Challenor showing off their 'new' birth certificate

[MrsSnippyPants]

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

Now I’m actually wondering what happens if you’ve changed your name (marriage/deed poll) and just don’t disclose the previous name on your DBS....is that sort of name change linked together in their system? Given that presumably only a marriage cert/deed poll is needed to change you name on everything but your birth certificate, you can easily produce 3 docs in your new name. Then change your sex marker on passport/driving licence (no grc needed even now I believe) and you are Mr John Smith rather than Miss Jane Doe?

Or does dbs look at deed poll/passport history etc?

What I’m trying to say is is this actually an even bigger loophole than just for GRC holders?

Petra
I think this is potentially a huge loophole. Challenor's birth certificate post has highlighted the issue. The sensitive route makes disception easier as an employer would not expect to know the previous ID because of this.

Thats kind of the point - predators will abuse a loophole that has been created to protect trans feels.

Predators will abuse a loophole that was not created for trans people. Predators can change their name and driving licence or passport and they are original drivers cements. Doesn’t have to be birth certificate.

Drivers cements= documents!

Predators will indeed use any loophole but this is a glaring great big one that needs sorting out. As i said above

The sensitive route makes disception easier as an employer would not expect to know the previous ID because of this.

With regards to DBS - applicants need to show only 3 pieces of ID, for example passport, driving licence and council tax statement.

If applicants don't declare that they have used another name it would not necessarily questioned by the employer. So an applicant could quite easily omit information such as a maiden name or other name.

It would more likely be picked up on if an employer was also making other checks.(for example a school might check a teacher's qualification or reference check 10 years+ of employment history).

Also, a person could be wholly unsuitable to work with children but not have a criminal record.

While schools are pretty thorough, there maybe people who work in the school for private companies who don't take their safer recruitment responsibilities so seriously, for example contract cleaners.

This is why a safeguarding culture is genuinely important.

I guess any job would want your employment/education history and you would be able to change those without a GRC...

But volunteering (eg sports coaching) doesn’t ask for that!

So how do people with GRCs apply for jobs without disclosing their change if they have to give references from before the change? And gcse/degree/professional certificates? And what about if they went to a single sex school?

So how do people with GRCs apply for jobs without disclosing their change if they have to give references from before the change? And gcse/degree/professional certificates? And what about if they went to a single sex school?

That's a very good question. Due diligence with employment in schools requires the production and checking of original documents such as Degree certificates, etc.

Petra you make a good point about volunteering not necessarily requiring previous employment references.

And yes, as PPs have said - I have checked the DBS website and the application can easily be submitted using ID other than the birth certificate.

So anyone who has changed their name by deed poll/marriage can presumably not disclose previous identities. What an absolute joke of a safeguarding system!

IMO, the DBS system must be altered so that a birth certificate MUST be shown, and also, the GRA must be repealed so that people cannot get a false birth certificate in a name and sex other than the name they were given at birth and the biological sex that they actually are. Of course all previously issued false birth certificates need to be revoked and returned.

Shall as many of us as possible flag this up to our MPs?

@Ali1cedowntherabbithole - that is fine for you to quote my replies (without my username preferably).

I wonder though if the Dvla/passport office link new passports to old so if you just change your name/sex they have a trail.,.and if you apply for a completely new one you need a BC...

Petra Yes, possibly. But why haven't the DBS informed me about such a link? And also, theoretically, a person might not apply for their first passport or driving licence until after they change identity, either via GRC, deed poll or marriage.

Possibly they want to be discreet about what people know to keep loopholes hidden? Applying post marriage/deed poll would still need an (unchanged) bc I think...

Might be one for our MPs...

I wonder, is the key to a more secure system an individual's National Insurance number? It is issued at age 16 and 'never changes' according to the government website. So while an individual can adopt a new identity by changing their name and sex/gender on a birth certificate, driving licence or passport by means of marriage, deed poll or GRC, they can never change their NI number.

