Security Clearance (SC) Q&A Read first before asking questions

[malvolio]

I've done that Mal but, we both know what the response will be, 'It's only advice.'

However, not quite. It's advice to departments on how they implement the open tendering processes dictated by OJEC and the like., and the constraints they can place on suppliers. Those rules have teeth, and companies tendering to supply under those regulations are similarly bound by them. Small steps, but at lawast they are stepping...

Anyway, the agency excuse as stated simply doesn't wash, and while you won't hear any more about that particular email, the agency will be getting a call from the Cabinet Office: they are taking this very seriously.

[BolshieBastard]

However, not quite. It's advice to departments on how they implement the open tendering processes dictated by OJEC and the like., and the constraints they can place on suppliers. Those rules have teeth, and companies tendering to supply under those regulations are similarly bound by them. Small steps, but at lawast they are stepping...

Anyway, the agency excuse as stated simply doesn't wash, and while you won't hear any more about that particular email, the agency will be getting a call from the Cabinet Office: they are taking this very seriously.

Sorry, Im not convinced at all, Mal. Yesterday, I saw another role advertised (completely different) and yet again the agent stated quite clearly, 'You must has SC to apply for this role.'

If the Cabinet Office were serious about this, they could employ a temporary admin assistant to sit on jobswerve and other sites all day trawling for these examples themselves.

[eek]

Sorry, Im not convinced at all, Mal. Yesterday, I saw another role advertised (completely different) and yet again the agent stated quite clearly, 'You must has SC to apply for this role.'

If the Cabinet Office were serious about this, they could employ a temporary admin assistant to sit on jobswerve and other sites all day trawling for these examples themselves.

Its going to take a bit of time so I wouldn't be complaining that the Cabinet office aren't doing their job at the moment. If 6 months down the line you still see the same jobs than your complaint is valid. However at the moment I would give them a bit of leeway and just send that advert to them.

[malvolio]

Sorry, Im not convinced at all, Mal. Yesterday, I saw another role advertised (completely different) and yet again the agent stated quite clearly, 'You must has SC to apply for this role.'

If the Cabinet Office were serious about this, they could employ a temporary admin assistant to sit on jobswerve and other sites all day trawling for these examples themselves.

They could. They don't have the budget for it. Bu they are deadly serious about it, believe me.

[BolshieBastard]

They could. They don't have the budget for it. Bu they are deadly serious about it, believe me.

Sounds very much like the Cabinet Office's actions will be akin to being savaged by a dead sheep.

[shaunbhoy]

Just wanted to throw this question in here.
A former colleague of mine, now a permie, is currently going through the process of having his SC renewal processed as his initial 10-years is about to expire.
He filled in all of the online forms and mentioned that a few years ago he got into a bit of financial difficulty and had to get into a Debt Management Plan. As far as I understand it he is still in this DMP but he has had no problems sticking to it.
Anyway, he was asked to provide further information about his finances and this he duly did, and he assures me he gave them as much info as he could on his situation.
At the weekend he received a letter suggesting that in order to proceed further with his application that an Interview with a Security Officer will be needed.
I have tried to convince him that it is probably just a formality and that it might just be that there were certain things in his last submission that were a little unclear.
That they have to be seen to be showing due diligence to the whole process. Am I right in telling him this or is it likely to be bad news for him?

[malvolio]

Just wanted to throw this question in here.
A former colleague of mine, now a permie, is currently going through the process of having his SC renewal processed as his initial 10-years is about to expire.
He filled in all of the online forms and mentioned that a few years ago he got into a bit of financial difficulty and had to get into a Debt Management Plan. As far as I understand it he is still in this DMP but he has had no problems sticking to it.
Anyway, he was asked to provide further information about his finances and this he duly did, and he assures me he gave them as much info as he could on his situation.
At the weekend he received a letter suggesting that in order to proceed further with his application that an Interview with a Security Officer will be needed.
I have tried to convince him that it is probably just a formality and that it might just be that there were certain things in his last submission that were a little unclear.
That they have to be seen to be showing due diligence to the whole process. Am I right in telling him this or is it likely to be bad news for him?

The tests being applied are always "Are you honest?" and "Can you be blackmailed?". The former is obviously a pass, since he's told them about it, The latter is not likely to be a problem if the plan is being managed, meaning he's not exposed to people offering him hooky money to get out of a hole.

So basically, I can't see he has a problem.

[shaunbhoy]

The tests being applied are always "Are you honest?" and "Can you be blackmailed?". The former is obviously a pass, since he's told them about it, The latter is not likely to be a problem if the plan is being managed, meaning he's not exposed to people offering him hooky money to get out of a hole.

So basically, I can't see he has a problem.

Cheers for the quick response mal. That is what I thought, and what I had advised him. Good to see you are in agreement. I will pass on your input as I am sure he will be relieved.

[malvolio]

Well he replied! And this is it;

"attachment (document) forwarded appears to be a document for use by government agencies when advertising or sourcing for their own roles and not a mandate for suppliers providing services into government offices."

So there you have it, apparently agencies are exempt from the Cabinet Office memo the pcg supposedly highlighted and it only applies to Government Depts recruiting their own candidates.

Hahahahaha! Mal, you've got nowhere with this one!

Just like to report I got the agency's response checked out with some friends in high places: well, rather higher than mine, anyway...

As I suspected AMS are talking bollocks (astonishing, I know, but there it is...), the guidance is intended for everyone involved in recruiting people into HMG roles.

[eek]

Found a good one today

Applications welcome from candidates who require a work visa

C#, .NET, SQL, JQuery, HTML5, MVC, Security Cleared
.Net Developer (Contract) Security Cleared
Search Consultancy are currently looking a .NET Developer for a 3 month contract in the North East of England. The ideal candidate MUST be Security Cleared and be able to start immediately. The client is a major leader in Defence Systems and could lead to further career progression. The role is an urgent requirement for our client and earliest start will be 6th May 2013.
You will be working on a mobile application using:
C#/.Net
SQL Server
JQuery
HTML5
MVC 4
Daily Rate £310 - £360 a day
PLEASE DON'T APPLY IF YOU ARE NOT SECURITY CLEARED.

https://www.jobserve.com/gb/en/JobLa...paign=SendAJob

Now i'm going to send the advert to the cabinet office but really.....