Does theDBS Sensitve Application Route for trans applicants undermines the value of a DBS check and pose a safeguarding issue

[IwantToRetire]

From a recent NHS job advert:

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) offers a confidential checking service for transgender applicants in accordance with the Gender Recognition Act 2004. This is known as the sensitive applications route, and is available for all levels of DBS check - basic, standard and enhanced.

The sensitive applications route gives transgender applicants the choice not to have any gender or name information disclosed on their DBS certificate that could reveal their previous identity. To contact the sensitive applications team, please telephone

https://www.nhsjobs.com/job/UK/North_Yorkshire/Scarborough/York_Scarborough_Teaching_Hospitals_NHS_Foundation_Trust/Physiotherapist/Physiotherapist-v6767892

Government Guidance
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

KPSS wrote about this being a safeguarding issue 2 years ago
https://kpssinfo.org/dbs-checks-and-identity-verification-pdf/

I'm not quite sure I follow what you mean.

Good safer recruitment means you don't just look at dbs certificate itself and go that's clear.

generally you either do a new dbs check for a new role or if the person has paid for the update service you can use that to look online at the certificate which is then up to date, but you still have to check their ID as well.

Why are the dbs making name change a sensitive issue for some, but not all.

Its only a service for people who want to hide their sex, not everyone who wants to hide their previous names.

If the dbs process is about criminal records, why are they getting involved with hiding someones sex when they arent in a position to investigate why someone might be motivation to hide their sex.

The point is, the special helpline is for anyone who wants to hide their sex, regardless of GRC status. A man could have had a GRC for 20 years or had a womans name for 2 days.

Its easy for employees to assume that the government checks would be a liitle bit more robust than that. Especially when government are saying that self id isn't the law.

Well, my fundamental of safeguarding is it applies to everyone, no exceptions. So on that basis it doesn't seem right.

I was just trying to clarify the processes behind it, as I has less concern about physical certificate that often just one person sees saying male/female on it, if the rest was the same.

I can't actually see if the law trying to prevent offenders changing thier name got through parliament or not though.

It seems like the system has generally not been fit for purpose anyway

TWETMIRF · 09/11/2024 00:07

You don't have to give a birth certificate as one of your pieces of ID. Perfectly possible to only provide ID in current name.

I did one last night, it wanted my passport and driving licence details.

I can't actually see if the law trying to prevent offenders changing thier name got through parliament or not though.

I don't think so.

If the dbs process is about criminal records, why are they getting involved with hiding someone's sex when they arent in a position to investigate why someone might be motivation to hide their sex.

Because "trans" trumps everything.

The purpose of a dbs is to tell you about specific things relating to convictions. If it still tells you those things it's not an issue.

I'm just still not clear if it tells you those things from this but I think it does.

How could it though? For eg Karen White, convicted rapist, real name Steven Wood. Despite being a sex offender White is as entitled as anyone to use the "sensitive applications" (which exclusively applies to people who identify as the opposite sex) process. He is entitled to not have his DBS show his sex or any of his previous convictions. Imagine that this convicted rapist had honestly declared to the DBS team that he had changed his name. Now as it stands I think he would have at least one rape conviction under his new name. But what if the conviction was only under the old name?

Does anyone know if the information that he was a convicted rapist under another identity would even be communicated, or how it would be without revealing name? Or would it come back with the conviction but not former name or that he's a man? I'm not clear on this.

Problem is passport office and drivers license will change the sex marker and name without a grc so if someone has done that they can give new names and not contact the sensitive helpline

But their previous name will be uncovered in the check surely ? I had a DBS and didn't include my middle name, I hadn't used it for 20 years and it wasn't on my passport or anything. They still found it and contacted me about it.

As a side point, I think a transwoman not wanting the previous male name revealed incase it 'outs' her is living in a dream. I've never met a transwoman that passed irl, and I've met a lot of transwomen. It's usually blindingly obvious.

Let's never lose sight of the fact that the trans lobby wanted trans adults to have exceptions to the standard DBS process so that they are not exposed to the same scrutiny that every other adult has to undergo. And that's a row of 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

No exceptions with safeguarding children.
No special privileges.
No sacred castes.
No more 🚩🚩🚩🚩.

