Challenor showing off their 'new' birth certificate

[MrsSnippyPants]

I will never accept this 'legal fiction, it is a travesty.

I am still confused! So will the new birth certificate or ID docs in new name automatically have some kind of marker attached to it, by the police if there has been a crime committed? How is this stored?

I skimmed the last couple of pages so sorry if I've missed it: if someone has no convictions but has had an active online presence as a furry or nappy fetish haver, then if they change their name or transition, the prospective employer can't do their own due diligence via Google?
The state is colluding to prevent them linking publicly available risk-laden information about this prospective employee to that prospective employee?

There is going to be a horrific crime where this problem that has been allowed to flourish will be raised...

PS On reflection, I can imagine a fair few employers of people where safeguarding is an issue being a tad more wary of trans applicants because of this. Unfairly in most cases, of course. But human nature and the requirement for managers to be tough on safeguarding will make some - especially if it does emerge that the DBS process cannot properly identify someone who has 'erased' previous names - very wary indeed.

Yes. I said this upthread, Vicky. Very shortsighted of the activists and lobbyists because, if safer recruiting can't be properly applied, it may well backfire.

If I had previously given fairly identifying information here that linked me to a youth trans group that I'd been involved in in the past, that (still) met at a charity premises that had, in the last few years, serious questions raised about its policies for vulnerable people, and had also had one of its trustees convicted of child abuse.

Personally I would have been keen to clear any confusion up, outlined the actions that may have been taken in the light of issues outside that group's control, but that may have risked the activities of my group.

I'd be responding to a post that didn't name me, or the group, but I could still outline the action that had been taken, given the concerns about youth groups safeguarding that had been raised previously in the thread.

In the context of this thread's discussion about transparency and safeguarding, I would have been keen and proud to have demonstrated that.

I'd be confident that I, or the people I knew, had taken steps to ensure that safeguarding and risk assessments had been put in place and any lessons learned.

My first instinct wouldn't have been to accuse the poster of insinuations. And then, (or via monitors' actions) ensure the post was removed).

But that's just me.

It was an interesting response, given this thread's wider context.

As per Datun's comment, why do trans children not get the protection that others do?

I am indeed confident that steps were taken. I take personal attacks seriously and do not let them stand. If all you can do is attack people personally about things you dont understand then I feel sorry for you and hope people on here don't wish to support you in attcking other users.

Thank you for the feedback bespin. We'll agree to disagree whether it was a personal attack or concern for both you and the group you ran.

MN obviously erring on the side of caution.

Though sometimes a deletion leaves a vacuum where people may assume things that weren't said, so it could be more positive to leave unreported?

Things I don't understand Community groups, operational policies, children, safeguarding, risk assessment. Fair enough. If you say so!

I have never once attacked you personally but you appear to want to attack me. I have a zero policy on this. If its ok with you I will not let you come on here and make them against me, or insinuate I knew anything about issues that I was only made aware of following it all coming to light and worked hard to make sure that the young People I worked with were not effected and had space and time to address any issues raised.

You have a 'zero policy', Bespin?

What does that mean?

that I don't allow poeple to post attacks towards me on here. People can say what they want or disagree as much as they like but you do not get to attack posters on here. I report that every time it happens.

that I don't allow poeple to post attacks towards me on here. People can say what they want or disagree as much as they like but you do not get to attack posters on here. I report that every time it happens

What do you mean 'attack'?

*What do you mean 'attack'?
*
I think Bespin means any undermining of Bespin's opinion. It's been made clear that Bespin doesn't know what Bespin is talking about and so that is a personal attack apparently.

Bespin thinks it’s an attack when people can’t understand what she’s talking about, as opposed to the fact she can’t coherently explain
what she’s talking about

Between seemingly having no idea what safeguarding might look like and the terrible spag (most of the time) I struggle with what is meant. I think if she got someone to spellcheck the more difficult posts it would be easier to understand. And no I dont really care about spag, just in some cases it would be easier to understand. And this is one of those cases.

