Yet another SC question.

[BolshieBastard]

I think that was issued by the Cabinet Office on behalf of the Treasury. It actually said "... when there is no pressing urgency" or words to that effect.

That's what the instruction said.

That is not how agency recruitment works. They only need to find 2 or 3 good candidates, put them forward and then they move on to filling the next role. Having found their 2 or 3, they will not even look at anyone else.

That has not been my experience: they are very keen not to have to escort someone everywhere for 6 to 12 weeks only to have the bugger fail and be kicked of site.

It's not their directive, and yes, they have no teeth. Your MP does. Write to your MP.

That's just a waste of taxpayers' money.

It would be the same number, just different ones each time, and there would be a built-in delay of up to 3 months to all public sector secure recruitment. Fair on you sometimes, unfair on the taxpayer.

DV takes yonks to sort out. Their requirement is now. WTF should they wait for you if there is someone else out there that can do the gig and is already cleared? That just makes no sense.

Do it. phone them and see what they say. Or, write to your MP.

Suits me. So don't apply - I can then guarantee you will never get one. But someone else will. Alternatively, have the right skills and experience and hope there is nobody else cleared that does. That is how people that are not ex-forces get their clearance. I have been cleared twice so I know it happens. First time because I was immediately available (literally immediate) and had a spot-on skills match, second time because of rare niche skills that I gained on purpose because I knew government used them.

But if you're just a generic developer going for a gig asking for experience of working on military secure systems, working with forces personnel, on military-specific applications, in complex environments, do not be surprised if you are not shortlisted. There's a hell of a lot of highly competent, IT-literate, ex-forces personnel out there, sat on their arses trying to find work. They're used to the culture, the systems, the way the forces work, the jargon, the insanity - they'll get that gig before you do and before I do, and I don't really have a problem with that.

Unlikely. I don't believe blacklists exist.

Talking out your arse again dicky.

I contacted CUK regarding this and even visited the VA's website. CUK confirmed the guidance \ instructions about all contractors should be considered.

VA guidance \ instructions are that any contractor whether or not they have clearance should be considered for all SC roles. The VA issued no guidance \ instructions saying recruiters can by pass their guidance \ instructions where the requirement is urgent. That is a defacto point and one which no one would take issue with.

The fact is however, is that agents are getting around the VA's guidance \ instructions to consider ALL contractors whether cleared or not by saying its an urgent role.

Basic clearance takes about 10 days. This level of clearance is enough to get you on site. Agents are claiming you have to have so and so clearance to even be considered for roles which is clearly bollocks.

[RichardCranium]

Talking out your arse again dicky.

You can be such an offensive, tedious troll, but do you need to be an ignoramus about it too? We have been through all this before on here.

I contacted CUK regarding this and even visited the VA's website. CUK confirmed the guidance \ instructions about all contractors should be considered.

Because CUK makes the rules?

The CABINET OFFICE issued the guidelines, not the DVA. And that's DVA, not VA, BTW.

It said the recruiter should consider non-cleared applicants when there is time to do so and that when someone is needed immediately - which should not be the norm - that it is OK to only select from currently cleared applicants.

The fact is however, is that agents are getting around the VA's guidance \ instructions to consider ALL contractors whether cleared or not by saying its an urgent role.

You're losing it. Are they saying it is urgent or not? Make your mind up.

Use your head - if you can. The agents want cleared people because they do not want the risk of placing someone who will fail clearance.

Basic clearance takes about 10 days. This level of clearance is enough to get you on site.

Only on those sites which permit it (which is not all) and then only up to the quota that site permits. Different sites have different rules (for good reasons).

Agents are claiming you have to have so and so clearance to even be considered for roles which is clearly bollocks.

So why break the existing security system at immense expense to the taxpayer and inconvenience to public sector recruitment just because you are not sufficiently competent to get a SC or DV gig?

It's the agency behaviour that is at fault, APFU.

Get over yourself.

[BolshieBastard]

You can be such an offensive, tedious troll, but do you need to be an ignoramus about it too? We have been through all this before on here.

Because CUK makes the rules?

The CABINET OFFICE issued the guidelines, not the DVA. And that's DVA, not VA, BTW.

