Challenor showing off their 'new' birth certificate

[MrsSnippyPants]

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

It also says:

^Update frequency

When a person adds their DBS certificate to their Update Service account the DBS will keep their DBS certificate up-to-date by regularly searching to see if any new information has come to light since its issue.

Criminal record conviction and barring information will be searched on a weekly basis for updates, as this information can change frequently.

Non-conviction information will be searched every nine months for updates, as it isn’t released on many DBS certificates and changes infrequently.

These conditions are based on the number of DBS certificates which reveal this type of information, alongside the likely risk of new information coming to light in the time-periods given, and the cost of checking for changes.^

So it appears to me that the update service DOES check regularly for new convictions etc, and that this isn’t therefore another massive loophole.

Why do my italics never work on here? Or are they showing for other people?

Ignore my earlier comment then, sounds like that's actually a good idea, if it is reliable.

You can’t rewrite history any more than you can say the moon is made of socks.

Can I therefore gonna life and change my parents to Elizabeth and Philip Windsor of Buckingham Palace and my dob as ten years after the actual event?

Does this mean that the original document has been destroyed? If not what happens when you need to get a copy of your birth very? I’ll have the latest one please - the one that says I’m a conjoined twin called Philys and Mike

Ugh. Maybe I can go to the government and make them legally add a few 0s to my bank account.

"It says at the bottom “a certificate is not evidence of identity”

I think it says that on all copies of birth certificates. "

Maybe. But if you think about it in this instance, it is comedy gold.

I remember back in the day when you went on holiday to Spain and could get ‘real posters’ printed with your name as a matador or racing driver. Hell, I’ve even got one as DS as James Bond!

I remember getting fake ID, I'm sure it was very unconvincing!

Can you get a copy of anyone's birth certificate? Couldn't I get a copy of Aimee's or Theresa May's and use it for immoral purposes?

I don't identify with my assigned Chinese astrology sign. I reckon I might just nip down and get my date of birth changed so I can be a Fire Dragon instead.

My Dragon identity EXISTS and is VALID !!1!1!!

littlecabbage but what I found out today was that you don't need to sign up to the update service.

Have done some reading and from what I can see you have 30 days from your DBS certificate date to join the update service and if you wish to join after that point then you need a brand new check. The update service enables the DBS to check for new convictions. However signing up to the update service appears not to be compulsory. From what I can see you could then continue to have the same DBS check for the rest of your life (with no one looking at it and no convictions being added unless you declare them) apart from if 1) you move jobs and need a new one 2) your employer or someone in your industry either request an updated one or insist that you need to join the update service or 3) possibly if you move house (but I'm not sure about this).

There's every chance I could be wrong but it was being openly discussed on a Facebook group where people were saying they are no longer part of the update service because it's not required by Ofsted. Apparently it's considered good practice but not compulsory. Ofsted only require an original DBS check.

See DBS update service on this page www.gov.uk/guidance/criminal-record-checks-for-childminders-and-childcare-workers#dbs-update-service

Why do my italics never work on here?

Cos you can’t have line or para breaks, you need to add ^ to the beginning and end of each sentence so for your text it’d look like...

It also says:

Update frequency

When a person adds their DBS certificate to their Update Service account the DBS will keep their DBS certificate up-to-date by regularly searching to see if any new information has come to light since its issue.

With no spaces after ^word would show as...

It also says:

Update frequency

When a person adds their DBS certificate to their Update Service account the DBS will keep their DBS certificate up-to-date by regularly searching to see if any new information has come to light since its issue.

Yes but you don't NEED an update service account.

Option 1
DBS check and join the update service and get regular checks. The benefit being that the update service will check your account on and ongoing basis for convictions. It's useful if you want to transfer to another employer for example because then you don't need a new DBS check.

Option 2
DBS check and don't join the update service. You could theoretically use this DBS for life with no one checking for new convictions unless you declare them or unless you get a new job whereby you'd need a new DBS. But say you had a DBS check, didn't join the update service and stayed in a job for 20+ years and didn't declare any convictions, then no one would know that you had convictions as no one would be checking.

what do you need to do to change your sex on your birth cert? but as this is a historically accurate the question should be HTF?????

Surely it's your employer's responsibility to do regular checks on your DBS, not you. In my line of work I am required to have a check every 3 years for the purposes of registration. I can provide this as a new check, or via the update service (if I am registered for it). The update service is a time and cost saver.

