To think that I should be told if my daughters girl guiding leader is actually a man.

[Angryresister]

Apparently it is policy now to not give parents information about male people who self identify as women ,as leaders, or the information that a boy will now be part of the group. This goes against all safeguarding procedures and there will be a major scandal when dangerous preditors take advantage of this policy to get to access girls . The organisation is also sacking volunteers who raise questions. There seem to be fewer and fewer girl only activities available these days

[MuddlingMackem]

@TerfedOff, I don't think we need identity cards, I was just thinking that in any country the tax office seem to be the most tenacious at keeping tabs on people. LOL!

[TerfedOff]

@NicolaHare think you may have just exposed yourself there as a trans right activist. Do you employ terf blocker by any chance?

Because when I do the same search there are several entries that pop up which is why I found it so please don't call me a liar again.

[TerfedOff]

Maybe we need to start having a computer backed identity card.

[MuddlingMackem]

It might make more sense to link offences to a NI number rather than a name, presumably the NI number won't change because pension benefits will need to be carried forward.

[BrownPaperTeddy]

No, marriage is a different thing. I had to show my marriage certificate as part of my id docs, this revealing my previous name.

I can't remember what happened when I applied for my DBS so not sure of the process but

Suppose I apply using my single name. I provide my birth certificate as proof.

How does anyone know that I changed my name at marriage? I know they ask for extra ID but can I not get a passport using my single name and birth certificate?

Or as is my husband's case his name was changed by deed poll so he has a birth certificate in one name and deed poll in another.

Couldn't he start applying using his birth name? Is it recorded anywhere that he has changed this name?

Another point - my son has just applied for a DBS. He had to list his addresses over last 5 years. Has lived in 2 areas so 2 police forces. Both forces contacted. Does that mean only convictions within these 2 areas are covered? This confused me. Why does it go to the police forces where you have lived? What about all the other forces then? Why aren't records held centrally then regardless of where you have lived all convictions will show? Maybe searches should be under national insurance number rather than name as that remains consistent throughout adult life doesn't it?

If you are a foreign national then I believe that is even more fraught with difficulties.

I get the feeling that DBS is actually not much protection at all. It's more of an illusion of safety than anything else.

[Juells]

When you consider that many rescue dogs can't be re-homed with men, because they react badly to them, imagine how much worse it is for a child who's had a bad experience.

[MissSusanSays]

BrownPaperTeddy

No, marriage is a different thing. I had to show my marriage certificate as part of my id docs, this revealing my previous name.

But My point still stands that this adds a further, larger loophole to the DBS process. All the loopholes need to be shut, not left open for abuse.

Again, safeguarding is about transparency. Always. Everyone needs to be aware and open about who is doing what with the children. Which is why nurseries have nappy changing logs to see who changed a child’s nappy and when and this is shared with parents.

It is also about consent. The consent of the child and the parent. Not sharing with parents that someone who is biologically males would be sharing a tent/ helping their child to change takes away their ability to consent and the child’s ability to consent. And the frank sharing of information that helps keep children safe.

An extreme example would be a child who has been previously abused by a man. Should they be offered the choice to share their single sex space with someone with a penis? Or is their consent less important than the validation of the tranwoman’s identity?

[Bowlofbabelfish]

For sure. It needs closing pronto!

[BrownPaperTeddy]

You shouldn’t have to rely on the person to disclose anything. It should all be a matter of official record. That’s the whole point of a check


You're right. It shouldn't rely on the person declaring anything. But the point I'm making is that I think that is the current process for everyone. So anyone who changes their name eg women when they marry is relied on to be honest and declare it. That means the loophole already exists.

[Bowlofbabelfish]

You shouldn’t have to rely on the person to disclose anything. It should all be a matter of official record. That’s the whole point of a check!

If DBS checks on deadnames are deemed phobic we have a loophole. And where we have loopholes, we have harm.

[BrownPaperTeddy]

I think a name change by deed poll would show up.


I am not so sure. Whenever DH applies for anything he has to send his birth certificate and deed poll in. Which makes me think if he just sent his birth certificate no one would be any the wiser.

If his deed poll was linked to his birth cert you'd think he could just send his birth certificate off and they would then know that a deed poll exists.

I really don't think that anyone would know.

Would like to find out though.

[IrmaFayLear]

Yes, it behoves the applicant to own up to previous names. I don't know if they check anyway, but if they don't then that is a serious failing.

