This is such a good peek behind the curtain. I was recently provisionally offered a job which required DV - and I failed at the first hurdle because I've been living outside the UK for the past 5 years. A computer-says-no kind of thing, particularly given that I was hired because of my experience working outside the UK - but whatever, such is life. But then a few weeks later I find out that Peter Mandelson passed DV, Epstein friendship and all, and my mild irritation has turned into full on what-the-actual-fuckness. A flawed system, indeed.
Yes the overseas residence bit is especially stupid. Imagine having a system which weeds out of the FCDO and MI6 people that have *too much* international experience. 🤦♂️
The face palm emoji absolutely sums up my reaction when I realised that. The only positive is that at least they realised that at the beginning, rather than putting me through the whole rigmarole and THEN realising it.
Remembering the time when UKVS sent a paper copy of all - ALL - of my DV answers to my office address by second class post, to clarify one point. Wonderful.
It has improved a little in recent years and vetting officers seem more inclusive, but I know of those who are blackmailable (that’s what vetting for, I think) and were still cleared.
An excellent account if I may say so. I was DVd three times. In the first one (1981) my vet Mr "Merry" ("as in Christmas") with regulation raincoat, wanted to know if I'd had any affairs with married women. I was 22 and the only married women I knew were my parents' friends! My referee, a schoolfriend, was asked if there had been "any incidents" with boys at the single sex school. His brilliant reply: "oh it wasn't that sort of school"!
Much more chummy when I did it. I don't remember any questions at all, just a chat. I was a bit alarmed when I found that a friend I had nominated was living in a squat with some fellow agitators but the vetter simply commented "charming fellow, your friend Michael, we had a difference of opinion over the interpretation of Couperin's harpsichord pieces, though."
Similar process in Australia with the added idiocy that it takes 6 months to get vetted, the department is usually desperate for you to start, and so you end up working on a waiver anyway!
I never went for the top level of vetting because I thought it was unreasonably intrusive (the questions also went to my partners finances and sex life and drug habits). I assured successive bosses that yes yes I’d get around to it, and then just… didn’t.
One of my staff failed the process because he was involved with a very small charity that helps Sri Lankan refugees settle here and the vetter thought there was a chance it might be a cover for terrorism activity.
It’s a farce and just another example of performative security that wastes time
This is such a good peek behind the curtain. I was recently provisionally offered a job which required DV - and I failed at the first hurdle because I've been living outside the UK for the past 5 years. A computer-says-no kind of thing, particularly given that I was hired because of my experience working outside the UK - but whatever, such is life. But then a few weeks later I find out that Peter Mandelson passed DV, Epstein friendship and all, and my mild irritation has turned into full on what-the-actual-fuckness. A flawed system, indeed.
Yes the overseas residence bit is especially stupid. Imagine having a system which weeds out of the FCDO and MI6 people that have *too much* international experience. 🤦♂️
The face palm emoji absolutely sums up my reaction when I realised that. The only positive is that at least they realised that at the beginning, rather than putting me through the whole rigmarole and THEN realising it.
Remembering the time when UKVS sent a paper copy of all - ALL - of my DV answers to my office address by second class post, to clarify one point. Wonderful.
It has improved a little in recent years and vetting officers seem more inclusive, but I know of those who are blackmailable (that’s what vetting for, I think) and were still cleared.
An excellent account if I may say so. I was DVd three times. In the first one (1981) my vet Mr "Merry" ("as in Christmas") with regulation raincoat, wanted to know if I'd had any affairs with married women. I was 22 and the only married women I knew were my parents' friends! My referee, a schoolfriend, was asked if there had been "any incidents" with boys at the single sex school. His brilliant reply: "oh it wasn't that sort of school"!
Could you elaborate on your last sentence. I have my own view about Johnson, but Truss?
Much more chummy when I did it. I don't remember any questions at all, just a chat. I was a bit alarmed when I found that a friend I had nominated was living in a squat with some fellow agitators but the vetter simply commented "charming fellow, your friend Michael, we had a difference of opinion over the interpretation of Couperin's harpsichord pieces, though."
Similar process in Australia with the added idiocy that it takes 6 months to get vetted, the department is usually desperate for you to start, and so you end up working on a waiver anyway!
I never went for the top level of vetting because I thought it was unreasonably intrusive (the questions also went to my partners finances and sex life and drug habits). I assured successive bosses that yes yes I’d get around to it, and then just… didn’t.
One of my staff failed the process because he was involved with a very small charity that helps Sri Lankan refugees settle here and the vetter thought there was a chance it might be a cover for terrorism activity.
It’s a farce and just another example of performative security that wastes time