[TamDenholm]

I've been coding for 20 years (UK) and done mainly contracting primarily in the private sector and never once had to go through any checks. Also in 99% of gigs i've taken, the number 1 factor in getting hired is "can you do the job", thats it. While obviously the industry skews very young, i've worked with plenty techies over 50 that have been hired because they have experience, and quite simply, they can do the job.

If you stick to the private sector, the convictions wont even come up unless you bring them up and i think it would be rare to come up against ageism, and if you do, then simply, you dont want to work for those companies anyway.

Talk to some recruiters, tell them your skillset and see what they've got, I wouldnt bother mentioning the convictions because i personally dont see them as relevant (because whats relevant is, can you do the job), and they'll come back with options. If they talk about government or bank work, just say you'll pass on those and would rather work for a private company. I have the same preference purely due to my distaste for paperwork and beaurocracy, private companies are easier to deal with.

I suggest trying to reframe your mindset to evidence based, rather than assumption based. Right now you're making a lot of assumptions that you wont be successful without having any evidence of such. You have a lot of valuable skills, go and assess the marketplace, in my opinion, you can be successful.

[mpeg]

In finance/fintech and anything related, DBS checks are very common in the UK.

FWIW I've been checked by several employers throughout my career – and generally none of them warned me beforehand, I just got the letter from DBS letting me know they had

[ranko]

I'm pretty sure that they can't do it without your consent (and cooperation) - they at least have to verify your identity documents (name, address, DOB, etc), get a list of your addresses for the last five years, enter your driving license number, and probably other information too.

[comprev]

In NL the background check is very specific. If you've been convicted of drink-driving the record won't show up if the role is finance related due to the narrow scope.

[ethbr0]

Great advice and wholly agreed that a recruiter is the way to go. I'm more familiar with the US than UK employment market, but if things work similarly, this is the obvious path.

1) Good recruiters will bypass some of the HR confusion (misunderstanding team requirements, etc)

2) You have a valuable set of skills and are looking for a specific type of job. Recruiters are better about this than blind applying

Furthermore, the "What industry?" question will be an excellent opportunity to avoid processes where your conviction is likely to impact. People have legitimate reasons for wanting to avoid heavily-regulated industries (boring, slow), so it's not an odd question.

I would say if you go through recruiters, be aware (in the US at least) there are good recruiters (who have a line on positions and work hard) and bad recruiters (who are trying to bootstrap a rep by "representing" as many people exclusively as they can). Be extremely suspicious before signing any exclusivity contracts with one.

[wackro]

Recruiters in the UK are not the same as recruiters in the US.

As a contractor in the UK, I've had to deal with them many times. The recruiting industry here has a reputation for cut throat, scumbag practices. Lying about open job applications, cold calling to fish for info on your current role, ghosting you after you make an application with them, chronic time wasting/giving false hope. These are some of what you can expect. There are, of course, good recruiters - more 'human' ones. They're rare, but you'll know when you've got one. I have some saved in my phone.

If you are firm with them you can avoid them wasting your time. But to rely on them is a mistake.

Good luck OP. Also +1 for contracting in private sector because the B2B nature of it avoids checks.

Edit: seems like other people have had contracts with clauses around prev convictions, so maybe ask for a blank contract ahead of time.

[ru552]

Any suggestions on good recruiters in the US?

[yurishimo]

I would also be interested to know this. All the recruiters I have interfaced with (granted, not many) have been crap.

[Nextgrid]

To be fair, a lot of contracts have a clause to confirm that you don't have any unspent convictions. Granted, you can lie and indeed it probably will never be discovered but that's fraud.

[mostlystatic]

I just checked 5 contracts I had from around 2015, and only one mentioned convictions. Specifically:

> The Supplier warrants:

> that the Consultant has no criminal convictions which would reasonably affect the Company's and/or the Client's decision to allow the Consultant access to the Location(s), the Client's Systems or to provide the Services;

[rich_sasha]

> fraud.

