Influential criminal justice charity campaigning for removal of minor 'gender specific' offences from DBS checks

[catinboots9]

Apologies for the clunky title

www.unlock.org.uk/call-for-evidence-dbs-checks-transgender/

Surely all 'gender specific' offences of of a sexual nature???

do they mean 'sex-specific' as in, one must own a penis in order to commit this crime, or 'gender-specific' as in reflective of male pattern criminality?

Surely there can't be many minor offences that fall into the first category?

Nor indeed the latter as male pattern criminality is violent while female pattern is property-based?

What like rape? Because I thought you need a penis to be guilty of rape? That’s such a good idea isn’t it, not checking to see if someone’s a rapist before letting them work with kids, vunverable people!

The Times - Trans person seeks to rewrite their criminal history on basis of 'privacy'
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3360110-The-Times-Trans-person-seeks-to-rewrite-their-criminal-history-on-basis-of-privacy

Couple of relevant threads. Busy day so am dumping but will come back later.

To think rapists shouldn't have the right to have their crimes forgotten?
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/3361942-To-think-rapists-shouldnt-have-the-right-to-have-their-crimes-forgotten

Well hello there, Trojan Horse.

I dont think this is a campaign to filter out spent prostitution convictions; this person wants to hide the fact that your counsellor is a trans woman.

The counselling relationship is based on mutual trust and informed consent.

Ffs EVERYONE will be able to tell whether someone is male if female just by looking. There clearly is another reason why tw sex offenders would like to have their offences struck from the record. Now, I wonder what reason there could possibly be...?

Unlock is shouting out to transgender people, Stonewall, Teli and the rest for "evidence"

Isn't it usual to start a campaign with evidence of a need?

twitter.com/unlockcharity/status/1041975728647090176?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3Aunlockcharity%7Ctwcon%5Etimelinechrome&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unlock.org.uk%2F

I think they want to filter out that they were gay. But I think the same phrase was used for having sex with an underage male? Need a lawyer to explain 'importune'.

"The current criminal record disclosure rules are unnecessarily harsh and disproportionate – they mean that standard and enhanced DBS checks continue to disclose old, minor and irrelevant offences that often happened decades ago. This means people can feel like they are effectively serving a life sentence for minor offences that they committed in their youth."

WTAF?
Enhanced disclosure is specifically for those people who are working closely and unsupervised with vulnerable children and adults.
It specifically includes intelligence rather than just convictions because this was brought in after it was apparent that Ian Huntley had been interviewed for a number of similar alleged offences against girls in different areas though not prosecuted. There was a pattern.
The CRB system was created specifically in response to the horrific murders of Holly Wells & Jessica Chapman

It is quite common for organisations to be advised of 'minor historical' offences following applicant's DBS check. They will have policies in place to deal with this appropriately and sensitively.

The point of the enhanced DBS check is to safeguard

This is so dangerous, it is lunacy

OK so here's a potential solution: adopt the Nordic model and retrospectively wipe out all historical convictions that directly arose from being prostituted.

All the benefits and none of the drawbacks

So the person in question is asking for offences that state that she was a man to be removed.
However, the offences are of a sexual nature.
So, even if they can be ignored (are not relevant to the job in question - e.g. offences against the person do not prohibit you doing a financial services job but you still need a DBS in case you've been convicted of fraud), they should NOT be removed.

Rewording would seem to be absolutely fine where there is an equivalent offence only - keep it as "importuning" and the holder of the DBS (and in this case the GRC) still has a criminal record for a sexual offence which may or may not be relevant to their new job.

There's no female equivalent to rape.

Yes SpartacusAutisticus. And sort the victimised from the perpetrators which after all is what you want in questions of safeguarding.

That someone who is using their credentials as a trained counsellor to push for this change raises further questions about counselling.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3339137-BACP-Gender-Sexual-and-Relationship-Diversity-by-Dr-Meg-John-Barker

The defence that offences should be mitigated by a person's want to transition is referenced in the report of Karen Lawson's attempted rape:
(extract)
"Lawson, under his original name of Mark John Jones, was sentenced to life imprisonment after a court heard he had tried to rape a woman last October.

The court was told Lawson had forced a lemon into the woman's mouth, punched her in the face and held her by the hair in a back room of the shop.

