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

Certainly if you are working in any type of security, you are going to get asked all sorts of questions anyway, so a failure to want to disclose previous identities in these circumstances, would effectively be a red flag in its own right.

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).

If you are applying for a sensitive position, why would you not want to disclose this information???!

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

It does seem bizarre that anyone would think that someone with criminal convictions seeking access to children or vulnerable adults, that would be prevented by knowledge of those convictions, would be concerned about committing fraud.

He is American so is unlikely to have undergone DBS checks. He also has no regard for women’s rights or lack of consent.

How would 'being trans' make security vetting a multi-day slog rather than something everyone else can do in minutes?

What they can do is then have the past name redacted from the final certificate, so the employer or organisation will not see it.

This, from the OP, is the problem, isn't it?

A DBS, even when thorough, is scarce protection given that we know how few sex crimes are reported, let alone prosecuted.

A DBS that gives the impression that a person has never changed their name would be a problem if they had, in fact, changed their name.

I don't know what such a certificate would show:

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

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?

DH has had jobs in the past where it's not just a 15 minutes and a DBS. He hasn't changed his name.

He has done comprehensive checks where they ask all sorts of questions and he needs to provide evidence. Some have been personal but there's a clear reason for knowing.

In this situation, you'd struggle to avoid giving all your names because gaps are a problem.

So I really don't get the drama about hiding things on a job application. Any job that requires higher scrutiny does so for a reason and if it does so for a reason - you've got a legitimate aim and concerns about privacy go out the window. It's those damn pesky article 8 exceptions which affect lots of people. It's legal.

Unless there's an issue, anyone applying for that job understands the legitimate reason for the checks. People who object to the legitimate reason and complain about it taking too long, need to stop centring themselves because it's not about them, it's about wider issues relating to safeguarding.

So 'what would I possibly know about the subject' is one of those weasel phrases - the universe is not centred on the rights of trans people.

Arguably, anyone with a criminal record which involves serious crime should not legally be allowed to change their name and their documentation.

It was very concerning during the GRR Bill Stage 3. debates when MSP's voted against amendments to stop those who have committed sexual offences from obtaining a GRC.

They even voted against pausing the applications of those charged of sexual offences from applying for a GRC until the case was disposed of.

And as we've seen, the Scottish Government and SPS can't be trusted to track the convictions of convicted offenders who are currently in their prison estate, let alone anything more complicated.

Transexual males must present a big problem for security vetting as they are all so ashamed of being a transexual they take all pains to hide the fact even to the extent of hiding their true sex from their employers. This deceit must present an unacceptable risk of blackmail.
It's just as well your multi-day slog security vetting never happened then isn't it?

Arguably, anyone with a criminal record which involves serious crime should not legally be allowed to change their name and their documentation.

We know that lots of offenders change their name whilst in prison / following prosecution.

This then focuses on the offence not identity.

We are doing this all rather arse about face ATM in terms of preventing fraud and criminal activity more generally.

The whole process can take weeks, even for an average person. The form can be quite quick to fill in if you have all the information to hand, though the older you are and the more different employments you have had, or if you have worked or travelled abroad, the longer it takes, as I know from experience.

If you have undergone DBS checks and been cleared, it’s lucky for you that they didn’t vet your social media use, because from your posts on here you shouldn’t be anywhere near children.

Great post RTB.
It's wearying having to repeat the purpose of safeguarding children in the face of the tedious Me Me Me brigade.

So let me put this very simply and bluntly so we can all think about it carefully...

...what is a DBS for? Who is it designed to stop? And where does the system fail?

It's supposed to stop anyone who is a threat and intends to break the law and is a threat to children.

Therefore the people there is a problem with are the people who will commit fraud if it gives them opportunities to carry out illegal activities.

Why are people who claim a trans identity and issue in this context?

Changing name itself is a potential issue. It makes it more difficult to track someone even with other name disclosures.

The people who are most likely to change their name are women. The vast majority of name changes are by marriage. This is where you note patterns of offending - women are significantly less likely to have been involved in any kind of violent crime and even less likely to be involved in a sexual based crime. So risk here is lower. Men are significantly less likely to change their name.

Then you start to look at other reasons to change name and it does start to get murkier. There's having a name you don't like, family complications, being trans and because you have something to hide.

You have to take the last group very seriously. This group are very willing to lie, and will have good reason to. They don't mind a bit of fraud. They are criminals and their intent is to commit criminal activity. Now this group can include women, but sex based patterns of offending reveal that women are still low risk.

Now let's take this further in terms of understanding criminal patterns. Sex offenders are overwhelming male and unfortunately figures show that trans identifying males are over represented in this group. We should be taking applications for name changes in this group, more seriously and reducing the ability to defraud most within this group.

Instead their loopholes that make it harder to verify identity, and one of the risks here is over reliance on the DBS itself and not checking information relating to identity elsewhere. The loopholes make that harder. Plus you need to factor in that makes who change their name are effectively higher risk than males who don't, and females who do to begin with.

Sexual abuser by nature look for weaknesses in systems to make it easier to escape detection.

The point about fraud and trans people telling the truth is irrelevant. The issue is the loophole and the liar. And who is higher risk of doing that, and why.