Surely the passport number would flag up any inconsistency, but then again I suppose someone could apply for a completely new passport with a new gender identity. Frankly I think every citizen should be DNAd, then one could retain one's privacy but a quick check would reveal any past convictions or issues.

[drspouse]

I applied for my DBS under Ms and I didn't put any former names and they came back and asked if I had any. Apparently they ask this if you are Ms or Mrs (and I think Dr, Rev etc) but not Miss or Mr.
So if you just put Mr or Miss and have no address change I don't think they'd check anything.

[MissSusanSays]

But it is also not a perfect system and needs tightening up. Not the creation of more possible loopholes if the goal is stopping predators from having access to children.

[MissSusanSays]

No, the self id thing makes it more difficult. Under most circumstances people have not changed names and can be asked directly about previous names.

I think a name change by deed poll would show up. But a name change via GRC is hidden because it is illegal to ask someone about their GRC if they don’t want to reveal it. Which is where the danger lies. You can’t ask, even if you had doubts and needed to check. It is not allowed. This creates an issue with transparency.

[BrownPaperTeddy]

@MissSusanSays

So this applies to everyone? Meaning DBS has a major loophole already. Anyone with bad intent can already bypass it, it's not just an issue of self ID.

[MissSusanSays]

If you have lived at the same address for five years under your new name then you could get away with it.

They only ask for five years of address history. So when I applied in my new county they would have asked for a records check under my old address in my previous county too.

But if I have changed my name six years ago and I had moved to the other end of the county and changed gender then they would have no chance of catching me under DBS for a previous crime, unless I chose to disclose it.

It is a criminal offence to lie on DBS. But anyone looking to do so for their own gain won’t be concerned about that.

[BrownPaperTeddy]

Are they? All of them? Because they really don't have to disclose any previous names

Is this not the same for anyone though? I really can't remember what I had to do when I applied for my DBS but couldn't I have applied in my single name rather than my married name for example?

Or my husband's name was changed by his mum by deed poll. But what if he just applied for DBS using his birth name? He has his original birth certificate and there is nothing to show that his name has subsequently changed.

Obviously you have to provide other forms of ID so you would have to somehow get these using your "new" name to support your application but I'm just wondering if any loophole actually applies to anyone who changes their name?

[Lazypoolday]

In a professional context, like a job interview, background check or situation that requires the processing of identifying documents, trans folk are more forthcoming

Are they? All of them? Because they really don't have to disclose any previous names. They can just choose not to contact the specialist team. It appears that only if a person has a GRC conviction records etc are linked to the new identity. Self ID gets rid of this. What makes you think predators won't take advantage of this loophole?

If you are required to complete a DBS Check you can choose to use the DBS’s Confidential Checking Process. If you choose not to use the process and are happy for the name or gender you were assigned with at birth to be disclosed on a completed Disclosure, then you can complete the Disclosure Application Form (DAF) as instructed

If you decide you do not wish for the name or gender identity you were assigned with at birth to be disclosed to your employer (or similar) on the completed Disclosure, you should contact the DBS and speak to their specialist adviser, The Sensitive Applications Team who can advise you on what to do

[MissSusanSays]

NicolaHare

You seem to be a bit behind the times on current trans campaigning. One of the recent developments is that asking for a dead name for a DBS check is transphobic. In all seriousness.

As I see it you can have transwomen with a GRC and with dysphoria included as women with the ability to enter (most but not all) single sex spaces.

Or you can have self id for anyone who is gender fluid etc and no access to single sex spaces for women.

It is the attempt to do both at the same time that is utterly incompatible.

[Nondescriptname]

I cannot see a solution that trans campaigners would be happy with

Too bad.
The solution is to treat transwomen and transgirls the same as males, for safeguarding purposes. Any trans campaigner who has issues with that has questionable motives, imo.

[Nondescriptname]

I don’t understand why we can’t have safeguarding like the Scouts.
Won't the Scouts be accepting trans people as their chosen gender, too? Making their safeguarding less effective?

[Nondescriptname]

If the transwomen considered themselves women enough to get rid of the penis there wouldn't be a problem.

No-one can be sure there would be no problem, even then. A pervert without a penis could still be a pervert.

[5Yearplan4000]

They need their heads examining.

[AsAProfessionalFekko]

There is a very small and sinister group who seem to have the ears of people with control, and who know how to use the law and social media to push their agenda.