Should a 'special' group of people be allowed to hide their criminal history?

If the law is changed surely the risk to others is rather more than the risk to the trans individual ...?

I'll also add that until that point I was full on TWAW; I think that it's taken a lot of scales falling from my eyes (and reading the feminism boards here) to get to where I am now, I've not said this anywhere before but I think I'm in camp GC.

One of the things that really got me is that before I found out who she actually was, I fully swallowed everything she told me - she was a butch lesbian who was also an equality campaigner, getting paid gigs for e&d training with public sector services like the ambulance service. I talked to her about my experiences of sexual assault, she told me about hers.. but forgot to mention she was a fucking perpetrator as well as a victim. I actually asked her if she'd run for our local rape crisis in a half marathon :ffs:

I found out everything just after she did the HOL talk. To say I felt a bit misled and disgusted with myself for being so naive is an understatement. I was absolutely horrified to find out that her past was just being completely dismissed and that she was being put in the stunning and brave category, as it were.

@NonnyMouse1337

I think that the people that invited her clearly stated that they don't care about her past/convictions, whether or not they knew about them before she was invited.

So could someone then get a conviction for something that happened to them before transition?

How is it justice for the victim when it is then denied that the crime ever took place? Where is the victim’s voice in this? What happens if the victim then says ‘they assaulted me’ to the press, do they get done for slander as if it never happened? Does the press just say ‘shush’ to the victim? What if they haven’t been charged yet?

I don’t think women will get a free pass somehow. It’s not the way it works.

@Soubriquet
I’ll go on a murder spree, then transition and have it all erased from my file as it was crimes I committed whilst I was a woman and I don’t want people to know my past as a woman

Go for it! I don't think you'll actually need to hide your past though.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5440153/Trans-convict-invited-speak-House-Lords.html
Apologies for the DM link

I knew Karen Jones/Lawson a couple of years ago; at the time, she was job-hopping between manager positions at McDonald's/BK etc.

I wondered if she'd disclosed her previous convictions (all before she transitioned), and if she had, how on earth she'd landed positions that had her in a night manager job with staff who could have been under 18.

Then again, Lord Patel said that she'd done her time and was a perfectly acceptable guest at the House of Lords to speak about LGBT equality, so :shrug:

Fab

I’ll go on a murder spree, then transition and have it all erased from my file as it was crimes I committed whilst I was a woman and I don’t want people to know my past as a woman

Seriously, if this goes through, we will see crimes rocketing and then being wiped

Like a Bugsy Malone speakeasy...

Lifelong registration as a sex offender was held to be a breach of human rights law, so convicted offenders have the right to appeal. Of those that do around 3/4 are removed from the requirement to register with the police when they move or change jobs.

''Data on applications from criminals in England and Wales that was released to The Daily Mail shows that only 363 of 1,288 requests by offenders were denied by police between 2016 and 2018.''
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/03/nearly-three-quarters-sex-offenders-removed-official-register/

Along with the right to erase your past, this creates two loopholes that people responsible for recruitment and safeguarding should be aware of.

What's a "clip joint"?

A clip joint was a club or bar where 'adult entertainment' was offered, the cost of drinks was exorbitant, and customers were encouraged to run up a slate so that they didn't know until the end of the evening the true cost. If they couldn't pay the outrageous sum demanded, or objected, they were given short shrift by the security staff.

Billy Bragg prattles on about accountability...

...and then is completely blind to criminals with a special filter being able to use the special filter to hide from equal accountability.

This is actually one of my biggest concerns around GRA: the idea that the right to privacy (good thing) will cover all previous names and crimes on a DBS or enhanced DBS check (bad thing). As a woman, if I apply for certain things I have to list all my previous names - but as a trans man (if this happens the way I think it will happen) I wouldn't have to?

Tell me again how women have more rights than trans people??

Christopher Stacey, director of Unlock, a support group that is backing the case and seeking other potential claimants, said the law risked “outing” transgender people.

Why should transgender people be given the special privilege of hiding who they are? For other people who change their identities (people who change their names or nationality, for example) their previous identities are kept on record.

One of the reasons for the GRA was about someone not being outed as a transsexual to the general public, but there was consensus that the person's previously identity should be retained in official records for those who need to know.

LangCleg wrote Thu 21-Feb-19

"How did the scandal of TV entertainers grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of Catholic priests grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of on-street gangs grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

Because if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3512177-Julia-Long-asking-Munro-Bergdorf-about-child-exploitation?pg=12

I mean in the case of in the U.K. where someone is convicted of a crime and let out but they are given a new identity (for their own safety usually). However - that doesn’t mean that people like the James Bulger murderers should ever be allowed 100miles near a child.

I think generally in these cases the person is given a criminal record - just a more “generic” one.

I mean in the case of in the U.K. where someone is convicted of a crime and let out but they are given a new identity (for their own safety usually). However - that doesn’t mean that people like the James Bulger murderers should ever be allowed 100miles near a child.

Agreed.
Crimes should not be wiped clear, unless they are things like being charged for being gay.