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.

But all of those documents are a matter of public record, except the GRC, which is magic and secret, the only way to get a new BC with no reference to your previously registered name if you're over 2 years old, and no one is even allowed to ask if someone has one! It takes a loophole that can be closed by doing basic due diligence and drives a dump truck through it.

I didn’t say it didn’t happen. I think I’ve shouted several times that it does happen… by trans people and non trans people alike, and it’s fraud.

This was a screw up. But men who identify as men have done the same thing; changed their name and cheated on the DBS form to get a clean record.

It’s fraud though. It shouldn’t be allowed and all routes to it should be closed, but it isn’t JUST a trans thing. And trans people aren’t legally allowed to leave their old names off, no more than anyone else is.

Again, shows how you do not know anything. Deed poll is not registered anywhere, you print it at home, sign it, and so do two of your friends.

Done.

It's not that they have a legal right to do this - I didn't see a single post that said that other than yours.

It's that they have a legal right to a document that makes it possible for them to do this.

So the "trans fear" that male people could take women's place on sports teams/winners podiums etc is nonsense? I obviously imagined Lia Thomas, Emily Bridges etc.

The "trans fear" that male people could end up in women's prisons is nonsense? I must have imagined, Isla Bryson, Barbie Kardashian etc.

etc. etc.

It’s another poster repeatedly saying it elsewhere that caused me to ask if people really believe this.

It’s also possible for anyone to do this. It’s called fraud. Even if trans people have a new BC (few do), it’s still fraud. You don’t even need a BC for your DBS so it makes no difference. Anyone can change their name and lie on the DBS form and hope to get away with it. Trans or not.

That needs to be stopped. But stopped for everyone. It’s not a trans issue.

@RobinHeartella

my dbs has my current legal name, it doesn’t mention my previous name but I did have to list them applying the first time, ditto addresses but only has current address. It’s pretty thorough, they write to where you used to live even if overseas

So why haven’t you addressed it on there if nobody here seems to have seen anyone say that?

It’s a bit of a straw man though as the additional privileges for trans people DO undermine the effectiveness of DBS, regardless of the technical means.

They actually said Male transexuals. Sorry to be pedantic, but you seem keen on precision.

When you leave women out, people changing their legal name- not stage name or business name but legal name- are few. Apart from anything else it’s a ballache with qualifications, bank accounts etc.

The reason to have an Irish-style PPS number is it goes with you everywhere. On your medical records, on your employment records, bank records, on your tax records, on your criminal records, on your marriage and death certificates. Yes criminals try to buck the system, but it is not easy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Public_Service_Number

As you very well know I qualified this in numerous other posts to confirm that I was referring to male transexuals. The problems we discuss here are almost exclusively caused by male transexuals so excuse me if our default transexual is a male.
I suspect that the number of female transexuals who change their names is also extremely high. In my experience it's 100% but I have only encountered a handful of female transexuals. Perhaps you have some accurate data as you are so knowledgeable?
For non-transexuals women will have a higher percentage of name changes because of marriage but that won't even be 70%.

No, they didn’t. See the screenshot I have put in this thread.

They only corrected to that after I responded to their incorrect post.

Fair enough but it doesn’t change my opinion much at all. I still don’t think anyone should be allowed to change their birth certificate (apart from very rare DSD situations), and birth sex should have to be disclosed when it is relevant to the job, such as working with children and DV survivors etc

You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about this so much that instead of arguing on the other thread you start a whole new one with a strawman argument. You aren't prepared to concede that there is a particular problem when a transexual applies for a DBS certificate or that proportionately almost all transexuals will have changed their name while proportionately far fewer non-transexuals will have changed their name.

Male transexuals are more likely to be sex offenders than men who are not transexuals so are more likely to attempt to evade DBS checks.

So you are literally only taking the poster’s first statement on this and ignoring the clarification she realised was necessary because you didn’t understand what she meant?

That is somewhat dishonest.

Have you had any time to think about the obviously fairly tricky question I asked you?

The whole point of someone doing a DBS is to find out if they've done a crime that would make them unsuitable for working with vulnerable people.

Eg rape, child abuse.

Someone who has done something like that will not be hesitant to do fraud as well.

So relying on self reporting for a DBS is bonkers.

I'm not just talking about trans people, I mean anyone.

Op's argument is that everyone will self report and that's fine. It's not fine. We need to be able to find out a person's whole past.

Edit for typo

I agree although it’s obvious if a man is dressed as a women so therefore obvious if they’ve got a woman’s name it’s not their birth one. Although agree. How do you get their former name. The problem with this is that if they won’t give one you really can’t be expected to offer them a job if they are clearly lying.

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

I don’t believe they have a legal right and i don’t remember seeing it (i will be honest, its not like Ive made a study of it)

im not sure that its a widely held view on FWR

Apologies

caught up with the thread and can see that one person on another thread has said it

not sure it needed another thread but hopefully it clarifies some things

and as i said on the other thread, we had moved on from that and at least 3 people posted the relevant info and trans guidelines.

Why the heck can't you accept that the conversation moved on?

There is a loophole, and yes, it does apply to anyone doing a DBS check, but the only people who get to falsify their documents in terms of sex and name are the trans ones. Everyone else just gets to change their name.

AFAIK there are no official procedures to link changed names to old names, and there is no actual robust way of checking that anyone who is completing a DBS form has actually included ALL their previous names. THAT is the problem.

Which I guess begs the question, what's the point of DBS hiding it in the first place? If it's obvious the person is lying about their sex, what's the point of pretending they aren't?

All it does is create more work for the employer.

If they gave you a different name to the one they gave to DBS? How would you know? Could they claim not to have docs in previous name?

Tbh I'd worry that some employers wouldn't push it which is another issue in itself.

And on that, surely if the whole point of the special trans rule is to be discrete, it'd be better that the employer just knows about it than having to have a potentially very awkward conversation with the person?

Here's a detailed report from KPSS about problems with the DBS

It covers both the loophole that applies specifically to trans individuals via the "Special Applications Team" - a team devoted only to trans applicants and not to any other adults who may wish to keep details of name changes confidential (ie Domestic Violence survivors). It also covers other flaws with name changes that sex offenders can use. It's lengthy but very clear about the problems.

As someone who's worked with children and safeguarding for years, I see no reason why any adults should be able to conceal their birth sex when applying to work with children. There may be numerous occasions when sex is relevant in schols (toileting, changing children, supervising changing etc), now clarified by the SC judgment.

Children's rights to safety, dignity and privacy from the opposite sex in relevant situations is far more important than adults wishing to conceal their sex from employers.

kpssinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/DBS-Checks-and-Identity-Verification.pdf

And what if the name they changed to was unisex like Alex or Robin and they told you it had never changed?

(I know it seems I'm overthinking it, but honestly what some people will do to gain access to kids can be so mind-blowing. I'm not just talking about trans - any loophole will be exploited).

I’ve read both threads and I think OP is getting a hard time.

Her sole main point is that the loophole in the DBS application that means people can omit past names and therefore the names and any crimes are no longer linked is the same for everyone - not just trans applicants.

She has also acknowledged that the special exemption which means trans people can leave their old names off the certificate is a problem for employers who want to do their own extra checks.

Especially on the other thread there were some posters who were definitely confused about the difference between the application - same process for everyone - and the extra strep - sensitive info team available for trans applicants and subsequent difference on the certificate.

Op hasn’t defended the system or the trans certificate exemptions - in fact she’s been very critical of most of it.

The pile on though is awful.