Do people actually believe that trans people have a legal right to only DBS check their new identity?

[TruthOrAlethiometer]

Do people actually think that?

To be clear, trans people do not have a legal route to leave their old name off a DBS application, and therefore hide any past criminal activity.

Trans people fill out the same DBS form as everyone else. On that form, it is clear that they must include all past names. If they do not then they are committing fraud.

What they can do is then have the past name redacted from the final certificate, so the employer or organisation will not see it. But all past crimes are shown (if the type of check means they should be shown).

There is no legal route for trans person to fill out the application for a DBS check and leave off their old name from the checking process.

Obviously people can do that. But anyone can. Anyone who has changed their name can leave off their old names, and only send in documentation to support their new name in an attempt to hide criminal convictions. But this is fraud, for trans people or non-trans people. It is not made possible because trans people exists; there have been name changes for a very long time before any trans polices. Criminals have been changing names and lying to DBS for a long time in the hope it doesn’t get picked up. And DBS isn’t really fit for purpose so it can work. But that’s nothing to do with trans people, and trans people do not have permission to do it.

There are many other issues around trans people changing birth certificates and other things, but none of that has any bearing on a DBS check. If they fail to give their old names then it is fraud.

What’s important to me is that someone’s biological sex is shown on all official documentation, this should not allowed to be changed. I think the GRC allowing this should be reversed. In the event that someone is now ‘Bev’ when they were ‘Brian’ then this should prompt a name change note too.

I've done dbs and security vetting going quite deep that rabbit hole, and... No, that's not how any of this works. That's why all the checks have route where you can handle disclosures privately and safely.

And without going into details, just withholding your past name, assuming you legally changed it and not just for casual day-to-day acronym, is not going to sever the link.

It's just tons of people who do not know what they are talking about claiming to be experts so it supports their "trans people are doing it to hide crimes" latest made up hate-trigger.

I agree. Birth certificates should never have come into it; they shouldn’t be changed.

But I’m talking about the idea that some people seem to really believe that trans people are legally allowed to only list their new name when they apply for a DBS so any past crimes will never been shown. And that’s just not at all true, never has been.

Thank you. I felt like I’ve been going absolutely mad with the number of people who seem to believe this now.

You are welcome.

And as a bit of a sneak peak, pretty much every other "trans fear" is based on similar level of complete nonsense, sponsored by mumsnet et al, just most of those are not as obvious.

It’s pretty obvious when a bloke in a dress is in a women’s space he doesn’t belong. Pretty obvious when Lia Thomas is taking medals scholarships and opportunities away from young women, as well as inhabiting the space they need to wrangle their way into extremely awkward competition swimwear.

It was also disgustingly obvious when a trans identifying man in my city took to trying on women’s wear inappropriate clothing department stores, photographing his boner as he went.

Sometimes there’s little need for subtlety.

You are responding to a man who teaches his kids about kink and bondage so I'd take what he says with a lorryload of salt.

Doesn’t really make any difference to their point about the law and how DBS checks work. That’s entirely correct, and anyone with half a brain can read for themselves on the guidance (it’s that most people don’t have half a brain and can’t understand it that’s the problem).

Also a man who likes to intimidate actual lesbians at Pride in an attempt to make them include males as sexual partners.

In a thread about safeguarding, the red flags are strong for this one.

And 'sponsored by mumsnet' - just laughable. The very idea that women are allowed to talk, right?!

This is another thread title which make some kind of controversial statement and in this case it's a topic that has been covered at length in another thread.

There's a 'marking their territory' vibe about a lot of these threads.

As per the other thread, DBS not sharing previous name prevents an employer doing their own checks. Checks required by Ofsted, for example.

This is the problem. It's not just about convictions.

Just a minute - as I understand it, leaving off the old name on the final certificate is a pretty significant difference, if that only an option for trans people.

Take teaching for example. When you hire a teacher, you do a DBS check but you also do a general vetting check of that person's online presence. For example you might choose not to hire someone as a teacher if they had a public sexual-themed tiktok channel or very extreme political YouTube channel etc etc. When you get the DBS certificate, if it says previous names, you can check all that too.

Cross posted with this, yes thats exactly the sort of thing I meant, summarised way briefer

Of course not. Apparently Ian Huntley went by several names and that's how he evaded police checks which enabled him to work in a school. Very dangerous.

I had practice on the other thread 🤣.

I like your example.

I'm afraid I am not going to be taking the word of someone who has openly lied on another thread and been caught out. Anyone can claim to be anything here. I for example run the Supreme Court on Tuesdays, and on Thursdays I dust the Tower of London ravens, hence the user name.

OP you would do better to thoroughly check your facts on a range of reputable sources, and be aware that activist ones may contain significantly distorted views and beliefs as well as intentional misleading towards political ends. I believe this loophole has been discussed at high level.

I don't think some posters appreciate the amount of background checking that happens when employing someone to work with vulnerable children. DBS is part of it but there's a huge amount more to it.

Because these arseholes can and will use every trick in the book.

DBS getting in the way of these very important checks by withholding a person's name is frankly outrageous.

Alleged kids. Don't forget this is a man who claims that he is a woman. If he lies about that why should you believe anything else he says?

Check what facts?

Do you actually think there is a part on the DBS form which says, “trans people do not need to list their previous names?”

This isn’t a matter of opinion. Go and look at DBS checks for yourself. Trans people do not have legal permission to skip their previous names.

There is no loophole allowing trans people to wipe their criminal record clean just by being trans and using a new name. You are welcome to post the parts of the form which show this is allowed if you think I am wrong.

I am not.

But now what this thread is suggesting.

Trans people cannot hide their criminal history but only doing a check on their new name. They are required by law to include all previous names which are then checked for a criminal record and those crimes are put on their certificate. They cannot hide past crimes by becoming trans, unless they commit fraud.

Yes I know.

I was opening the discussion as to what the actual issue is.

Tell that to @TheOtherRaven who is apparently steadfast that trans people are allowed to apply only in their new name and then hide their criminal record. A few people on this forum seem to be.

If further checks are required by Ofsted are you not within your rights to request in the application process all previous names. Just as employers often ask for pre marriage names ( hate the word maiden ). A simple caveat that this is required for full Ofsted checks would suffice as justification.

I’m not sure that specifically has been claimed but the government acknowledged there was an issue with the ease of breaking links with previous names when you have acquired a birth certificate that says you not only have a new birth name but also a different sex.

If a man wants to take up the special privileges offered for trans people and seeks a job with kids for nefarious reasons, I’m sure fraud is a small step. The special rules for that certain group just make it easier for failure to occur.

Yet again, trans people seem not care at all that special accommodations demanded by them remove safeguards for all.

I believe a criminal in Scotland got his history wiped by a similar issue.

Honestly you would think that even someone with half a brain would realise that almost all male transexuals will have changed their names whereas few men who are not transexuals will have changed their names. Relying on the honesty of men who claim to be women to always report their sexed deadnames when applying for a DBS certificate is very trusting to say the least.