Ex army, with theft charge and seeking security clearance.

[SueEllen]

No, that is not the form i filled out.
I declared my speeding fine, the only reason i didnt declare the theft charge is because i thought it was spent.

It wasnt as though we went out and stole!, he owed us both money so we took the value of!, and we kept it until he payed us, its only a theft charge) because we deprived him of the things we took.

You still don't get it do you?

If you are aggrieved with an employer over pay or expenses you don't help yourself to their money.

There are always formal procedures you need to follow to seek redress (even if most of the time they are a complete farce).

You need to grow up, stop blaming the employer/guy, admit you did wrong and then it will be easier to put behind you.

[wim121]

Technically, the conviction was "spent" as soon as you finished your sentence. But it takes five years in your case, after being spent, to disappear off your record, but that is only for jobs that allow you to apply under the rehab act of 1974.

The rehab act was designed to allow people who made a slight mistake, not to be punished, by never being able to find work again. It wasnt designed to permantely conceal crimes and charges. They stay on your record forever, for a situation like this. In normal work though, the act stops employers discriminating against minor criminals though.



It's a case of reading the wording on each application form. It will either say:

- Have you got a caution, criminal record, etc etc, as described under the rehab act of 1974
OR
- Have you got a caution, criminal record, etc etc. You must disclose all offenses including ones covered by the rehab act of 1974


Most jobs have the first option, meaning five years later, you dont have to declare. SC and higher jobs from my experience usually ask for ANY convictions, regardless of whether they are spent and expired.


Do you still have the original app forms or able to print them off and look? If you do need to declare all and your forms are still being processed, it might be best to call them and say "ooops, made a mistake, I have such and such, did I need to declare that? Can I fill in a new form?"

[Goulder]

Oh believe me , i fully understand we did wrong.
We payed the price, did our time and contined to serve.

Now i suppose its come to bite me on the ass.

Thanks for all the help anyway.
Will have to wait out and see.

[centurian]

It wasnt as though we went out and stole!

No, it's worse from a potential employers point of view. "Going out" and stealing means to steal from someone else. Stealing from an employer indicates that you may be more inclined to steal from them.

Ok so if i fail this time around for security clearance?, once after 5 years my conviction becomes spent? can i reapply if a job comes along for clearance? will it effect that at all?

It never, ever, ever becomes spent for SC/CRB/DV jobs - it's with you for life.

A spent conviction is not one that is removed from your records. It's merely one that you do not need to declare to employers for most "normal" jobs.

But it must always be declared for SC/CRB/DV jobs - even 30 years from now. The more distant in the past it becomes, the more you can (with some justification) explain it off as no longer being relevant - particularly if you've been clean since.

[centurian]

Do you still have the original app forms or able to print them off and look? If you do need to declare all and your forms are still being processed, it might be best to call them and say "ooops, made a mistake, I have such and such, did I need to declare that? Can I fill in a new form?"

Actually that's a good suggestion. By volunteering additional information before they find it (and they will) - that will count in your favour.

A major element of SC is determining whether you are now trustworthy - regardless of what you did in the past. Hell, you could probably get SC if you are a paedophile, as long as you declare it - show you can't be blackmailed because of it - and don't work with children.

You have to demonstrate that you can be trusted - and failing to declare something which is clearly relevant gets you off to a very bad start.

[wim121]

You have to demonstrate that you can be trusted - and failing to declare something which is clearly relevant gets you off to a very bad start.

Exactly!

Funnily enough, that post made me feel better!



Another thought springs to mind. The OP might need to be as honest as possible and not sugar coat the offense. I recall years ago, when it was leaked that MI5 had enough database space to store a massive dossier on every single person in the UK, they stated they only held files on people working within government, etc.

So it could be entirely possible, that not only the charge was recorded as an offense on CRB papers, but the entire transgression and account of the act is stored elsewhere and available for SC checks, perhaps?

[centurian]

The thing is - there's no real need for MI5 to maintain a database of everyone - the private sector beat them to it years ago - there are already so many databases out there with public information anyway.

When I went to open a business bank account, I watched them as they typed my name and LtdCo into their systems and within 10 seconds, they had my company accounts for the last 5 years, cross referenced to me as a director at my home address etc.

All the information is there - the trick is cross referencing it - and identifying the black flags.

[wim121]

Very true.

Recently Ive had a passport issued, the face to face interview was surprising!

They referenced credit checks and everything. Knew who all my home bills were with, everyone in household, who I brought the house from, who I banked with and what services I held, everything! They knew more about me, than I do! They made me remember things I forgot years ago.

Apparently to protect me from identity theft! Then they sent me my biometric passport in a marked passport envelope that didnt have a metal lining to protect from handheld scanners.

[SueEllen]

The OP might need to be as honest as possible and not sugar coat the offense.

The thing is he isn't sugar coating the offence he's trying to make up excuses why he was dishonest.

The fact is anyone who wants to give him a chance will get pissed off with his excuses on why what he did was wrong wasn't his fault and as a result won't give him the chance.

[nomadd]

...he's trying to make up excuses why he was dishonest.

...pissed off with his excuses...

What have I learned reading this entire thread? That life, and SueEllen, are both harsh mistresses!

(Ps. To the OP: Follow the advice you've been given; simply own up now and avoid any nasty consequences later. You WILL be caught out if you don't.)