Interviewed for a 12 month fixed term disputes decision maker role.

Passed the interview and received provisional offer this morning.

Now have to go through baseline vetting so a check of unspent convictions.

Mine is for a SO.

I did enquire to start with and they said each case would be assessed individually, although not sure how it works and whether I will get the chance to discuss with them.

Sorting of hoping they may give me a chance and other part of me is thinking will they overlook me.

Hi Mark,

Though you don't mention the offence details in your post; not that you have to, I hope they do give you a chance.
You may find; as I have done, their concern is what will happen if other employees or clients discover your past.

Always remember though, no matter what they say you are an "EX-SO" so believe in yourself.

Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

My offence was attempted sexual communication with a child. Received 2 year community order and 5 year SOR and SHPO.

Community order ended. Programme completed and 11 months left on SOR and SHPO.

They don’t make it easy either as I have to provide details of 2 people that can provide a character reference, they are allowed to be friends but not family and have to have known me for min of 3 years.

That’s made hard by the fact I have no friends and because I’m in a reasonably new area I haven’t know. Other people for 3 years.

I can see this getting messy.

Hi
Does it have to be local friends?
Do you still speak to anyone in your previous location? (not 100% clear on your statement above sorry) If so there's your answer hopefully. 
Your old doctor, or something like that? At a push as you are declaring how about the Probation Officer/PPU especially if all has gone well during the past 2 years.
Not the ideal solution but fingers crossed.

Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

Hi Mark,

I find myself looking at the prospect of security clearance vetting as you did. I also have a spent conviction for a SO for which I got a two year community order, and a 5 year SHPO/SOR registration.

All now spent and have a new job. Now employer states they would like me to get security clearance. I’m unsure of the level. I am presuming spent records will be checked and this will go against me. I can accept that, but I don’t want the company, or anyone, knowing why.

How did you get on? Does the employer get to know details of the vetting and in the case of failure why that is?


Cheers

B

If you are going to have property security vetting, for access to sensitive information or sites, they will just be looking to see if you are a security risk. Do you have links to people involved in organised crime or terrorism, or suspected of involvement? I'm sure they check a lot of people with criminal records that the subject of the check sees as embarrassing, but it's all about national security.

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

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)

What about the possibility of blackmail? If someone has a secret, then they could be a security risk. A foreign agent might threaten to reveal their conviction to the public, if they don't agree to work for the enemy.

That could apply to anyone with a criminal record that they've kept secret. There might be some prejudice involved, but I'm sure the security services would reassure anyone that they would want to know about attempted blackmail so that they can deal with it as a matter of national security.

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

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)

The difference is that for an SO, having their conviction revealed could lead to the other employees refusing to work with them and them getting sacked as a result. Whereas if the person was a bank robber, the employer might say, give them a second chance. Then there are the other possibilities, of vigilante attacks, or their family being ostracised, if the conviction is revealed on social media, for example.

So SO have a lot more to lose, if their conviction is revealed and the security services, could say, why take the risk of hiring them.

That is all true, but the security vetting is only for security reasons, not for employment reasons. It's not their place to feed any information back, other than whether clearance is granted. I'm sure we could draw up a sliding scale of offences from worth a second chance to torches and pitchforks, so where do you draw the line? It's not a security matter for the vetting team to consider, and any potential effect on the person is a matter for them to weigh up. If that is used by an employer, it's just an excuse.

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

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)