Agency & DV

[synoniv]

Practically no way that recruiters/agencies can be held 100% accountable for this. It’s a cabinet policy that certain civilian jobs are not transparent to open job market considering its criticality and importance; such jobs will remain as it is under special clauses put to cover them. Or in other words, they do not want non-vetted TDHs getting to an interview stage to discuss nitty-gritty of a mission critical role which is anyway is totally alien to him/her, and then getting not-selected due to incompetence to handle, in my view.

In the current climate, such civilian contract roles are filled by networking and agencies are just complying to the customary guidelines for recruitment and such contracts will continue to get filled out on the basis of networking and previous references within the unit requesting DV for the role.

I don’t think the ongoing case will change this, may be the change it will bring is more adding more transparency to the process.

[Incognito]

Balls. That's not life, that exceptional circumstances, which are covered.

What's more, I've worked inside the *****, **** and **** on SC only and been privvy to discussions on support services for MOD places that don't exist. These things can always be squared away if necessary - don't suppose new MPs get DV clearance before they join the HoC, do you?

But the key rule is that you must not be refused for consideration for a role because of your clearance status. And in the OP's case, it was even more stupid because SC does allow occasional access to DV-level material anyway.

I don't think you should be posting that on a public forum. The fact that you've worked at 2 of the places you've stated you've worked at is actually Restricted.

[malvolio]

Practically no way that recruiters/agencies can be held 100% accountable for this. It’s a cabinet policy that certain civilian jobs are not transparent to open job market considering its criticality and importance; such jobs will remain as it is under special clauses put to cover them. Or in other words, they do not want non-vetted TDHs getting to an interview stage to discuss nitty-gritty of a mission critical role which is anyway is totally alien to him/her, and then getting not-selected due to incompetence to handle, in my view.

In the current climate, such civilian contract roles are filled by networking and agencies are just complying to the customary guidelines for recruitment and such contracts will continue to get filled out on the basis of networking and previous references within the unit requesting DV for the role.
I don’t think the ongoing case will change this, may be the change it will bring is more adding more transparency to the process.

Nobody's saying they aren't, nor that the CO rules do not allow for it. If a job is sufficently sensitive it can't be discussed in public, it probably won't go to open tender either. But refusing to put a mid-range PM forward for a role in the Environement Agency because he hasn't got SC?

Let's keep a sense of proportion here, please. The "dodgy" jobs and the ones where people can't be adequately supervised are probably less than 5% of the total, and nobody wants to blow holes in our overall security.

[malvolio]

I don't think you should be posting that on a public forum. The fact that you've worked at 2 of the places you've stated you've worked at is actually Restricted.

But only if you know who I am, surely...

[Incognito]

But only if you know who I am, surely...

Oh please, you obviously haven't worked in those enviroments then.

[The Farmer]

Oh please, you obviously haven't worked in those enviroments then.

I've worked in one of those places and I have never seen so much big timing in my life.

Most of them were cleaners/support services and for some reson felt the need to give me a nudge and a wink if they went as far as to tell me their name.

That's what you get from 20K a year permies I guess

[Weltchy]

But only if you know who I am, surely...

Um, not wanting to throw a spanner in the works mate, but having been elected to the PCG something or other council, I think we all know who you are.

So, rubber gloves in a dark room anyone?
Can anyone say "Rectal Cavity Search"

[malvolio]

Um, not wanting to throw a spanner in the works mate, but having been elected to the PCG something or other council, I think we all know who you are.

So, rubber gloves in a dark room anyone?
Can anyone say "Rectal Cavity Search"

You reckon? I could be lying... Damned sneaky coves, these tourists...

Anyway if I am then I'm one of 29, which is better odds I suppose, but still not definitive. And it's not the authorities that's the problem, it's the bad guys: they might have a harder time working it out.

[synoniv]

I did not know EA asks for SC clearance.

Also recent years, in order to 'protect' certain posts going to foreign candidates, recruitment policies had been slightly amended adding mandatory SC clearance.
For example; I know certain executive/research jobs within Dept of Health & NHS. Previously foreign doctors were used to fill these posts, and now it is almost impossible for someone holding a non-UK passport to get SC clearance unless he or she is in the country for more than 5 years. Fair enough.

But refusing to put a mid-range PM forward for a role in the Environement Agency because he hasn't got SC?

Let's keep a sense of proportion here, please. The "dodgy" jobs and the ones where people can't be adequately supervised are probably less than 5% of the total, and nobody wants to blow holes in our overall security.