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · Today 11:33

Problem is passport office and drivers license will change the sex marker and name without a grc so if someone has done that they can give new names and not contact the sensitive helpline

Ah yes, of course - pardon my fluffy head!

The reason why all trans people use the special helpline is not because it hides criminal convictions, its that it hides their sex.

If they don't go through the helpline, there's a risk previous, or legal names are disclosed to anyone who sees the dbs. The dbs ensures that none but the name the recipient wants is disclosed. And they dont have to have a GRC to have access to this service.

So a government department has said that this person is called x and has no criminal record. Not only are they hiding legal or previous names from employers, they are hiding the sex or legitimising the idea that they are the opposite sex.

If the dbs holder is obviously male, and the employer understand the law clearly, they can treate the person as their real sex.

But we know the law is confusing, so they might just as easily assume they have a GRC or think they have to treat them as the opposite sex because the government sees them as the opposite sex.

Its worse if they do pass, or pass enough for people to be unsure. Then they may be given access to situations that they shouldn't.

Let's never lose sight of the fact that the trans lobby wanted trans adults to have exceptions to the standard DBS process so that they are not exposed to the same scrutiny that every other adult has to undergo.

This. If trans is acceptable, why is the fact that trans people have had different names so outrageous. Why would knowing someones previous names be so damaging that a helpline needs to be set up?

So any offenders can change thier name via deed poll, in prison and get all new ID and by pass this.

I'm so confused by what happens when chdcks take place.. It seems to rely on convicted criminals being hones

I do know Keeping Chikdren Safe in Education recommends having a birth certificate as one of the forms of ID now.

Does anyone actually know what would happen in the scenario I have outlined:

Man rapes and is convicted of rape. "Transitions" following this and changes his name. Released from prison. Goes through the "sensitive application" process during which time they become aware that he is a convicted rapist in a male name.

What gets put on the certificate?

Surely this is the case.

No it's fine, what it means is that the dbs record will not disclose their previous name for instance whereas mine states I've changed name. They have still fully checked the person for whether they have convictions or cautions. The new employer does not need to know that they were once John and are now Josephine unless it's a job in a an area where they legally can ask about protected characteristics. Most dbs applicants are not for roles where sex matters remember - I have an enhanced dbs and whether I'm female, male or none of the above makes no difference to my job as it's not care related

So what gets put on the certificate in my scenario?

Given men are the main perpetrators of sexual assault and related crimes and that ( I believe this is true?) the % amongst trans women is higher still, it is very important that sex at birth is on all records, especially DBS.

Nobody should be able to hide previous names. It's pathetic how testerical trans people get about names, if James calls himself Judy then absolutely nothing bad will happen if people find out his original name.

He is entitled to not have his DBS show his sex or any of his previous convictions.

This is absolutely untrue. The sensitive applications process does not mean your DBS won't show previous convictions.

It won't show that you're trans because being trans isn't a crime, much as some people here seem to believe it to be or wish it were.

Have you read the thread? We're talking about safeguarding children and one group of adults demanding special dispensation from the rules that apply to all other adults wishing to work with children.

Anyone demanding exemption from this process raises a red flag. No exceptions, no sacred castes. The rules are there to protect children.

I've read the thread. The fact remains, the poster I quoted made a false statement. The fact remains, being trans isn't a crime and does not need disclosing on a DBS any more than someone's race, religion or sexuality needs disclosing.

Using the DBS sensitive route does not prevent people from having their crimes disclosed nor does it mean their check is less thorough. What it does do is protect trans people from discrimination from employers who think merely the fact they exist is "a red flag".

Seriously, if you need any evidence at all of why trans people might prefer not to be forcibly outed to potential employers, you only need to read this thread.

This is absolutely untrue. The sensitive applications process does not mean your DBS won't show previous convictions.

So how will it show his rape conviction if it was in a different, male, name. Explain please.

And I'm not saying it should say he's "trans" I'm saying it should say he's a fucking man. Drop the obfuscation.

The fact remains, being trans isn't a crime and does not need disclosing on a DBS any more than someone's race, religion or sexuality needs disclosing.

This is about sex. Not "gender identity".