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

The DBS uses addresses though?

So how would Donna at Number 42 be linked to Pete in a different county whose last known address is unknown?

It seems the only document that carries across without fail is the NI number. But we won't just link everything to that and tag everything onto it.

There's a fundamental tension between privacy and safeguarding. Always will be.

In order to safeguard, privacy is set aside.

Having special dispensation for one set of people suggests that for them, privacy is being given more weight than safeguarding.

I very much hope that the checks and balances mean that safeguarding isn't compromised, but at the very least it is concerning that a special category of person has been set up that anyone can opt into that prioritises privacy over safeguarding.

Correct me if I’m wrong..

Isn’t the issue that they’ve lost track of their location, not who they are?

I’ve just seen an article where in 2023 they’d lost track of 503. That number is specific because they know who they are, but not where they are.

Applying for a DBS for any one of those 503 would still flag them on the database and therefore still notify the employer. And also confirm their whereabouts, to be fair.

They’re still a listed paedophile, the system still reflects that, it’s their location that’s unknown.

If a man has a GRC, he has two birth certificates a full original one, and a short replacement one with his new gender on it that will be supported by the GRC?

If he wants to keep his 'trans history' a secret he can apply to the DBS to hide his previous names.

But if the employers want to see the orginal bc he cant hide his orginal name and sex. Doesn’t that make the helpline useless if providing the orginal long birth certificate is standard?

Can I just reiterate, it isn't for 'trans identified people' it is for anyone because 'trans' is not definable.

How can anyone be assured of a FULL CRIMINAL HISTORY when the police have themselves lost track of hundreds of known paedophiles?

We are exploring the system cracks, and having a discussion about where it falls down. That's the point. If we could rely on bad people to be honest we'd not have this issue.

That is because despite several people saying "yes, we agree" OP isn't acknowledging that we are a) agreeing and b) pointing out the anomaly that there is an extra layer of obfuscation for trans identified people.

The other thread was being derailed because of this. OP constantly rehashing stuff when the conversation has moved on a lot is really bloody annoying.

I lost my BC and ordered a new one. I've used it for DBS checks so it must be acceptable.

How would the DBS know that Donna used to be Pete the Paedo though? They've said they are female and never been known as any other name.

A lot of people won’t have this anymore. What happens then?

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 have never, in over a decade, employed or vetted anyone barred. They don’t apply for regulated jobs, I assume, because there’s no point.

I would say we get 2 or 3 a year that have some sort of comment on their DBS. If they haven’t pre-disclosed, the DBS always will for them. The result comes back with the information on.

Name change - I’ve had one NB individual, ever. Their name and previous name are on their DBS, and the gender section says the gender that’s on their birth certificate.

We get around 5 a year where they need resubmission because of missing names, usually because of pre marital names that have either been missed, or the dates of change wrong.

All of that is out of a sample of circa 1000 applications. Very limited numbers, and incorrect/concerning information always discovered if not disclosed.

It seems to me that the most obvious weak point is if employers don't ask for an orginal birth certificate.

I have no knowledge of how many people you recruit per year obviously but on average, how many times a year does the DBS contact you to tell you that the application is incorrect and how many people are barred from working in regulated activity?

Where are they getting their information from if the police themselves have lost track of hundreds of people they should be tracking?

Actually I think people are grumpy about what appears to me to be a thread about a thread.

If they didn’t call anyone, the DBS would contact the prospective employer and inform them the application is incorrect and requires resubmission.

Some crimes are never filtered from appearing on a DBS. Convicted paedophilia is one of them. He’d also be barred from working in regulated activity anyway, so if the DBS received an application for that person, that’s what they’d say.

If Pete the Paedo did try and get a DBS to work in a school, he isn’t going to be successful.

Honestly - not sure on the points around privilege of hiding a former name for specific circumstances and not others.

All I know for certainty, as I manage the recruitment of education staff every day, is that there are very few safeguarding cracks someone can slip through and any attempt to do so is found out.

There may be a privilege of information issue, but I don’t believe it makes an impact on safeguarding of children, the systems are too thorough.

Because not a single person in a position of power has had the guts to challenge the status quo and go 'why the fuck isn't this also an article 8 exception'. There's a clear legitimate aim and the response seems very proportionate given the checks that are normal for many sectors anyway.

What's staggering is there's no government database linking previous names with your current name, so there's no room for failure to disclose previous names.

It gets more complex for individuals who have lived abroad for any length of time (this includes people born in the UK and with UK nationality).

And this is why breaking some of our ties with the EU over law enforcement post Brexit made no sense whatsoever. The argument about immigrants falls over because we WANT to cooperate on this and share information for fairly obvious reasons. 'Securing our borders' and an emphasis on sovereignty made us vulnerable in other ways.

The whole system needs an overhaul because it's really not fit for purpose.

That sounds thorough.

There is a link between all registered names a person has had, and they highlight if it’s ever attempted to be side stepped. Usually this is just where pre-marital names haven’t been declared, and we have had it for a non binary individual but I assume it would be the same for trans candidates.

This whole shitshow is based on the idea that its somehow an awful thing to have changed one's name. Or 'gender'.

The problem is we are applying the idea that some people are allowed to hide aspects of their history, where nobody else is.

Other people may have reasons to dislike their name. I've known someone change his name because it was his father's, and his father had abused him. I've known women change their names because it was that of a husband they have been stalked by.

Yet these people aren't afforded the special privilege of hiding their name. And/or 'gender'.

Why has this one section of the population - which anyone can choose to identify as - been afforded special privileges and permissions to lie and omit information?

So Pete the Paedo who came out of prison over 5 years back and is now known as Donna selects 'gender - female' and then says they have not been known as any other name. Doesn't call anyone. And the DBS is searched under Donna's name.

He won't want to disclose the information because he is a convicted paedo? And wants to get a job in a school?

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).

That's instructing people to lie. Doesn't seem a great way of ensuring a system of checks based on honesty will work as well as it should.

But is it widely understood that the government will hide a persons sex on DBS?

No. And this is why some people are getting all het up about it (and conveniently drawing attention to it, as on here).

I'm struggling to think of a role that would need a DBS, but where sex would never be relevant?

Because of news coverage, lots of people are aware that men can recieve female passports - the new EHRC guidance touches on this.

But is it widely understood that the government will hide a persons sex on DBS?

I can only speak for our internal vetting procedures, which are quite intense - there’s no way of avoiding providing your original name.

Part of the evidence is we use for documentation checks is full length, original birth certificate. Original as in issued within a year of birth. We check the date.

Any name changes since then have to be evidenced with date of change, and a relevant document.

We also complete a full history check, and an online check, using all the names we have available including what is listed at birth. There is no way our compliance team, who are duty bound to keep information confidential, would not gain access to that information.

If anyone tried to process a DBS without declaring former names, the DBS service reject the application and tell us to resubmit, a cost we pass to the candidate.

There is a link between all registered names a person has had, and they highlight if it’s ever attempted to be side stepped. Usually this is just where pre-marital names haven’t been declared, and we have had it for a non binary individual but I assume it would be the same for trans candidates.

We see people not informing us of convictions, or any form of comments - we always find out. The DBS service is too thorough to let them through.

That may only be the case for Enhanced checks, and specifically those done for education, but I genuinely don’t see how wouldn’t ultimately end up with relevant information.