As far as I can tell, bespin, you are approaching this as someone who deals with paedophiles and assesses how risky they are?

Whereas I think most of the posters here are considering things from the point of view of women who need to consider how to best keep potential threats away from kids & vulnerable people. We're just coming at it from different angles.

When you asked 'what would you do, lock him up?', you're completely misunderstanding. That's not the subject here. Nobody's talking about crime and punishment, only safeguarding.

What we would not do is give 'him' access to kids or vulnerable people - we're not police officers here, we're not talking about retribution, justice or law, we're purely talking about protection and safeguarding and how best to keep kids safe.

Anyone who may present a threat is kept away from vulnerable groups as much as possible. I would include people who willingly share information on their child rape fantasies in that category; I can't really imagine anyone who wouldn't.

When I'm considering safeguarding, I look for any potential threats and avoid if there are red flags. I don't and wouldn't, ever, give anybody the benefit of the doubt because there's no proof they're a criminal - in my view, trust has to be earned as a positive.

The criminal justice system - and, it seems, your work - works from the opposite point of view: innocent until proven guilty, quite rightly, that's an essential part of our justice system.

Safeguarding (as I understand it) has to pretty much work on the opposite premise - risky until proven safe.

Bespin shouldn't be worrying about criticism of spag - which is what one of these so-called personal attacks was.

Should worry about attitudes to paedophiles and safeguarding. Which are so completely off kilter, to be seriously concerning. Especially if one works with vulnerable youth.

I think Bespin means any undermining of Bespin's opinion.

Oh yes of course, that sort of attack.

Now, did we not have an official report on how it was found that Challenor had absolutely no comprehension or awareness of safeguarding and should not have been on any safeguarding or child safety group in any way whatsoever?

Weird just how many people fall into that category. I wonder what the main biological trait of those people might be?

Well said Scrimshaw

Safeguarding and justice do indeed work on pretty much opposite premises.

No one writing about fantasies involving child rape should be allowed anywhere near children. That anyone would think they should be raises serious concerns regarding their suitability to work with vulnerable young people in a possition of authority, that might need raising with any organisations involved if anyone knows which organisations.

So safeguarding is there to protect children or vulnerable adults from anyone who has exhibited any potentially harmful behaviour in the past or present under any name until it can be proved they are not a risk. So while an assessment may be unpleasant for the person under assessment, it's more unpleasant for children and vulnerable adults to be victims of harm.

If you get a retrospectively altered birth certificate - does this wipe your history out or is it still law that you disclose all previous names and addresses on DBS applications or safeguarding assessments, whatever your new birth certificate says?

If you get a retrospectively altered birth certificate - does this wipe your history out or is it still law that you disclose all previous names and addresses on DBS applications or safeguarding assessments, whatever your new birth certificate says?

If you apply for a job under your new name, and complete the DBS documentation, unless your new name is linked to the police checks to the old name [if you have anything that would appear on a police check] - if someone is doing this in order to access children and vulnerable people then breaking any law that states you must declare your 'dead' name is going to be of little use as the intention is to break the law anyway by accessing children and vulnerable people knowing that you are a threat to them.

Unless the DBS/PVG/police, independent of the applicant volunteering said information, are informed of the change of name(s) there is a serious loophole that is wide open to abuse.

Very worrying 😪

It'll be interesting to see what the DBS service replies to littlecabbage's follow up email - but I guess we'll have to wait till next week for that.

It is very worrying - it appears that the individual has to declare their previous names/identities. It is a criminal offence not to. But what happens when they don't - as pointed out - a person intent on accessing vulnerable children/women/ committing criminal offences won't much care about the criminal offence of not disclosing their previous identities....

This is potentially a massive loophole.

It's funny how our monitors are usually so concerned with our need to 'be educated' but in this case, when we're apparently oh-so-wrong, they'd rather hide on twitter than come and explain. I'd have thought those who consider themselves trans-allies would be keen to help aid our understanding.

Anyway, thanks for keeping talking about us, we love it when new people come to see what we're discussing.