price at the time, why should I pay again now since I pose no risk nor danger to anyone?
I'm sure I'm not alone with this dilemma so I'm hoping that there will be others in the same boat (though I wouldn't wish it on anyone, of course!) with whom we can share experiences and possible solutions, should they exist.
Thanks for reading.

Are you saying you have lost your consulting role because they took exception to the contents of your enhanced DBS, or are you concerned that you will be exposed (your words) if you provide an enhanced DBS?

If it is the latter, I would try and address this on the front foot - ask for an HR meeting and simply explain that you had some challenges when you were much younger and explain how you have left that past behind you, moved on many years ago and forged a very successful career etc. etc.  So many people have something from their past that they have moved on from, whether a criminal conviction or something simply embarrassing. 

If you are not on the barred lists there is no reason not to employ you except for prejudice within the organisation or a blanket tick box approach to no convictions.  It might be hard, but sell the positives of your story (your journey and accomplishments etc.) rather than worry about the negatives.

If unfortunately it is a case that you have lost your consulting gig already, I would still ask for a meeting with a senior HR director and place the onus on them to explain their decision and rationale.  Unlock can also be very helpful in these situations when you have a clear picture of the reasoning and can help challenge it on your behalf.

And finally ... did the teacher training role involve actual or potential contact with children or vulnerable adults?  If not, it may be the case that the level of check was illegal

Hi Yankee, thanks for responding.
I am playing for time... The consultancy is in the UK and I asked that they send me the DBS report unopened, which they did. So my worry is a) that I don't want to reveal my past idiocy and b) that it'll mean the end of the work. I have to say, it's also a matter of principle! Past errors coming back to ruin one's life 50 years later?!
I deal only with the teachers, not with children (I do observe lessons where children are the students) and there are no vulnerable adults involved at all.
I have no contact with HR, only with the person who asked me to take on this role, the Director of the enterprise.
taking the bu;l by the horns may be a way forward but I am hoping there might be another way I can handle this - though I don't know what that could be...

I suspect the fact that you observe lessons where children are present gives them the leeway to apply for enhanced checks (and they will have to be a registered organisation so there is a basic expectation that there are some checks & balances in place).

I can only empathise with your situation. The fact that you have a personal communication  link to the Director is a big positive as you are speaking to someone who wanted you in the first place and has interacted with you, not a faceless administrator in HR.

Again, the only advice I can give is to speak to him/her/them and really stress the passage of time and the fact that you have ably demonstrated you are no risk to anyone and have put everything firmly behind you.  You never know, you may find the Director has something in their past as well!  Assuming not, all you can then do is stress that as an organisation they should do their own risk assessment and form their own judgement - there is nothing in law that says you cannot hire someone with a previous conviction for a role working with children/vulnerable adults, only guidance that implies you should not hire someone with a conviction for a relevant offence (it is different with the barred lists - there is it actually illegal to employ someone into a regulated position if they are on the lists).

The only other positive is that your offences are typical of a mis-spent youth as they say - petty crime before you mature as a person.  There is much less chance of a knee jerk reaction.

Unfortunately, there are many people on the forum who have spent convictions or are committed to rehabilitation but their offences carry a social stigma which makes it much harder for employers to see past them and recognise what the person is today in front of them.

You should be able to get spent petty crime convictions completely removed even from enhanced checks:

Common offences that are eligible for filtering

1. Common assault
2. Drunk and disorderly conduct
3. Harassment
4. Theft (where no violence is involved)
5. Drugs offences that involve simple possession

Yes, but that only applies if you have one conviction. Once you have more than one conviction, none are filtered. I prefer Yankee's approach, and maybe even challenge them to explain why they see you as a risk. The DBS's Code of Practice does say that employers should have a written policy on the suitability of ex-offenders for employment, and should discuss the content of the disclosure before withdrawing any offer of employment.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Many thanks for this advice.
As it happens I have heard that the Director "can't afford to be sanctimonious" but I doubt I'd use that. I'll just have to rely on his good sense since I was invited into the position and have done a god job and in fact we have been friends for years. I hope it'll be a non-event and everything will continue as usual but we'll see.
I'll post an update when I have news.

As they should be discussing it with you, if they seem to be negative, you can always be assertive (not aggressive!) and politely ask them why they see you as a risk. Challenge their assumptions, and point out that you would only be in the classroom occasionally anyway, but why would they be so worried about such old convictions from over 45 years ago, before the prime ministers of Ireland, Estonia, New Zealand and the president of France were even born.... In fact the first one was only months after Barack Obama was born! That is literally a lifetime ago, and what crimes have you committed since then. As I said, don't be afraid to challenge them politely but firmly.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

So your last conviction was 46 years ago and your convictions are very minor in nature.

If you are not accepted for the role, this is a perfect example of how disgraceful the system is.

Good luck with everything. Hopefully the time elapsed and the minor nature of the convictions will mean that it won't be an issue.

Thanks, yes a lifetime ago!
Am I correct in thinking that if the DBS check was basic, these offences wouldn't show up, given that none of them is sexual or violent in nature?