To think this would set a dangerous precedent?

[PimmsnLemonade]

Allowing convictions to be wiped from individuals' criminal records because they reveal the person's birth sex:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-offender-seeks-to-wipe-crimes-as-aman-from-record-qfk5w68lb?shareToken=9224a3234cfb01ef11ba3d794f7c7942

YANBU. It's not fair that the same person would not lose their criminal record if they were not trans.

Yeh that’s a big fuck no from me

No to them doing that, in case that’s not clear

How can this even be considered? you could abuse children, be found guilty, decide you are a different gender & come through a DBS with a clean record & get a job working with kids.
This is past the point of ridiculous

YANBU. Employers can only access criminal records if there's a real need for them, so to eliminate these kind of records is a huge safeguarding issue. If you don't want crimes like rape on your record, then don't commit the crime.

Whilst the case would set a precedent, it would only apply to a limited set of very specific circumstances. In this case the offence was importuning. In the 1970s gay men would be charged with this if caught cottaging (and policeman would lay in wait to catch people), that being consensual sex between two males. They would be offered a caution (which requires an admission of guilt) and not advised of the future implications for employment. There have already been instances where such offences have been removed from records for gay men (no idea if they were trans or not).

The principle set by such a case would be very narrow, and would be about righting the wrongs done against gays by past generations. It would definitely not be a free for all for sex offenders to have serious offences wiped from their records.

YANBU

regardless of your opinion of trans issues and self id, anyone who thinks it’s acceptable to be able to hide convictions in this way is crazy

The rights of vulnerable children and adults to be protected from offenders are vastly more important than the rights of a trans person to cut ties with their old name.

It's worrying how many people have such strong views without bothering to understand the facts of the case. This case is not about rape, or any sort of non consensual sexual activity.

A right to removal, if established, could cover rape, another crime that can legally be committed only by a person with a penis.

This is my concern.

If you want to wipe all “importuning as a man” convictions from everyone, no problem with me. But don’t set a precedent that could be used to remove serious sexual crimes from the record.

But don’t set a precedent that could be used to remove serious sexual crimes from the record.

That's not how precedent works, and what most people fail to understand. The reality doesn't make a good headline to get people frothing at though.

This article is worth a read for anyone genuinely interested and not just out to kick trans people.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/alan-turing-law-gay-men-historical-sex-offence-convictions-cautions-soliciting-not-wonderful-step-a7373426.html

I suppose I could agree with a statement on the DBS check that states 'this person has committed offences which mean they are unsuitable to work with children/young people and vulnerable adults' without stating what the offence is but that would have to be for everybody applying for a DBS check so that the whole thing is not discriminatory against non-trans people.

Otherwise, no fucking way.

Thanks OP. I'm winning 10-0 for guessing anti-trans threads from the titles.