When I work freelance, bookers check too, either via the update service or by asking to see my certificate, which cannot be more than 3 years old. They repeat this check annually.

Similarly, if I applied for another post or a voluntary role, the organisation would require either a fresh DBS application or a check via the update service. No-one is going to accept one that's 20 years old.

I understand a DBS certificate is effectively out of date the day after it's issued, but I'm not sure this update service loophole is quite what you envisage. (This comment is separate from the question of whether a GRC provides a loophole for anyone with ill intent or a desire to bury their past.)

Interesting about a DBS check picking up sex offenders living at the same address. Is this all checks? Is it only people with a conviction?

A man in a position of trust evades prosecution for historical child abuse (a few days before a trial begins) because he doesn't have the mental capacity to face trial. The police know that he is guilty and there are multiple witnesses (I refuse to say victims). He is also facing disciplinary measures by his employers that are still ongoing. Would that show up on a DBS check if his wife is a therapist working with vulnerable children?

By the way, being mentally impaired enough to evade prosecution doesn't mean that you are mentally impaired enough to drive

I see what you mean umbel but I as a childminder don't need to join the update service, nor do I need to get an updated one, unless the rules change. As it stands Ofsted ask to see your certificate when you first register and then not again, nor is there a requirement to join the update service, although I did sign up myself. Parents can ask at any point to see your DBS but it tends to be a cursory glance.

One of my earlier points was as you say, if your employer requires regular checks then yes you would either join the update service or get a new DBS on a regular basis (my husband's employer is every 3 years).

I would be quite happy to stand corrected because the thought that there are people who aren't being regulated is concerning.

I see what you mean umbel but I as a childminder don't need to join the update service, nor do I need to get an updated one, unless the rules change. As it stands Ofsted ask to see your certificate when you first register and then not again, nor is there a requirement to join the update service, although I did sign up myself. Parents can ask at any point to see your DBS but it tends to be a cursory glance.

One of my earlier points was as you say, if your employer requires regular checks then yes you would either join the update service or get a new DBS on a regular basis (my husband's employer is every 3 years).

I would be quite happy to stand corrected because the thought that there are people who aren't being regulated is concerning.

Hmm, well the update service just provides an easy online way for other people to view your up to date DBS. If neither OFSTED, or the parents who are employing you are interested in actually checking your DBS, then it makes no difference whether you are registered for the update service or not, surely? They wouldn't be automatically informed of a change to your DBS simply because you were registered for the update service - you have to give them access.

As your employers, I'd guess that legally the parents of the children you look after are supposed to check to their satisfaction, assuming you don't need to register annually with the council or any other body (sorry, don't know the ins and outs of childminding).

So yes, as you point out Snoopy, it's the lack of regulation, rather than the fault of the DBS that creates the loophole. Wonder what other professions where safeguarding is a concern are so poorly regulated?

Yes, sounds like a failure of Ofsted as many other employers will require a DBS check to be repeated every so often. Maybe Ofsted is another organisation to email.... anyone else fancy getting on the case with that?!

GirlDownUnder thanks for the explanation re the italics!

Childminders are self employed and are only accountable to Ofsted but are not employed by them. I read somewhere that when the update service came in that Ofsted made it compulsory for people to sign up but then changed their minds, hence it no longer being the case. I had a parent sign up who said to me "a friend said I should look at your DBS so I should probably check". Often parents I guess assume that there's someone else who is regulating it but there's not.

I take the point that employers should/are likely regularly checking DBS'S. Do ALL employers have some kind of regulation whereby they must check? If they have the regulation in place then yes but can we be sure that they have the regulation in place. I worked for a company once who operated a scheme going to volunteer in schools from time to time - we took a copy of peoples DBS and it stayed on file, I was never told to do anything further. What about self employed football coaches etc that come into schools for after school clubs etc. Who do self employed people report to?

I'm quite happy to email Ofsted but I will pre warn you that they are veeeeery slow at replying. A friend of mine changed her address and it took them a year to update her record.

I think it should be compulsory for everyone to sign up to the update service with the exception of people who have an employer who takes responsibility. It would be as simple as paying for the update service at the time of applying for your DBS, but the money not being taken until it's issued.