The risk is ALWAYS about people who WANT to lie and deceive. It's not about the innocent nice transwoman who is your friend and wouldn't hurt a fly and therefore criticising the system is 'transphobic'. No the system has weaknesses and unfortunately the profile for a trans identifying males is much higher than the general population therefore the checks need to be, at least equal to, if not higher for this group if we take safeguarding and prevention of fraud seriously. Instead we have the opposite dynamic where checks are actually weaker than anywhere else.

Risk assessing is about seeing behaviour patterns not identity. In law we can't discriminate in a way that disproportionately affects one group, but we certainly could tighten checks that are weaker for one group if we can demonstrate everyone is being treated equally for legitimate concerns about criminal behaviour. In other words we close the loophole and talk about how the loophole attracts people with criminal intent, who may claim trans identity nefariously in order to help their offending.

Laws are there not to prevent law abiding citizens from offending. Laws are there because criminals offend and lie and cheat. The DBS is trying to detect criminals. If fraudly filling in a DBS is too easy under certain circumstances then we need to look at this.

In other words when we look at criminal behaviour we aren't remotely interested in the behaviour of 'the nice transperson'. We are interested in the patterns of behaviour of criminals and how criminals can exploit. One of these happens to be through exploiting the good nature of people who think we all should be kind and not talk about offending patterns because they think it's 'transphobic'. It makes us blind to the people who are a problem if we focus on the good 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 😀

Yet I can’t see anywhere where someone has claimed they have a ‘legal right’ to do that. She has misrepresented a PPs point on this thread and seems very determined to ignore the special privileges on DBS that trans people DO have and the risks that creates. Even the government has acknowledged that there is an issue but are presumably just crossing their fingers and hoping for the best.

I’m interested to know what you think of the privileges that trans people have that undermine the robustness of the DBS system as pointed out on this thread?

As per the original question: yes some people clearly do believe it, and no it’s not true.

20 or so posts all being extremely grumpy about the OP having the temerity to be right does feel like a pile-on.

Hahahahaha. You’re funny. 😂😂😂

Seems timely to post this proof that our concerns are not “fever dreams” or merely about theoretical risks by possible predators, but risks posed by actual, real men that identify as trans.

This study reports concerning findings of paedophilia among males seeking gender reassignment procedures.

The study found that over a period of 5 years at one Oxford clinic, 2 out of 38 males seen were “seeking gender reassignment to facilitate or normalise paedophilia. This latter small group described gender reassignment as a means by which to increase their intimate contact with children, which they viewed to be more socially acceptable in a female role.”

Gender reassignment: 5 years of referrals in Oxfordshire
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018 Volume 35 Issue 9 ^https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-psychiatrist/article/gender-reassignment-5-years-of-referrals-in-oxfordshire/6B5F217162ABD9B3189F2EB82787034E^

These are just the two men who managed to give away their intentions. How many could hide them more effectively?

Let me spell out the issues…

These trans identifying men want to be perceived as women/female in order to get close to children so they can sexually abuse them. They want to deceive people and exploit our knowledge that women are less of a risk to children than men.

They were actively seeking to go through “all the palaver” of hormones and/or surgery. (An inconvenient fact that BeeSouriente tries to wave away as a fever dream. Nice try but NO)

There is nothing to suggest that they don’t also feel ‘genuine’ symptoms of gender dysphoria.

They would want a female name.

They could succeed in getting a female birth certificate.

Deliberately leaving a previous name off the DBS forms so they cannot be checked or connected would be nothing at all to these predatory men. As said, relying on people to be truthful is not compatible with effective safeguarding.

ALL LOOPHOLES NEED TO BE CLOSED.

It’s bizarre to obsess over whether one poster (out of many) maybe had the wrong idea or worded something slightly inaccurately. But thanks for provoking me into making the effort to post this info. It’s always valuable to post facts to counter the disinformation that men like Bee try to disseminate.

my DBS certificate just shows my married name, not my birth surname as that's the name I currently use

Are you sure about that @tammienorrie ? There is a field for “other names” on the certificate, what would that cover if not all other names you have been known as?

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.

This is true. The DBS asks you to disclose all previous names and known by names, whether you are transgender, or have just changed your name because you've got married, or for any other reason. Or if you're sometimes known as Liz and other times as Elizabeth, you need to tell them about that too.

There is a "sensitive applications team" at the DBS which handles applications from people who are transgender. That means that the information that (for example) Jane Brown used to be John White will be redacted from the certificate, but all records in both names are checked.

This isn't any different from anyone else who changed their names - my DBS certificate just shows my married name, not my birth surname as that's the name I currently use. But records under my old name were checked too. Agree though that there is the possibility for anyone to choose not to disclose their previous names, addresses or anything else in an attempt to be deceptive.

Found one

an argument or attack by a large group of people against one person

but that doesn’t work if the OP is a question surely

Oh I don't think there's a pile on. Robust maybe. I don't disagree with @TruthOrAlethiometer main argument, my concern is the is a different loophole.

And I get the impression @TruthOrAlethiometer is quite capable of defending themselves. 👍I hope you would agree @TruthOrAlethiometer !

I personally think it's positive to have the discussion as it's good to get clarity on this issue. It's been interesting for me to work through scenarios.

It was a bit of a shame, though, that the other thread was derailed because it was on an interesting theme.

I really need the definition of a pile on

people say it a lot and ive still no idea what it means really

on this thread it seems to mean replying to the OP