Sex offenders and the Scottish GRC

[waterwitch]

Trying to clarify exactly what the implications of GRR are, even for male SO who are not prepared to ‘live as women’ for the rest of their lives

Wondering if it is possible for sex offenders (inc from England & Wales) to ‘live as a woman’ in Scotland for 3 months, apply for GRC in a different name, then live there for another 6 months, apply for a GRC in a third name and then continue life (perhaps back in England/Wales) with a shiny new birth certificate and unblemished record? Would the sex offenders’ register do anything to address this?

Assuming this is the case, I wonder why it isn’t being spelt out?

I don’t know the answer to your question, but I do believe that once you have got your shiny new status, your DBS is wiped clean and you can start from scratch again.

What you will be starting is a moot point, of course.

Op, it has been spelt out but countless times apparently it's bigoted to do so.
The UK government may block it

I can't see any reason why someone living in England Wales or Northern Ireland couldn't do this. The SNP know they just don't care.

Your criminal record is not wiped out by a name change or GRC, and a DBS still shows offenses.

www.ddc.uk.net/question/dbs-process-transgender-applicants/

Assuming you tell your past name and identity.

Of course, sex offenders and other criminals are the most honest and trustworthy people on the planet, so wouldn’t lie or omit details now, would they?

I don't understand why we are relying on people to disclose previous names during a DBS check. Of course offenders won't!

But at the time that the GRC is issued, whoever is processing the application knows both old and new names. Why can't they transfer any offences to the new name at that point?

Seems like an obvious solution.

On the sex offenders register, it records both your "gender identity" and your birth sex. Someone couldn't just change gender identity and get magically deleted off it, they'd just change the gender identity box and continue exactly as before. Sex offenders on the register are actively monitored and checked and visited at home by the police - it isn't just a paper list of names. You can't just change your name and not be on it anymore.

That's really interesting, @Pumbles . So the offender's birth sex is kept on record even when they get a GRC?

I do wonder whether this is the way we should be pushing to go: birth sex kept separate from gender, both of them recorded on all official documentation, and the appropriate one used in all the various situations we encounter in life. We could have proper debate in parliament to clarify which of sex/gender applies in each different situation, eg equality laws, prisons, form of address etc. At least then we'd have an open and honest debate, and a chance to work through the conflicts of rights between different segments of society - as a democracy should.

I know there's a secrecy clause which is part of the GRA, so that no one is ever meant to know if someone has undergone gender reassignment. But that seems quite outdated and unnecessary now.

DadJoke I think we can safely assume SO’s trying to change their identity for nefarious purposes (which might in fact happen 🙄) then they won’t choose to update the authorities. Is there anything to ensure this does actually happen?
if not, my original example still holds

Birth sex is what's on your birth certificate, right?

Part of being on the register is that offenders have to inform police of any changes of name. As @Pumbles said, even with a GRC they remain on the register.
They are in breach of their notification requirements if they do not inform police of certain changes to their circumstances.

So, you can change your birth certificate to basically falsify your birth sex. Even easier now.

What about if a male commits a sex offence, but has a birth certificate (retroactively falsified by the state) which states he is female? He would be down as female at birth, wouldn't he?

@waterwitch A GRC makes no difference whatsoever to your DBS record. It doesn't make it easier to lie about who you are. It does not cover up past offenses.

It does if you choose not to disclose previous names

Theoretical scenario:

John is a rapist who committed his crime in Scotland, was tried and was found guilty. John is now Jane and has a GRC. A DBS check on Jane would reveal the rape. Would this be disclosed since it would mean outing Jane as being previously male?

Yes.

Cf:
www.ddc.uk.net/question/dbs-process-transgender-applicants/

Only if Jane is honest about his name change. Which he won't be. This has been explained to you a vast number of times.

Exactly. Why is there an assumption that sexual predators would never lie, that they don't seek out loopholes, that they'd never exploit an opportunity like hiding who they are, to offend?

Of course they would.

They question is - why would you think they wouldn't?

A DBS check on Jane would only reveal the rape if Jane discloses any previous names, as we know there have been numerous examples where SO change their name and do not disclose their previous name so therefore the possibility is there for them to create a whole new identity with no criminal history.

From the document DadJoke keeps linking to:

The law requires that applicants disclose all previous names and addresses to the DBS so that they can process an application correctly, and return accurate results.

If Jane was convicted as John and does not use any of the processes to confidentially disclose their previous identity then no the rape will not come up on a DBS check.

We know this because the quote above tells us that it is necessary for the applicant disclose all the previous names and addresses for a DBS check to be accurate.

We also know this because a MNetter contacted the relevant authority (can't remember the fine details) a few years ago to clarify this point. There was thread about it.

ResisterRex

Exactly. Why is there an assumption that sexual predators would never lie, that they don't seek out loopholes, that they'd never exploit an opportunity like hiding who they are, to offend?

Nicola Sturgeon said something to the effect that nobody would get a GRC to access children to abuse. No mention of joining the Police, Scouts, teaching etc. It's their standard MO to join some organisation, or obtain some status, to gain access to potential victims.

Of course they would. They question is - why would you think they wouldn't?

Because you're (not you!) batshit, stupid, a hidebound ideologue, who refuses to acknowledge reality; or all three.

Er, the answer to that is No. The process which is only available to trans people, states quite clearly that they have to disclose their previous names outside of the actual process. And as we know, ex criminals are notorious for you know, lying!

Anyone who thinks a rapist or paedopbile is going to willingly call a trans hotline and say 'you know that DBS I completed, well I'm a rapist/paedohile so make sure you note that on the check so that the school doesn't employ me' is quite frankly totally insane.

Indeed it is!

When you think if the most of the people you think you know and then remember that they've lied on a CV or about their sickness, or they've told porkies to the school to get the kids out early...or whatever. People evade/stretch/polish/omit when they feel the risk Vs benefit weighs up FOR THEM. Than most definitely includes sexual predators!

I watched a documentary about a mum who murdered a neighbour who her sons disclosed was abusing them. It turns out he was a convicted sex offender but had changed his name and was living, working close to and employing and grooming young kids and no one was keeping tabs because of the name change.

@DadJokeDadJoke In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.