But Snoopy, even if someone is registered for the update service, their employer cannot check the status of their DBS certificate without permission. Checking is a one-off thing. It is then up to the employer to periodically ask for permission to check again. The updates are not sent out to either the applicant or the employer as far as I can see. All the update service does is allow people to access an up to date certificate electronically when they have been granted permission by the DBS holder to look at it. Unless I've read it wrong, that appears to be how the system works.

I do see what you're saying but I suppose what I'm getting at is that one route gives someone a certificate potentially "for life" and the other at least has scope for checks being made (as you say when the employer gets permission). Perhaps then, the likes of Ofsted should be doing checks say every 3 years similar to the way that employers do. It just doesn't sit right with me that someone could obtain a certificate, then commit a serious crime and no one have any clue. I suppose if it were something really serious the police may inform the DBS- but then I'm not sure if you have to declare your occupation to the police.

Brain slowly dying today. It's been a long day with 3 small frantic children (mine) and I'm currently sat on stool in kitchen doing my best Mrs Large impression.

What I do not understand is why the GRA was not repealed as part of introducing the legislation permitting same-sex marriages. The rationale for the GRA and changing birth certificates was to enable same sex marriage for transsexual people.

As far as relation to the Equality Act 2010 is concerned, one of the protected characteristics is "sexual orientation". However, for the obvious reason that there is no conflict with other protected characteristics, there is no necessity under the EA to require anyone to apply, for the sake of argument, for a "Lesbian Recognition Certificate" in order to be protected.

There are good reasons though why the EA defines "Gender Reassignment" as applying specifically to "transsexual persons", not just anyone who rocks up claiming they are "Squirrel Gender" or who thinks that a lipstick is a magic sex-changing wand. "Good reasons" being the necessary sex-based exceptions.

The "Human Rights" argument, that it would be unfair to require someone to have sex reassignment surgery to qualify as a "transsexual", does not make sense when the whole point of the GRA was to benefit dysphoric Homosexual Transsexuals (HSTS) who wanted sex reassignment surgery. If "transsexual" is also to cover any HSTS who, for medical reasons, cannot undergo that surgery, then that could be covered by requiring an authorised medical statement to that effect.

When you think of the hoops that disabled people have to crawl through to gain access to benefits, services and specialised equipment, this sort of verification hardly seems too much to ask.

GRA reform is still on the cards, the likes of Stonewall are arguing for removal of sex-based exemptions from the EA 2010 and we are seeing predictable problems with the current creep of cross-dressers being able to "Self-ID" as women across all sectors. I think women's rights organisations need to pro-actively campaign for measures to tighten up definitions and protections, ie. rather than just fire-fight and defend against proposed changes that undermine safeguarding children and pose threats to women.

Inevitably, this would be lambasted by some as "anti-trans" and "transphobic". However, anyone claiming this is tacitly stating that it is somehow disadvantageous to trans people if women are protected and children safeguarded against assault by men, men exploiting the weaknesses in out of date legislation.

Any decent trans person would support such improvements.

Oh - and someone asked if Challenor had any previous convictions. It is not clear from this what happened about charges brought in 2013 about blackmail and bomb threats. I seem to recall something about a plea of a diagnosis of "autism". It went to court so there must be a record somewhere in the public domain.

transcrimeuk.com/2018/06/27/aimee-challenor/

"Aimee Challenor, a male who identifies as a trans woman, was arrested in February 2013 (then aged 15) on suspicion of threatening to launch a cyber attack on Birmingham’s Bullring Shopping Centre.

Challenor was bailed until May 2013 on suspicion of blackmailing a corporation and has since admitted being attached to Anonymous at the time. The charges were eventually dropped. In the video, Challenor allegedly threatened to launch a Distributed Denial of Service (D-DOS) attack – a criminal offence intended to prevent access to an online service.

Contemporary coverage on Coventry Live from 2013 states that “The charges stem from a protest held by internet activists Anonymous at the venue in January. The 15-year-old alleges he was attacked by security guards. In retaliation, he is said to have posted a video on YouTube threatening to crash the shopping centre’s website – unless he got an apology.”

The rest of the page is worth reading if you have not seen it before!

I thought the gender recognition thing was kicked in the long grass. That they hadn't even done the report on the shambles of a consultation

How are they issuing GRC? Did they bury any changes because all the news is about Brexit?