Dear readers, I'm currently making an application to obtain SC Clearance for a job I've recently been offered with a defense contractor in the UK. My problem is, as a young adult I was convicted of assault on two occasions, in both instances I received a fine as the matters were very minor. I understand that criminal convictions are a very serious subject when it concerns matters such as security clearance and that it is likely my application will be rejected. In general I'm a good citizen and a hard working individual I just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm in the process of writing up my PhD and have not since been involved in any trouble with the police. Would having two convictions mean my application is rejected right away? If so is there an appeal process I could go through? Any advise on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Bob

I am applying for a job in a call centre for a well known transport company. This is a simple helpdesk job. There's no mention of CRB or DBS in the job description and it is definitely not a job that involves working with minors or vulnerable people. Almost at the end of a very long online application I get asked: "Do you have any cautions or criminal convictions?" There is no mention of whether they are spent or unspent. I do have a caution and a minor conviction (paid with a fine) circa 20 years ago, and that is definitely spent. There is no way to call the HR or personnel dept by phone or email. I am tempted to say "No" and then explain this at an eventual interview, but I fear they could use this against me later in case they meant asking for spent convictions. How should I behave in this case?

Is there any way that you can check a court case result Online. My wife's niece got caught driving well over the limit and refused to supply a blood sample. She also had no insurance on the car. She is telling us that she got a £200 fine plus driving licence cancelled for 6 months. I thought 1 year was mandatory for being over the limit and another year for no insurance? She was caught because there had been previous complaints about her erratic driving as she is basically an alcoholic. She was stopped as a neighbour reported her plus the police witnessed her weaving down the road. Also I thought the fine would be a lot higher. Quite frankly we don't believe her, but we have no way of checking unless someone can advise.

Have just seen this on the BBC Local news.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-22686167 Motorists are being advised to contact a solicitor immediately if they believe they have been wrongly convicted.

Thousands of speeding convictions could be overturned because the wrong font was used on signs along parts of the M42 near Birmingham. The Crown Prosecution Service told Warwickshire Police in November 2012 that the numbers on the variable speed limit signs were too tall and narrow and may not have complied with traffic regulations. As a result police stopped using the signs between junctions 3a and 7, and 7 to 9, as a means of enforcement and dropped prosecutions it was going to go ahead with relating to affected stretches of the motorway. The Highways Agency said it believed they were the right size and were clearly visible. In a statement they described it as a "minor discrepancy". "The signs were considered to meet the appropriate standards when they were installed and became operational. "Following queries that suggested that this may not be the case, the Highways Agency clarified the issue and a specific authorisation was signed in November 2012." In a separate statement Warwickshire Police said the Department for Transport has now granted authorisation for all of the signs and officers recommenced enforcement of the cameras on January 1 2013. It said: "There were no issues as to the accuracy of the speed cameras or as to whether the signs were fully illuminated showing the correct speed limit when the cameras detected offences. "The Statutory Instrument imposing the speed limit was also lawful." Despite this some lawyers now want to see all previous speeding convictions for the six years the signs were in place along the M42 quashed. Neil Davies, a lawyer, said: "These are signs which haven't had the appropriate authority over a period of time. "That has now been rectified, but what we would say is that whilst these signs weren't properly authorised that there is an argument to say that motorists were wrongly prosecuted. "The real issue here is that there has been a disparity in the way people have been treated." Similar signs have been used on other motorways so the number of people affected could be wide reaching. The signs are used to reduce congestion on busy stretches of motorway. Original here : http://news.sky.com/story/1062548/speeding-fines-m42-used-wrong-font-on-signs