Used my mom's freedom pass, got caught and received a letter from TFL:

[some bloke]

Please don't say your offence was fare evasion! That would have involved dishonesty. Your offence was having no valid ticket for the area you were in.

 

[Llanigraham]

Of course I would declare it at the start of the process, I was just wondering if it would disqualify me immediately…

The only people who can give you an answer to that question are the people offering the post, not an internet forum.

 

[najaB]

Of course I would declare it at the start of the process, I was just wondering if it would disqualify me immediately…

That depends entirely on the job so there's no way we can provide a conclusive answer.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If you are working for the government or any of its agency then I would expect at minimum, a Standard check, but would not be surprised if they went for an Enhanced check. If you are going to work with children or vulnerable people then the government agency will go straight to Enhanced

I would be up front and declare immediately, at least you've shown honesty from the start and won't be anxious for the rest of your time wondering if you would get found out

 

[Haywain]

Of course I would declare it at the start of the process, I was just wondering if it would disqualify me immediately…

As others have said, there's only one way of finding out...

 

[87 027]

The clearance form states the following

"In accordance with the Government's policy on vetting you must declare any matter of relevance. This includes any criminal convictions you may have, including those which are 'spent'... You must disclose all convictions whether or not spent under the [Rehabilitation of Offenders] Acts.

The relevance of particular criminal convictions to security clearance is a matter for the relevant department or agency to decide. Although it may be taken into account, any such information will not necessarily prevent you having a security clearance.

Failure to disclose relevant circumstances or information is likely of itself to be regarded as evidence of unreliability and will be taken into account in assessing your suitability for security clearance."

Conviction means for any offence in any country and includes motoring offences and on-the-spot fines, other than for parking offences. It also includes cautions and pending actions.

 

[oz220]

There are 5 different levels of security clearance in government. The most basic one is BPSS which won’t show your recent issue. Level 5 is DV clearance. This costs around 10k to get and takes around 6 months to complete. They will know everything about you already including your internet browsing, Travel history, everything but will just want you to be honest.

There are 3 levels between these so ultimately it will depend what job you have applied for and what clearance they are looking for. Mostly it will just be the basic level so you have nothing to worry about.

Even SC clearance is quiet basic. It only took me 2 weeks to receive this. Although I am aware of people that were refused SC clearance for one reason or another.

 

[some bloke]

The most basic one is BPSS which won’t show your recent issue.

Regardless of the limitations of criminal record checks, the employer is entitled to honest answers as to all unspent convictions.

 

[najaB]

Regardless of the limitations of criminal record checks, the employer is entitled to honest answers as to all unspent convictions.

Where the highest clearance levels are concerned even spent convictions need to be declared since they will be seen.

 

[some bloke]

Where the highest clearance levels are concerned even spent convictions need to be declared

Yes - as in @87 027's text above. The lowest level, BPSS, isn't officially "security clearance" (paragraph 9 in the document below).

@Dyda, if you want the official guidance to BPSS, it's here. Paragraphs 47 onwards deal with declaring convictions and government consideration of them.

I can't think of a good reason why they would automatically reject a person working in IT on seeing they had a conviction like yours - for something that could have an innocent explanation (and that doesn't prove a high degree of incompetence either).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-baseline-personnel-security-standard

 

[87 027]

The form that needs to be completed for the next 2 levels of check above BPSS is available online. It gives you an idea of the level of detail that has to be provided

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-counter-terrorist-check-questionnaire-nsv001

The highest level, DV, is a whole different ball game but I doubt of relevance in this case

 

[Dyda]

BPSS which won’t show your recent issue

Thank you, it won't show but I will want to declare it anyway.

Mostly it will just be the basic level so you have nothing to worry about.

I have nothing to worry about if I don't declare it? (I will declare it) or I have nothing to worry about even if I declare it?

 

[Dyda]

Regardless of the limitations of criminal record checks, the employer is entitled to honest answers as to all unspent convictions.

Yes I agree with that of course. The problem is that they never ask! I think they just assume I (and/or the candidates in general) will be cleared. They don't even mention security clearance at all!. During all my interviews they mention that potentially I would be working on some projects for the government, but they never mention that it entails security clearance. I only found out about it by chance while browsing the internet.
So if they don't ask, don't even mention it, I don't say anything... Is that wrong?

 

[najaB]

So if they don't ask, don't even mention it, I don't say anything... Is that wrong?

No. You can't be penalised for not disclosing something that you were never asked about. But take a very careful look to make sure that the requirement to disclose isn't tucked away somewhere that's not obvious.

 

[35B]

Yes I agree with that of course. The problem is that they never ask! I think they just assume I (and/or the candidates in general) will be cleared. They don't even mention security clearance at all!. During all my interviews they mention that potentially I would be working on some projects for the government, but they never mention that it entails security clearance. I only found out about it by chance while browsing the internet.
So if they don't ask, don't even mention it, I don't say anything... Is that wrong?

I work for a firm that does government work, and where staff have clearances. If a clearance is required for a role, it is specifically applied for, and the employee knows they are in a clearance process. That is part of how the clearance works.

What you mention, or whether you mention anything, must depend on the question being asked. But you need to read carefully what is being asked of you, and in particular understand whether obtaining clearance is a condition of the job, and then decide what is appropriate.

Those are questions that this forum cannot answer for you, and where the answers you’ve seen give you as much information as you can hope for.