Depends on locale. In the UK (IANAL) it wouldn't be _fraud_, but would be grounds to terminating the contract. But not criminal.

Employer could potentially sue for damages, but there must be some damages for that.

[wheels]

And in Germany, it would be illegal to ask unless it was specifically relevant to the job – and courts have specifically decided that you can lie if you're asked and it's not relevant. The US tends to really overreach on that sort of thing, but it's not universal. It may even be that picking contracts in the EU would be useful.

[Scarblac]

> It may even be that picking contracts in the EU would be useful.

After Brexit he'd need a work permit for that, and I assume convictions are a factor with those.

[jen20]

One only needs a work permit if physically in the EU country, not working remotely from the UK.

[Nextgrid]

Thanks - this is a very good point and looks hopeful for the OP. To the OP I suggest to confirm this with a lawyer; if it's indeed not criminal and the worst outcome of a lie is termination and a civil lawsuit (which requires proving damages) it might be worth betting on it.

[throwaway301010]

The advantage of being an ex-lawyer is I do know this to be a criminal offence!

[mytailorisrich]

Fraud by false representation is a thing in the UK so I suspect that it might depend on the circumstances and the seriousness of the case but IANAL.

[chrisseaton]

People describe anything and everything they don't agree with as 'fraud'.

[throwaway301010]

Having had a conviction I don't want to pick up one for lying on my CV. In jail I knew someone convicted for just that, though I think it is rare.

[cschep]

Lying on resumes is so common, how on earth did someone go to jail for it?

[throwaway301010]

yea, definitely struck me as odd too, most people bullshit a bit on CVs so whether there was more to it I don't know: TBH you don't usually ask people for details of why they're inside - it can get ... problematic.

[unixhero]

I have never seen that clause.

And that may not be fraud of you have a lawyer analyse it.

[123pie123]

good answer, I would say that ageism is definately reducing in the UK

one extra tip would to try and get some experience that you can put on your CV. eg do some opensource programming - looks good

[robocat]

OP will have solicitor on their CV followed by a period of unemployment. Also if their name is Googled, it seems likely their conviction or disbarment would show up.

I would expect that they need to be honest about the conviction when asked. There are a lot of ways to present that as a positive. For example, saying that they will be very committed to a position because it is so difficult to get a job.

[_joel]

I've been working in the UK for just as long, if not longer, I've gone through multiple DBS checks.

[nailer]

Sure but in what industry? Fintech, or other tech?

[zerkten]

It doesn't matter about industry as much as size and maturity of the organisation. There are different types of DBS checks listed on https://www.gov.uk/dbs-check-applicant-criminal-record and pulling a basic one is the default. In any event, I'd get the information that is being shown in the DBS check so that I could see what an employer may be seeing. That makes it easier to challenge.

That link also mentions the requirements around an ex-offender policy that the company needs to have. I'd request that if I was declined, to ensure the employer is actually following a process. If not, there could be some room for negotiation.

Smaller organizations that are not in regulated industries will be better bets for the original poster. Finance, pharma, healthcare, education etc. are all regulated industries and will have to maintain some level of compliance. How well they do it will vary, but if you aren't flagged initially, you may well be flagged later on. This happens all the time. Small FinTech specialises in trying to skirt the boundary of compliance at times, so you may find that some are laxer than others.

A sweet spot might be software efforts supporting manufacturing or marketing. There are a lot of agencies that build smaller software for large organisations that don't do these in-depth checks and are often building/demoing in their own environment before handing everything over to the company or providing the hosting so that a department can run shadow IT.

[nailer]

I have a completely different experience than “pulling a DBS check is a default”. Fintech yes, other startups and tech giants have never asked me.

[_joel]

Actually never in fintech! Cloud, broadcasting, consultancy, engineering services, pharma and the like.

[cloogshicer]

Great answer, can only confirm this, even for employment, not only contracting. Go for it!