Hi All
 I'm on a community order which is due to become spent end of October this year. No SHPO / just register for another 4 years. SO - the lowest of SA and not involving minors. My basic DBS should then be clear. No media reporting.  However, I informed my ex-employer (a more stupid thing than the offence itself) and was dismissed for gross misconduct. My letter to them detailed the offence and gave a sentencing date so my ex-employer put an investigator in court - as you can imagine this was catastrophic because all my former colleagues know. It's will also be mentioned on any reference.

This also means I obviously cannot have a LinkedIn account - like most people I had my enemies at work, some of whom wouldn't hesitate to dox me.

What is likely to change? My fantasy is that I return to my old life, get a new job in Finance and pick up where I left but I know deep down that won't happen.

Is a spent conviction for a SO a false dawn when you're still on the register? My problems are obviously dozens of former colleagues knowing I'm a registered SO, as well as any reference from my ex-employer likely to mention gross misconduct outside the office.
In this day and age, and with the ongoing focus on violence against women and girls, I'm not expecting any favours from my ex-employer.

So, my question is am I getting my hopes up? Or does the spent status of a SO have less impact than other offence?
I live in daily fear of someone putting something online, and I guess that will continue.

Once your conviction becomes spent, then because your basic DBS check is clear, you have the legal right to be treated as if you had never had the conviction in the first place. Once your conviction is spent, your ex-employer no longer has the legal right to that information and nor does any future employer, so it shouldn't be included in any reference from your ex-employer, and nor should any information related to that conviction. It should only confirm your start date, leaving date and maybe an idea of what you did while you were there, but that might just refer to "various duties". So long as you stay away from roles that are eligible for a standard DBS check (senior manager or personally regulated by the FCA), you should be fine. Those senior manager roles would not include IT or HR/personnel managers, only managers involved in the money side. If your spent conviction is disclosed by your ex-employer, even indirectly, then you can complain to the ICO as it is a data protection breach.

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

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)

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/20/spent-criminal-conviction-dismissal-job-application

Interesting article on this. The question is how to explain why you left your last job, without mentioning the conviction. Lots of suggestions in the comments.

Very useful both...thanks. Exactly what this forum is here for.

My case was published, I have attempted to be forgotten on Google but they still believe I am in the public interest. 

I attempted to join some local training courses, but I was ultimately denied because 1, I can be googled. 2, I am still on the SOR. 
Even with a recent job application I made, I was required to under take a 5 day course where I was told I would be given a guarenteed interview (I still have not had my interview)
I disclosed nothing to the employer I was applying too (although I think they run more as an agency) and completed the course, but UC are now saying because I am on the SO they expect me to confirm with my PPU on any course I wish to do
But my argument is the SOR and the notification requirements do not tell me to inform police of what jobs I apply for, what training I wish to take... 

Although my conviction is now considered spent, remaining on the SOR still makes things difficult. Purely because of the ignorence of the common folk believing they know best, when it comes to the expectations of those who remain on the SOR

The problem is more to do with how the PPU might react, if they found out you were doing something and had not told them about it. Suppose you get a job or start a training course and then they find out about it later. They have powers to disclose your conviction to the employer or the training provider if they think there is any sort of risk. To avoid problems further down the line, it may be better to tell the PPU what you are planning in advance, even though you do not legally have to.

They have powers to disclose only when it is absolutely necessary under common law, IF there is confirmed risks backed by evidence they are allowed to disclose, (history of violence, history of attacks ect...) If disclosures for any job were absolutely necessary then the employer would simply ask for DBS checks. Disclosures from Police could be found to be disproportionate then that PPU could face misconduct hearings and / or data protection breach offences. This is outlined in the ROA Section 9 subsection 2. The ROA allows those with spent convictions to live as if the conviction never took place, the SOR clearly states what information I am expected to provide. So why should anyone with a spent conviction be forced to provide information just because the PPU say so? If I am not legally obligated to provide information on any courses, or jobs I apply for. Why would I risk telling them to spoil my chances of getting a job in the first place?

It may sound like a good idea to provide all the information to the PPU, whether you legally have to or not. But the only person your making life better for is the PPU. 

In theory, the bar for disclosure is set very high, but in practice the PPU can interpret almost anything as a risk. No need for violence, no need for any history of anything. Just a suspicion or a "just in case" will do.

A good example is retail jobs. I came across a case a while ago, where a guy was working in a local shop. Images offence only, no history of violence, no SHPO forbidding contact with under 18s. PPU disclosed to the employer just because children "might" come into the shop. 

That is the problem with the PPU, they act on "just in case" claiming it is in the "pressing social need" when that in its self could be considered unlawful. And if no one challenges them, they will always get away with it. 

In your example, If that guy has an active SHPO but with no restrictions on contact with under 18's, applied for the retail job and was not asked for convictions. He had every right to work there and not disclose, he might have an unspent conviction and will not be protected by the ROA but. The rule still applies, if you are not asked about convictions you do not have to disclose. If he was asked and had lied then that is a different matter entirely, but there is no way for us to know. That being said, he was not breaching his SHPO by working there. SHPO restrictions allow for considerations in daily lawful life. If he ended up loosing his job over the PPU disclosing, then that guy would have grounds to sue based on the potential of the disclosure being unlawful. But again, he was not protected by the ROA since his conviction would be unspent. I still believe if he had challenged it, I think a judge would not be happy with the PPU considering getting a job is considered a major change in circumstances which benefits the guy. But this is exactly why the PPU act the way they do, because most of them do not want you to be better or improve your quality of life.

But lets say if it was someone with a spent conviction, if the PPU disclose with out justified, proportionate reasons followed up by individual risk assesssments and act purely on a "just in case" basis. That would be considered unlawful and the PPU would be making an offence under the ROA. CLPD ensures targeted protection without blanket stigmatization, applying to all conviction types but requiring individualized risk evaluation. Disclosures should only be made if the job requires a DBS check, based on my understand of the sources I am reading. Disclosing to employers where a DBS check is not required would be acting outside of the PPU's duties. Disclosure for simply being in the presence of children in a public space would be unlawful, compared to actually working with children where there would be an identified risk. This is likely why most PPU will always "advise" to self disclose everywhere possible with the threat of the PPU disclosing if you don't, knowing that most people will not know what is lawful or unlawful.