The attack happened just days after Lawson had been released from jail on licence after serving part of a five-year sentence for the manslaughter of his partner Michael Cutler, after he reneged on a deal to pay for his sex-change operation.

Beverley Lunt, prosecuting, said Lawson's victim had been in fear for her life in the attack.

But Lisa Judge, defending, said while she did not wish to trivialise what had happened to the victim, it was important to realise that Lawson had also been a victim, as he had not been given any real help for his problems by the authorities.

She said Lawson had suffered in childhood, both from peers and his stepfather, who had forced him to have degrading images of women tattooed on his body.

She said that Lawson, who had been living in a women's bail hostel following his release on licence, had committed the crime because he wanted to go back to prison.

There, he thought, he would be given treatment for his condition.

Judge Derwent Hope said according to the law, he had no option but to give Lawson a life sentence because he did not deem the problems as, "exceptional circumstances," which would have allowed him to do otherwise." (Continues)
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jail-for-rape-bid-by-sex-change-man-1150286

Lawson's subsequent succesful appeal to be moved to the female prison estate set the legal and policy precedents for the current housing of transgender prisoners by the MofJ.

current threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3369090-To-ask-you-to-care-that-ANOTHER-paedophile-MALE-who-targeted-girls-who-claims-to-be-a-woman-has-been-moved-to-a-womans-prison-Having-got-a-GRC-IN-PRISON-FFS

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3370578-House-of-Commons-report-on-Trans-Prisoners-Published-today

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3370661-2009-case-of-a-judge-ordering-an-intact-male-rapist-into-a-female-prison-because-he-had-a-GRC

Putting aside other issues - the implication of this is the fact that if someone requests a therapist of a specific sex the request cannot be honoured.

If the employer doesn't know, then you might have Helen allocated to you if you've specifically requested a woman therapist. And I assume that you wouldn't be able to refuse Helen and request another.

Putting aside other issues - the implication of this is the fact that if someone requests a therapist of a specific sex the request cannot be honoured.

If the employer doesn't know, then you might have Helen allocated to you if you've specifically requested a woman therapist. And I assume that you wouldn't be able to refuse Helen and request another.

Wasn't this a key issue in Canada with a charity working with women who had been raped? The charity was tied up with legislation after a transwoman wanted to become a counseller. After some time and a greatdeal of money, the charity was successful in upholding its policy.

the implication of this is the fact that if someone requests a therapist of a specific sex the request cannot be honoured

I must be missing something. Isnt't there already a problem if you can only request a same-sex therapist on condition any trans therapists in the organisation have inadvertently revealed their status by having previously committed a gender-specific crime?

think it could be of benefit to women who have been prostituted.
I don't see how. A DBS check is for a job that involves trust in a way other jobs do not. They're looking for specific crimes, including crimes against the person, which soliciting is not. Plus the DBS check isn't done before a job offer. So the chance of a previously prostituted woman applying for a position of trust, being successful, getting DBS checked and then having the job offer withdrawn because of an offence which didn't involve drugs, fraud or offences against the person is a pretty small one. And that convoluted scenario is the only one that justifies this attempt to water down safeguarding measures. Who is more likely to benefit, a woman in the situation I described or a predatory man with previous low level convictions for inappropriate sexual behaviour? It won't just be soliciting etc on there, no doubt public urination or public indecency etc will be next. Some sob story about a poor guy desperate for a wee or a likely lad who mooned the crowd on a rugby tour etc.
For the very specific example on the link, there should be a way to ask the courts to retrospectively change the conviction to soliciting from importuning. So prospective employers will still see the crime, but the legal fiction of the individual being a woman will be maintained. That is of course if we choose to maintain the idea of legally becoming the opposite sex.

Ffs EVERYONE will be able to tell whether someone is male if female just by looking.
Honestly no. There are some who pass completely. It's just very rare, and as the proportion of AGPs increases the percentage who was becomes smaller.

It isn't just about the specifics of this case. The focus is wider:

"The current criminal record disclosure rules are unnecessarily harsh and disproportionate – they mean that standard and enhanced DBS checks continue to disclose old, minor and irrelevant offences that often happened decades ago. This means people can feel like they are effectively serving a life sentence for minor offences that they committed in their youth."

Laws set precedants... cf Karen Dawson / Karen White