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.

It has been claimed and vigorously defended by multiple mumsnet users who very firmly believe that trans people have the legal right to leave their old name off the form and therefore avoid the criminal record check, but this would actually be fraud.

There are other issues around it, not denying those. But people are claiming they’ve actually been given the legal right to only use their new identity for the check and hide their criminal past.

as we kept saying on the other thread: there is no mechanism to force anyone to reveal all their previous names on a DBS check and that is a massive safeguarding issue.

tbh the reason people worry about the trans aspect is that if you will lie about something as basic as your sex, how can we trust you on anything else?

Last figures I saw where that 30% of transgender people have changed their name legally. In the UK, you don’t have to fill out any forms, you just start using the name.

When I was discussing DBS applications, someone replied saying that “99% of transexuals have changed their name and 99% of non transsexuals have not changed their name” which is simply not true. Women are the largest group of people to have changed their names, and they mostly fall in the “non transsexual” category. They also do a lot of roles requiring a DBS check. Transgender people do not make up the majority of DBS checks with changed names.

Can you link the evidence for saying that trans woman are more likely to lie on the form?

But that’s not what was alleged. The statement was that “trans are legally allowed to leave their old names off, meaning they can hide their criminal history legally and are the only group allowed to do this.”

They are not. They are not allowed to do that. It is fraud, same as any other man or woman who does it.

Yes true, true.

However, lying to DBS is a criminal offence. Lying on an application form would not be (though of course if found out it would probably be gross misconduct). And it could be very difficult to verify if for example someone had changed their birth certificate.

I think it is making checking people harder which is hard enough already.

I see that the only way that you can advance your argument is to misquote me & then post lies just like you did on the other thread. Perhaps you could re-read my posts a few times then come back & apologise?

I haven’t seen any of those claims - I must have missed them.

Regardless, the case in Scotland recently where a criminal had his criminal record wiped because of the disconnect between his old male name and new female name. Maybe it was too unexpected for the system to handle, who knows? There has also been acknowledgment from the government that the special and unique privacy privileges given to trans people undermine the effectiveness of the DBS system.

You seem to be intent on arguing that a very specific thing is being claimed by Mumsnet users but is incorrect, which may or may not be the case, but what are your thoughts on the fact that the special privileges given to trans people are knowingly undermining the effectiveness of DBS?

How many failures in DBS checking are acceptable so that trans people can conceal their sex on paper (if not in person)?

No. What you said was “99% of transsexuals have changed their name and 99% of non transsexuals have not changed their name”.

Not true. Just like it’s not true that trans people have been given a legal right to leave their name off the DBS application to be checked.

They can't hide it from the DBS system but they are allowed to hide it from their employer.
Like you I can read government web sites. The advice states that...
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 gender identity.

That is not what I wrote here or on the other thread. You misquoted & posted lies. You have done the same here. Why not address the points I made instead of launching a new strawman argument?

The whole purpose of the special privacy DBS for trans people is so they can lie about their sex.

If they were not demanding the ability to conceal their past there would be no need for the special privileges.

Do you think every man claiming a trans identity (remember anyone can claim this) is 100% honourable and fully understands the need for child safeguarding? I can guarantee there are many men that absolutely are not on board with child safeguarding rules. Why would they suddenly make an exception for this?

You know that isn't what I wrote. I was very careful with my words. I even repeated it several times in several different posts that you kept misrepresenting for your on reasons. You have repeated these lies in several posts. Here is what I posted on the other thread.

Almost all male transsexuals applying for a DBS certificate will have changed their name.
Almost no male non-transsexuals applying for a DBS certificate will have changed their name.

It's not that they have a legal right to withold it - it's that there is no way of telling if they do!

Jane Smith gets born, BC in name of Jane Smith, gets married,marriage cert in name of Smith to Jones, Jane Jones changes name by deed poll, paperwork in name of Jones to Williams.

All of those documents create a trial, from birth to present day. If she doesn't disclose she was once called Jane Jones, someone looking at that paperwork will see there's a BC for Smith, and a passport for Williams, but nothing for Smith>Williams. There's something missing.

Someone changing their name because they're trans can get a whole new birth certificate. So Jane Smith/Jones could have done any number of horrendous things, but if she then becomes John Williams she'll have a passport and a birth certificate in the same name, with no evidence anywhere she was ever called anything else, and pass a DBS with no flags raised at all.

I’ve attached a screenshot for you.

You said that 99% of transexuals have changed their names whilst 99% of non transexuals have not changed their names.

Absolutely not true, hence why I ignored you going on and on. Because that’s not true so whatever argument you have from that isn’t worth listening to.

*trail, not trial. Before you start accusing me of saying people are prosecuted for changing their name, or something equally batshit.

I’m not talking about any of that. I’m only asking why people seem to believe that they have been given the legal right to hide their criminal record by only having to check their new identity.

If someone is a git of various means, why would they worry about something minor like fraud for leaving off their old criminal history soaked name?

What is the difference between 'not allowed' and 'not able to'?

It might not be legally allowed, how does this omission come to light if someone illegally chooses not to disclose?

Only people with a GRC can get the new BC so not that many. Anyone at all can change their name.

Anyone who changes their name can do exactly what you’re saying trans people can do during their DBS check if they want to try and commit fraud.

No BC is needed for a DBS check so it doesn’t matter if someone has their new name on it or not.

Right so we're at the heart of it.

Anyone who changes their name can commit fraud on DBS and get into trusted positions by illegal ommission.

Should this loophole be closed?

DBS is a shitshow. It doesn’t do what it should. I am not saying any of that is right.

I’m literally only saying that being trans does not give you the legal right to leave your old name off the criminal record check so you cannot hide a criminal record just by being trans. You have to commit fraud to do so.

In some ways, maybe that fraud is easier, maybe it isn’t. But they don’t have the legal right to hide their criminal history.

There is a poster on mumsnet claiming that trans people are allowed to, so it wouldn’t be fraud. That they’re getting special treatment and being allowed to cover up their criminal history. That’s the difference. They are not allowed to.

They are able to commit fraud, just like anyone else who tries. But they are not legally allowed to leave their names off.

There are not extra checks for anyone; anyone can lie about their previous names. But it’s fraud, and it’s still fraud when trans people do it.

Can you see the difference between the obviously false statement that 'all trans people will intentionally use this loophole to commit fraud' and the rational one that 'this is a loophole with particular care and sensitivity around declared trans identities that a bad actor may use to commit fraud'?

Which means this loophole needs to be closed.

Obviously, but the thing I took issue with was someone continually posting that trans people have a legal right to this rather than it also being fraud.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/trans-killer-criminal-record-wiped-35397482

'A trans killer’s criminal record was “wiped clean” after the thug self-identified as a woman behind bars.
Police Scotland and the Crown Office now face calls for an urgent review after the disturbing case involving trans prisoner Alex Stewart – who was known as Alan Baker when he killed a man.
Campaigners last night urged police and ministers to say whether trans prisoners have had records wiped clean.
It came after Alex Stewart – known as Alan Baker when he killed a man – had his previous scrubbed from records in a justice bungle.
Police Scotland and the Crown Office face calls for an urgent review of their record keeping.'

I mean, the Police assure us that this would never happen, right after it happened.

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,trans-criminals-cannot-escape-records-by-changing-names-justice-secretary-says