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

I agree although it’s obvious if a man is dressed as a women so therefore obvious if they’ve got a woman’s name it’s not their birth one. Although agree. How do you get their former name. The problem with this is that if they won’t give one you really can’t be expected to offer them a job if they are clearly lying.

The whole point of someone doing a DBS is to find out if they've done a crime that would make them unsuitable for working with vulnerable people.

Eg rape, child abuse.

Someone who has done something like that will not be hesitant to do fraud as well.

So relying on self reporting for a DBS is bonkers.

I'm not just talking about trans people, I mean anyone.

Op's argument is that everyone will self report and that's fine. It's not fine. We need to be able to find out a person's whole past.

Edit for typo

So you are literally only taking the poster’s first statement on this and ignoring the clarification she realised was necessary because you didn’t understand what she meant?

That is somewhat dishonest.

Have you had any time to think about the obviously fairly tricky question I asked you?

You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about this so much that instead of arguing on the other thread you start a whole new one with a strawman argument. You aren't prepared to concede that there is a particular problem when a transexual applies for a DBS certificate or that proportionately almost all transexuals will have changed their name while proportionately far fewer non-transexuals will have changed their name.

Male transexuals are more likely to be sex offenders than men who are not transexuals so are more likely to attempt to evade DBS checks.

Fair enough but it doesn’t change my opinion much at all. I still don’t think anyone should be allowed to change their birth certificate (apart from very rare DSD situations), and birth sex should have to be disclosed when it is relevant to the job, such as working with children and DV survivors etc

As you very well know I qualified this in numerous other posts to confirm that I was referring to male transexuals. The problems we discuss here are almost exclusively caused by male transexuals so excuse me if our default transexual is a male.
I suspect that the number of female transexuals who change their names is also extremely high. In my experience it's 100% but I have only encountered a handful of female transexuals. Perhaps you have some accurate data as you are so knowledgeable?
For non-transexuals women will have a higher percentage of name changes because of marriage but that won't even be 70%.

The reason to have an Irish-style PPS number is it goes with you everywhere. On your medical records, on your employment records, bank records, on your tax records, on your criminal records, on your marriage and death certificates. Yes criminals try to buck the system, but it is not easy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Public_Service_Number

They actually said Male transexuals. Sorry to be pedantic, but you seem keen on precision.

When you leave women out, people changing their legal name- not stage name or business name but legal name- are few. Apart from anything else it’s a ballache with qualifications, bank accounts etc.

So why haven’t you addressed it on there if nobody here seems to have seen anyone say that?

It’s a bit of a straw man though as the additional privileges for trans people DO undermine the effectiveness of DBS, regardless of the technical means.

@RobinHeartella

my dbs has my current legal name, it doesn’t mention my previous name but I did have to list them applying the first time, ditto addresses but only has current address. It’s pretty thorough, they write to where you used to live even if overseas

So the "trans fear" that male people could take women's place on sports teams/winners podiums etc is nonsense? I obviously imagined Lia Thomas, Emily Bridges etc.

The "trans fear" that male people could end up in women's prisons is nonsense? I must have imagined, Isla Bryson, Barbie Kardashian etc.

etc. etc.

It's not that they have a legal right to do this - I didn't see a single post that said that other than yours.

It's that they have a legal right to a document that makes it possible for them to do this.

Again, shows how you do not know anything. Deed poll is not registered anywhere, you print it at home, sign it, and so do two of your friends.

Done.

But all of those documents are a matter of public record, except the GRC, which is magic and secret, the only way to get a new BC with no reference to your previously registered name if you're over 2 years old, and no one is even allowed to ask if someone has one! It takes a loophole that can be closed by doing basic due diligence and drives a dump truck through it.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/trans-killer-criminal-record-wiped-35397482

'A trans killer’s criminal record was “wiped clean” after the thug self-identified as a woman behind bars.
Police Scotland and the Crown Office now face calls for an urgent review after the disturbing case involving trans prisoner Alex Stewart – who was known as Alan Baker when he killed a man.
Campaigners last night urged police and ministers to say whether trans prisoners have had records wiped clean.
It came after Alex Stewart – known as Alan Baker when he killed a man – had his previous scrubbed from records in a justice bungle.
Police Scotland and the Crown Office face calls for an urgent review of their record keeping.'

I mean, the Police assure us that this would never happen, right after it happened.

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,trans-criminals-cannot-escape-records-by-changing-names-justice-secretary-says

Can you see the difference between the obviously false statement that 'all trans people will intentionally use this loophole to commit fraud' and the rational one that 'this is a loophole with particular care and sensitivity around declared trans identities that a bad actor may use to commit fraud'?

Which means this loophole needs to be closed.

Right so we're at the heart of it.

Anyone who changes their name can commit fraud on DBS and get into trusted positions by illegal ommission.

Should this loophole be closed?

What is the difference between 'not allowed' and 'not able to'?

It might not be legally allowed, how does this omission come to light if someone illegally chooses not to disclose?