Applicants need not enter names relating to their previous gender: DBS form

[AndYetItMoves]

Just reading this tweet

twitter.com/chollode/status/1036577729410420737?s=21

Can anyone help clarify what DBS means?

Either you have to list previous names or not...?

I'm absolutely sure that they have thought about this and that you are not able to conceal previous identities if you have to go through one of these checks.

We would have to assume that the people in charge of the checks are absolutely monumental idiots if we thought that you could commit a crime and conceal this from future employers just by changing your name or legally recorded sex. There is clearly some short-sightedness going on around some of the effects of being able to legally change your sex, but honestly not to that extent.

Does the employer see that the applicant left gaps in the form?

Found this on gires website

Tax and National Insurance. To change gender in the National Insurance records you will need a Gender Recognition Certificate. However, once they have been notified that an individual wishes to live in a gender opposite to that assigned at birth the records will be moved to a department which will impose special security measures to protect privacy.

www.gires.org.uk/documents-to-be-changed-upon-gender-transition/

As a slight tangent, I find it weird that people want to be so secretive about it
It seems like quite a profound untruth to pretend that you've always been male/female.

This discussion thread explains that the number stays the same but they change the sex
www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/3mdp4r/national_insurance_name_and_number/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list

Thanks Gorgon

I actually don't think the NI number does change. But not sure how the two names would be linked on the system.

Also what if I have no GRC and have different names on passport to birth certificate? How does that work for DBS and record check?

Crosspost! Thanks again Gorgon

Gorgon Is it legal for a trans woman who passes, to marry a man & not disclose their biological history? Or would that be illegal on grounds of deception? Have always wondered this

I'm absolutely sure that they have thought about this and that you are not able to conceal previous identities if you have to go through one of these checks.

I’d hope this is true. However having seen some examples of monumental institutional idiocy, as well as how things work differently abroad, I’m not 100% sure we actually do have a loophole free system.

The fact that they are asking for previous names implies they need them. So what happens if they aren’t given?

I'm not feeling confident in the ability of the relevant authorities to organize a piss-up in a brewery at this point, so a little reassurance that people can't just opt not to disclose and make it through screening anyway would be nice.

Agree Bowl

The wording on the DBS form has obviously not been thought through.

It is at best extremely unclear, at worst misleading.

That really is a massive get out. So the answer is don't put it on the form, ring up.

But someone could easily just say the form said they didn't need to put their old name, they thought they were doing the right thing. Honest Guv.

What a nice big loophole. The form needs to say "you do not need to put down names for your former gender but you MUST ring xxx." And that needs to be everywhere it mentions not putting down a name.

And it should be criminal to lie or ommit information on these forms/calls.

I'm not feeling confident in the ability of the relevant authorities to organize a piss-up in a brewery at this point, so a little reassurance that people can't just opt not to disclose and make it through screening anyway would be nice.

Join the bloody club!

Also what if I have no GRC and have different names on passport to birth certificate?

Like vast numbers of married women? I think they are equipped to handle this scenario.

Sensitive Team?

Surely all the information contained within the DBS application and revealed upon the DBS certificate is 'sensitive'.

I don't particularly want my details treated with a lack of sensitivity etiher.

Ok, I don't know if there is a loophole currently, but there WILL be if the GRA goes through as it is currently proposed. Dr Nicola Williams from Fair Play For Women describes it very well in her talk at LAWS Plymouth: m.youtube.com/watch?v=NqxzLy0O-4E# - from around 30mins. This is because of the proposed right to secrecy about previous names.

As someone who has had to require checks for employees (the old CRB at the time), I'm absolutely horrified by this idiotic idea, particularly given that it's such a double standard - children sitting GCSE and A-levels had to declare their legal name (last year at least but I wasn't informed that had changed this year), not their "known by" name. The school I worked at last year flipped out as this could have revealed children who were at risk if their real names were known.

Is the issue here the suggestion that some people's new employers might not realise the person is trans if they can't see that they previously had a different first name?

I'm begging to differ if that's what it's about...

I've been married twice, born with a 'maiden' name or 'nee' and it's a bloody pain in the bottom every time. But in the interests of safety I do it.

Plus I do not get triggered.

@VickyEadie

Quite.

I started this thread genuinely wanting to understand the form as the explanations given on the tweet by DBS seemed lacking.

Like vast numbers of married women? I think they are equipped to handle this scenario.

Maybe. They certainly haven't thought through the wording on the form though have they?

most countries have a population registry which has this data in.

The UK doesn't have any kind of central population registry.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but pretty sure DBS doesn't perform any identity verification, but only checks whether a named person has a criminal record or has previously been barred from working with particular groups.

I'll tell you what else is suspect about the DBS and it connects with this issue - you only have to give addresses you've lived at for the past 3 years.

Seems to me this could be a predator's dream come true.

I find it weird that people want to be so secretive about it.

I would think historically it was set up this way because of fear of discrimination - before gender reassignment was covered in the Equality Act.