Does theDBS Sensitve Application Route for trans applicants undermines the value of a DBS check and pose a safeguarding issue

Surely this is the case.

Does anyone actually know what would happen in the scenario I have outlined:

Man rapes and is convicted of rape. "Transitions" following this and changes his name. Released from prison. Goes through the "sensitive application" process during which time they become aware that he is a convicted rapist in a male name.

What gets put on the certificate?

So any offenders can change thier name via deed poll, in prison and get all new ID and by pass this.

I'm so confused by what happens when chdcks take place.. It seems to rely on convicted criminals being hones

I do know Keeping Chikdren Safe in Education recommends having a birth certificate as one of the forms of ID now.

The reason why all trans people use the special helpline is not because it hides criminal convictions, its that it hides their sex.

If they don't go through the helpline, there's a risk previous, or legal names are disclosed to anyone who sees the dbs. The dbs ensures that none but the name the recipient wants is disclosed. And they dont have to have a GRC to have access to this service.

So a government department has said that this person is called x and has no criminal record. Not only are they hiding legal or previous names from employers, they are hiding the sex or legitimising the idea that they are the opposite sex.

If the dbs holder is obviously male, and the employer understand the law clearly, they can treate the person as their real sex.

But we know the law is confusing, so they might just as easily assume they have a GRC or think they have to treat them as the opposite sex because the government sees them as the opposite sex.

Its worse if they do pass, or pass enough for people to be unsure. Then they may be given access to situations that they shouldn't.

Let's never lose sight of the fact that the trans lobby wanted trans adults to have exceptions to the standard DBS process so that they are not exposed to the same scrutiny that every other adult has to undergo.

This. If trans is acceptable, why is the fact that trans people have had different names so outrageous. Why would knowing someones previous names be so damaging that a helpline needs to be set up?

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · Today 11:33

Problem is passport office and drivers license will change the sex marker and name without a grc so if someone has done that they can give new names and not contact the sensitive helpline

Ah yes, of course - pardon my fluffy head!

Let's never lose sight of the fact that the trans lobby wanted trans adults to have exceptions to the standard DBS process so that they are not exposed to the same scrutiny that every other adult has to undergo. And that's a row of 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

No exceptions with safeguarding children.
No special privileges.
No sacred castes.
No more 🚩🚩🚩🚩.

But their previous name will be uncovered in the check surely ? I had a DBS and didn't include my middle name, I hadn't used it for 20 years and it wasn't on my passport or anything. They still found it and contacted me about it.

As a side point, I think a transwoman not wanting the previous male name revealed incase it 'outs' her is living in a dream. I've never met a transwoman that passed irl, and I've met a lot of transwomen. It's usually blindingly obvious.

Problem is passport office and drivers license will change the sex marker and name without a grc so if someone has done that they can give new names and not contact the sensitive helpline

The purpose of a dbs is to tell you about specific things relating to convictions. If it still tells you those things it's not an issue.

I'm just still not clear if it tells you those things from this but I think it does.

How could it though? For eg Karen White, convicted rapist, real name Steven Wood. Despite being a sex offender White is as entitled as anyone to use the "sensitive applications" (which exclusively applies to people who identify as the opposite sex) process. He is entitled to not have his DBS show his sex or any of his previous convictions. Imagine that this convicted rapist had honestly declared to the DBS team that he had changed his name. Now as it stands I think he would have at least one rape conviction under his new name. But what if the conviction was only under the old name?

Does anyone know if the information that he was a convicted rapist under another identity would even be communicated, or how it would be without revealing name? Or would it come back with the conviction but not former name or that he's a man? I'm not clear on this.

If the dbs process is about criminal records, why are they getting involved with hiding someone's sex when they arent in a position to investigate why someone might be motivation to hide their sex.

Because "trans" trumps everything.

I can't actually see if the law trying to prevent offenders changing thier name got through parliament or not though.

I don't think so.

TWETMIRF · 09/11/2024 00:07

You don't have to give a birth certificate as one of your pieces of ID. Perfectly possible to only provide ID in current name.

I did one last night, it wanted my passport and driving licence details.

Well, my fundamental of safeguarding is it applies to everyone, no exceptions. So on that basis it doesn't seem right.

I was just trying to clarify the processes behind it, as I has less concern about physical certificate that often just one person sees saying male/female on it, if the rest was the same.

I can't actually see if the law trying to prevent offenders changing thier name got through parliament or not though.

It seems like the system has generally not been fit for purpose anyway

The point is, the special helpline is for anyone who wants to hide their sex, regardless of GRC status. A man could have had a GRC for 20 years or had a womans name for 2 days.

Its easy for employees to assume that the government checks would be a liitle bit more robust than that. Especially when government are saying that self id isn't the law.

Why are the dbs making name change a sensitive issue for some, but not all.

Its only a service for people who want to hide their sex, not everyone who wants to hide their previous names.

If the dbs process is about criminal records, why are they getting involved with hiding someones sex when they arent in a position to investigate why someone might be motivation to hide their sex.

I'm not quite sure I follow what you mean.

Good safer recruitment means you don't just look at dbs certificate itself and go that's clear.

generally you either do a new dbs check for a new role or if the person has paid for the update service you can use that to look online at the certificate which is then up to date, but you still have to check their ID as well.

But wouldn't that same problem apply to anyone who changed their name? That feels like a name change problem not a sensitive disclosure process problem?

Yes, but I think if you change your name on marriage and don't fill out the form highlighting this, they somehow can reject your application or it really slows it down. So somehow they know things aren't matching up.

But if not, this is a massive loop hole for anyone who changes thier name on marriage or by deed polll who decides not to give previous names. As my current I'd doesn't have my old names on it.

But I dont think this says they don't complete the form accurately. It says they still complete the form as anyone else would, but to call the team. It's just the resulting certificate doesn't say thier "old' sex on it.

The purpose of a dbs is to tell you about specific things relating to convictions. If it still tells you those things it's not an issue.

I'm just still not clear if it tells you those things from this but I think it does.

As I have not had any dealings with the police, I presume they have no records with my name.

Hence we have to repeal the GRA

Off topic completely, but I don’t think he could remember a password that long without referring to some notes prepared by an advisor ;)

The helpline also legitimises the applicant trans status without doing any checking.

If an obvious man attends an interview with a clear dbs record and a female name, do the interviewers assume that he has been through a process similar to that to get GRC? He could have changed his name for the interview.

The special helpline for DBS is a bit like the the sex marker on the passport. Passports aren't designed to confirm sex, therefore it doesn't matter that the sex is inaccurate.

DBS don't check for sex, so it doesn't matter that it hides the applicants sex.

Meanwhile there's no way of confirming someones sex, even if the sex is relevant to the work.