Do people actually believe that trans people have a legal right to only DBS check their new identity?

...and I'm puzzled as to why such a tiny percentage of the population gets a whole special dedicated sensitive application route to themselves - disproportionate privileging of one small part of society, or what?!🙄

I think that the biggest issue for me is that if the trans special route is not a safeguarding loophole, why is it not available to anyone else? (As I think @MrsOvertonsWindow pointed out earlier).

That makes it all the more striking to me that it is a loophole.

'You must not send written communications about a change in gender to a customer, without speaking to them first, in person or by phone, to:
• give them the opportunity to discuss their application
• tell them what evidence we require for their application
• ask if they consent to HM Passport Office sending them written
communications about their passport application
• check we have the correct address and email address to prevent unintended
wrongful disclosure of information

We do this because a letter could be intercepted and cause unnecessary distress or alarm to them'

Good lord, do they think trans people are made out of glass? In what world are HMP Office so delicately egg-shell stepping around for fear of 'causing alarm'?

'Crossdressers

We can only issue a passport if it is established the customer is using their new
identity for all purposes. You, the examiner, must not issue a passport in a name or gender a customer uses for some but not all purposes.
If the customer cannot provide medical evidence, they must make a statement confirming they permanently use the preferred identity. They must also have a referee confirm their new identity and send us evidence if they have changed their name (see Names – evidence to change a name).'

(my bold)

A statement, eh?. There's robust.

That seems cobblers. What is the need to conceal anything? Everyone has been born. Having an accurate birth record is no cause for shame and might, in some circumstances, be an important fact to be accessed during medical treatment.

If the original isn’t available, at an absolute push some accept a copy of the original, but the date of registration would be “out” if you tried to use the newer one and it still needs to be full. So still would “flag.”

This is not correct. The new birth certificate is identical to the original in all details except for the new name and the false sex. The date of registration is copied from the original.

Before 2010 applicants had the choice of using the original date of registration or the date the GRC was issued. Since 2010 they all use the original date.

See page 25 of this HM Passport Office guidance from last year:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66156558eb8a1bb45e05e339/Gender_recognition_version_22.pdf

It makes sense for an NHS number to follow an individual through life, but trans people need it changed because altering name isnt enough to conceal their birth details.

The same would apply to any id that follows an individual through life, including NI number.

The date of reissue is not the same as the date of registration (see example below if it posts.) Your husband's certificate should still have the original date of registration on it and below that, the date of reissue..

Sleepless's point was that a certificate that had been changed by GRC would 'flag' because the date of registration would be 'out'. It wouldn't because the date of registration would be the same as the original.

Under the old CRB system - Criminal Records Bureau - only convictions were reported. And Huntley was never convicted or anything, which allowed him to get a job in a school.

The Soham case was what brought an end to the CRB and saw it replaced with DBS. An enhanced disclosure (needed to work in a school) also allows the Police to disclose "intelligence" which they may feel is relevant - such as repeated allegations and charges of rape/sexual offences which never got as far as court, such as in the Huntley case.

I’d imagine so.

All education employers either are, or are managed by a Registered Body, which enables them to ask for a full criminal history.

The question asked varies, but it always asks if they have ever had a criminal conviction, not within a certain time period.

That’s what individuals are asked to disclose, and that’s what is checked for accuracy.

I think sleepless was referring to general reissues of birth certificates not because of GRC - my husband lost his, and his replacement was dated when reissued, not the orginal date.

Although this was a while ago.

Is the point Shedmistress making about there is nothing more than stating “I am trans” to allow someone to be trans?

Couldn’t someone with a history that they want to hide that isn’t a criminal conviction use this loophole to hide a dodgy work reputation?

Why are only trans people permitted to use this “sensitive” process? Is it only trans individuals who should be treated with sensitivity? Even the name of the service adds to the lie that these people are the most marginalised vulnerable people.

You can apply for a DBS with a Passport instead. Which is what I’d assume you’d do.

Education recruitment compliance however would require the BC, even if a PP was provided, because they need a full identity check.

If the original isn’t available, at an absolute push some accept a copy of the original, but the date of registration would be “out” if you tried to use the newer one and it still needs to be full. So still would “flag.”

People who place staff in regulated roles don’t cut compliance corners, and if they do there are real consequences.

You can’t change your name whilst a conviction is unspent, the application would be rejected. If you change it after, a spent conviction wouldn’t come up on a DBS anyway, because it’s spent.

Trying to get round it would mean the police notify the DBS of the link, because their records would reflect all aliases, and the conviction would be disclosed anyway.

It’s really not as simple as some believe.

It makes sense for an NHS number to follow an individual through life, but trans people need it changed because altering name isnt enough to conceal their birth details.

The same would apply to any id that follows an individual through life, including NI number.

So this process explicitly allows a man to conceal the fact that he is a member of the sex statistically significantly more likely than a woman to be a sex offender? And tells an employer he is safe to work with children?

Bearing in mind that a tiny proportion of all sex offences even get prosecuted, let alone a conviction, I would say that’s a serious safeguarding risk CREATED by the DBS certification.

this is on the woodcraft folk website -

The Disclosure and Barring Service sensitively and confidentially process DBS applications for transgender applicants. They’ve provided a step by step procedure that we can follow to ensure an applicant’s correct gender and name is displayed on their certificate.

1. The applicant must go on to the online DBS system and complete their application as usual.
2. On their application they MUST select the gender they identify with and answer ‘No’ to the question have you been known by any other names (if they wish not to disclose this information).
3. Once they’ve completed their application they’ll need to contact the Membership team ([email protected] or call 020 8126 9339 ) immediately, OR the DBS Sensitive Department (see page 3) providing the following information:

• A request for their application to be taken through the sensitive process
• A scanned copy of their change of name deed/certificate (if applicable)
• Contact telephone number and email
• Home address

This is probably where the misunderstanding has happened.

If someone has used more than one name, doesnt disclose it, and doesnt use the sensitivity department, previous names may be listed.

If they used the hotline, all previous names in other genders will be hidden. Even though they have declared on the orginal application that they have not used any other name, and they may or may not have a GRC.

Sorry if this has been highlighted already

Is the point Shedmistress making about there is nothing more than stating “I am trans” to allow someone to be trans?

Couldn’t someone with a history that they want to hide that isn’t a criminal conviction use this loophole to hide a dodgy work reputation?

Why are only trans people permitted to use this “sensitive” process? Is it only trans individuals who should be treated with sensitivity? Even the name of the service adds to the lie that these people are the most marginalised vulnerable people.

I honestly would like to know too, because so far being trans made all my security vetting a multi-day slog, instead of something that takes average person 15 minutes to complete.

But what would I possibly know about the subject 😀