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

well those are the $64,000 dollar questions, i think the extract that Arabella posted upthread explains it well.

The only thing right now that is bugging me is the OP banging on about something that isn't strictly true and it being a TAAT.

The fact is, there are parts of the DBS process that are specially for trans people, and we know, despite protestations to the contrary also in this thread, that there are cracks, serious ones, as the Ireland conviction shows.

We should all stop being complacent, imo, and lobby that any and all name changes are tracked on a (confidential) central data base. Just in case.

I think the dbs helpline uses current passport or driving licence id as the protected name and gender.

So im assuming thats their definition of trans? More in line with the the PC of GR.

Well the USA Supreme Court couldn't find a definition recently so apparently not.

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.

Why are you so keen to defend obvious loopholes in the dbs system?

You say you acknowledge that they exist, but now you're setting up another thread to trumpet that the problems are 'made up'.

I don't understand where you're coming from.

It certainly doesn't seem to be from a desire to strengthen safeguarding.

can i reiterate that there is a special process for trans identified people and if you had been paying attention the link has been posted to the special process for trans identified people.

I don’t understand some of your statements regarding “registration date”.

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.”

I only ever had a short form version of my birth certificate and ordered a copy of the long version as it was needed to apply for a visa for another country. The long version states the registration date a few days after my birth (last century) and that it is a certified copy dated 2010. Would this be accepted by you or not?

Thank you Sleepless for clarifying how this works for teachers. It's good to know that the system works at the chalk face. Hopefully charities and smaller organisations also have the same rigorous approach and one of the issues with predators accessing children is when they haven't been caught before so no records for the DBS to access.

Transgender applicants
102. For transgender applicants the completion of an application for a DBS certificate may be of particular concern requiring as it does the disclosure of extensive personal information, including any names the applicant has used in the past. On the one hand, the fact that they may have transitioned since they were cautioned for or convicted of criminal offences cannot be a reason for not disclosing to potential employers relevant previous convictions. It is after all a criminal record certificate. On the other hand, transgender employees may experience bullying or other negative treatment in the workplace so that, understandably, they would prefer to keep this information from their employer.

Illustrates perfectly the tension between privacy and safeguarding.

I imagine other people may also prefer to keep names they used in the past from their employer, for various reasons - for example someone who has had adverse media attention in the past, or maybe doesn't want to share previous relationship history.

But only a person declaring themselves 'transgender' gets this concession?

If “trans” is not definable, what on earth has been going on for these last few years?

Is it really all a fever dream?

Forgot link to review
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-disclosure-and-barring-regime/independent-review-of-the-disclosure-and-barring-regime-accessible#name-change

If a person had changed name and committed a crime, it would show the crime, but not the name under which it was committed?

Yes. This would be interesting If their conviction was for rape when male. The DBS would show the rape conviction but if it's a 'sensitive' application then only the current (female) name would show. Given that rape is a male crime and requires a penis it outs the person anyway.

If a person had changed name and never committed a crime, would.it suggest that said person had had their current name all their life?

If they choose the sensitive route then yes, it's a possibility.

Don't forget though, a DBS only shows convictions and, lots of offenders are never caught or prosecuted.
The 2023 review has a whole section on name changes and concluded that...
Conclusion on name change
108. I have to accept that the system by which an individual can change their name presents a degree of risk to the integrity of DBS certificates. I am satisfied that those with responsibility for managing the risk (Home Office, Police, HM Passport Office and DBS) are fully aware of the risk and working together to actively manage it. However, as I have said nobody has been able to conclude that the risk has been wholly eliminated. On the material available to me, I am unable to judge to what degree the mandating of birth certificates or other steps would mitigate the risk, so such recommendation as I can make is very limited.
Recommendation 8: Name change
109. I recommend that the Home Office and the DBS continue the work of assessing what, if any, further steps can be taken to mitigate the risk of individuals circumventing the DBS identification validation process including the consideration of mandating the provision of a birth certificate as one of the documents establishing identity.

This is particularly relevant as a GRC provides a new birth certificate so effectively overrides any point of using an original birth certificate as part of the ID process.

Yeah - they’d be overseas candidates due to being born elsewhere, so any regulated employer would follow the “overseas route.”

It’s as regulated, but differently.

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.

Thanks for explaining. Was just wondering because my children were born abroad and weren't issued birth certificates and perhaps one day might want to work in the UK.

Foreign applicants are all already registered with the government, by virtue of needing right to work, and a visa.

Their share code, which is issued by the government, is issued in their legal name. A lot of them use an anglicised name to be referred to, but their documentation is all issued in legal name.

Any name change prior to coming to the country, would be declared on an overseas police check. Which you also have to have before you can work within a UK school.

You don’t need one to be here, but you do need one for certain job roles.

What do you ask for with foreign applicants who might not have birth certificates issued within a certain amount of time of birth?

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/new-snp-shame-trans-killer-35401766?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
This article proves that you're wrong about it hiding their crimes

I was just gonna ask why don't they just link everything to NI number? Because that doesn't change, does it? It could be required whenever someone is arrested, convicted, on job application forms and on the dbs form. Would make everything join up better.

If you provided us with a birth certificate that wasn’t full, and had a registration date of last year when you were born in 1985 - we’re not accepting it.

It wouldn’t get as far as applying for a DBS. It’s not valid documentation in the context of compliance procedures for working with children. Those procedures aren’t just made up, they’re informed and regulated by various bodies.

The 'socially regressive' is the male predator who enters female spaces and wishes to remove all females sex-based rights. Those people have no right to breathe air in a free and decent humane society.

Trans people change gender, they don't change "sex". And most of them don't do surgery or anything. It is far less effort than doctors, priests and teachers do to access children/women and commit crimes.

And the literally thousands of transwomen that have committed sex crimes as well as murder even, prove you wrong.

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.”

Who would 'flag' it? The DBS?

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

The Surrey police were accompanying a man who was being investigated for raping a 12 year old boy to schools in Surrey, 6 days before he was arrested by the Surrey Police so I'm really sorry but no, there are no real consequences for cutting corners. Time after time the left hand doesn't seem to know what the right hand is up to.

I'm questioning how many employers actually ask to see an orginal long birth certificate rather than a passport?

The special helpline is to conceal the applicants sex, why bother if the birth certificate outs them anyway?

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.