It said the recruiter should consider non-cleared applicants when there is time to do so and that when someone is needed immediately - which should not be the norm - that it is OK to only select from currently cleared applicants.

You're losing it. Are they saying it is urgent or not? Make your mind up.

Use your head - if you can. The agents want cleared people because they do not want the risk of placing someone who will fail clearance.

Only on those sites which permit it (which is not all) and then only up to the quota that site permits. Different sites have different rules (for good reasons).

So why break the existing security system at immense expense to the taxpayer and inconvenience to public sector recruitment just because you are not sufficiently competent to get a SC or DV gig?

It's the agency behaviour that is at fault, APFU.

Get over yourself.

Dicky, if anyone is the troll, its you. As you say, get over yourself.

[RichardCranium]

Dicky, if anyone is the troll, its you. As you say, get over yourself.

Twat.

Ignoramus twat.

[XLMonkey]

Does this mean that the one year use it or lose it clock started from my last day at ClientCo B or ClientCo A?

just been through this myself - unfortunately, there's more than one clock.

Clock 1 - duration of SC clearance from point of award. 10 years (but some departments, e.g. the Home Office, only accept these for contractors for 5 years). Before your 10/5 years is up you must re-apply for clearance, even if you are currently working on a cleared contract. If you do not, you will find the clearance is gone as soon as you apply for a new one.

Clock 2 - validity of SC clearance from the end of your last contract. 1 year. Even if your 10/5 years has some time to go, it lapses 1 year after your last contract ended.

Vetting stuff - the DVA keeps the record of who is cleared, and the sponsoring department. Although some companies (List X) have the ability to apply for clearance on behalf of their staff, your vetting records are always linked to the government department you worked for, not the company.

So, for your clientco A and clientco B scenario - I have had the same experience with government agencies (which often don't transfer clearance records). You should continue to be cleared for 1 year from the end of your second contract - when clientco B checked your clearance, this will have been registered with the DVA - clientco B are obliged to notify the DVA/clearance officer when your contract ends.

[BolshieBastard]

Twat.

Ignoramus twat.

Oh dear, dicky, touched a nerve did we?

Dicky old chap, I understand you havent worked in IT for going on for a year? Is that correct? If it is, then perchance you should look closer to home?

Toodle pip old chap

[RichardCranium]

Oh dear, dicky, touched a nerve did we?

Yes. Idiots like you that cannot do their own research then spout bollocks and yet say others that know what they are talking about are wrong does indeed touch a nerve. You are the worst kind of twat: a stupid one that spreads disinformation.

Dicky old chap, I understand you havent worked in IT for going on for a year? Is that correct? If it is, then perchance you should look closer to home?

And your point is, you ignorant twat? Haven't you read the news, you ignorant twat? Is that the best you can do to be offensive, you ignorant twat?

Toodle pip old chap

Yeah, go on, **** off. Seriously. You are are complete and utter, ignorant, twat that has contributed nothing except whining you can't get security clearance (probably because you are an ignorant twat) and then spread disinformation about the process to compensate for your inability to find out information for yourself.

Anyway, isn't time for double General Knowledge? Turn the school library PC off and get to class, you ignorant twat. You might learn something.

[NotAllThere]

I don't want to disturb those enjoying their popcorn, but

...
Use your head - if you can. The agents want cleared people because they do not want the risk of placing someone who will fail clearance.
...

has anyone ever known of a case where someone has failed clearance? I've worked in three (quite different) SC areas, where none of us had clearance before, and I didn't notice anyone being taken out and quietly shot.

[ratewhore]

I have to concur with Mr Cranium on this one, because he is right.

As for trying to change 'the system', these are the constraints we have to work within, so unfortunately you're going to have to deal with it...

[SuperZ]

I don't want to disturb those enjoying their popcorn, but



has anyone ever known of a case where someone has failed clearance? I've worked in three (quite different) SC areas, where none of us had clearance before, and I didn't notice anyone being taken out and quietly shot.

Yes, I know of a few who have failed and one individual who had SC but it was withdrawn after later failing DV. I also know of people who have had SC withdrawn due to naughty behaviour

I know of one person who failed SC due to a bout of depression caused by the passing of both parents at the same time, heard this through the grapevine though. Bit harsh if that was the case.....

Obviously people fail it otherwise it would be a useless excersise.