If the record of a conviction had to include the offender's NI number and it was mandatory for an applicant to provide that number when applying for a DBS check, wouldn't that close all the loopholes?

With my database designer hat on I think NI number is one of those things (like US social security numbers) that you can’t actually presume to be unique so you never use it as a unique key (bizarrely)...taxpayer id number might be though!

All the DBS check does is check whether someone has a criminal record.

If someone has a false identity. For example a fake European passport and then two utility Bill's, the DBS will come back clear because there us no criminal record recorded against the fake identity.

It is not a perfect system.

So - a DBS check is functionally useless, then, if it's so easy to change identity/avoid disclosing past crimes. What's the point of them at all?

In fact, worse than useless, as there will be a certain presumption that a DBS/PVG showing no crimes goes some way to proving a person's lack of guilt.

That's it. If people think that someone has a clear DBS check and therefore they are OK, they would be wrong.

Generally speaking, employers should use DBS amongst other measures so that they build up a picture of the person.

Again, anyone could fail to disclose former names. It’s not specific to just trans people. How do you make anyone disclose a former identity?

Yes I was wondering the same thing too - I'm assuming it's exactly the same if you changed your name and don't disclose the former names?

All the DBS check does is check whether someone has a criminal record.

If someone has a false identity. For example a fake European passport and then two utility Bill's, the DBS will come back clear because there us no criminal record recorded against the fake identity.

It is not a perfect system.

But if that is the case - then why did we even introduce the system? It was brought in partly because of Ian Huntley - who because he had changed his name, on the Police checks previous "warnings" did not show up. So if the system can't link to previous identities then it is a waste of time and money.
And when I've renewed passport and driving license - the two systems seem to be linked (I think for my last driving license I was offered the option of using the photo from the last passport I had applied for).

Well done littlecabbage. Thank you for pursuing this.

And yes, Huntley was known to several police forces, wasn't he? But they had no way to connect the dots.

And still don't, apparently.

I agree birth certificates should be the
common denominator. With a permanent link to the old one for trans people.

So - a DBS check is functionally useless, then, if it's so easy to change identity/avoid disclosing past crimes. What's the point of them at all?

They protect organisations.

If an organisation has requested a DBS as part of their Safer Recruitment then it exonerates them if someone they have recruited goes on to commit an offence.

As they only show up convictions etc, it's meaningless if someone has never been caught and, until the update service was created, they were useless the second they came off the printer as someone could be convicted the following day.

As a police officer once said to me, "someone would have to be very unlucky indeed to be caught on their first offence".

Yes they are meaningless if either someone has never been caught before, or if they lie about their past names. It isn’t a perfect system at all.

I’ve often thought the only way to really keep children safe is to put recording cctv everywhere that is appropriate and where there isn’t you would have to have at least 2 adults present at all times. Would reduce risk further but would have to apply everywhere from education to churches.

DBS have replied and are definitely dodging the issue:

*"Could you please contact the team on the above number/s or alternatively provide a contact number for us to call you.

We can then further discuss your query.

You can find out more about how we use and protect your personal information online. Please visit our privacy policies on our website at:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/dbs-privacy-policies

If you require any further assistance please don’t hesitate to get in touch."*

That is their entire email (apart from Dear... and From....). I cannot ring them today as on holiday with family and a busy schedule, but will be following this up when I get back next week.

Presumably if they ask why I am asking, they cannot legally refuse to reply, even though I am neither transgender nor an employer? Freedom of Information Act or something? Mind you, I think I have the right to know as a parent whose kids are supervised by people who are supposedly screened by a DBS check.

For those saying they are pointless anyway, I disagree - yes they won't show people who haven't yet received a conviction or other "red flag" but at least (if managed correctly) they should stop convicted offenders from accessing children. That is better than nothing, so we should fight to ensure they are managed properly, instead of the DBS being scared to offend transgender people.