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.

The police say this was a 'screw up'.

As was pointed out, though, the only reason the news of the 'screw up' surfaced was because this prisoner (a man in women's prison) was involved in a court case and the opposition's lawyers asked for his criminal record as a matter of procedure, and realised that his crime (murder, iirc) wasn't recorded.

If there are other 'screw ups' like this, nobody would know.

@TruthOrAlethiometer have you heard of this thing called lying?
It's all very well saying "but it's fraud" except that people DO commit fraud to get a job, and paedophiles will do more or less anything to get close to children.
They will court and marry a woman and have children with her in order to have access to them.
Do you really think they'll disclose all their former names when nobody is going to catch them out?

In fact the solicitor had to show the Crown a newspaper article showing the reporting of the crime before it was taken seriously. They didn't seem to have wondered why they had a convicted man in their custody, who according to their records, had committed no crime.

TBF I do think that @TruthOrAlethiometer is in complete agreement with you, just that this is a different point to the special trans rule.

@TruthOrAlethiometer

To steer on to a more fundamental point.

If a man with a GRC applies for a DBS and puts down "female" under "sex", is that treated correctly as fraud?

It should be clearer now, post the supreme court judgment, that that's what that is.

There is an alternative 'sensitive applications' route to reduce the chance of being outed to an employer, but yes, the idea that trans people are changing their sex and going thru all the palaver so they can go commit crimes is just one of the eleventy zillion GC fever dreams

It's important to me that 'gender critical' activists are also indicated on documentation so people can find out that they're the sorts of socially regressive horrors that wish to out queer people and remove their rights. This is only fair so that such awful people may be avoided by decent people.

Doesn't look like either of us will get our wish.

The problem isn't whether the person in the street believes it.

As with most things in the trans-person discussion its whether the trans lobby believes it.

@BeeSouriante

A DBS check is there for the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people.
The vast majority of people that go through one have now criminal record nor are they going to commit crimes.

It is there to protect those that have difficulty protecting themselves.
As such they come before the wants of those that want to work in that sector.

This means quite rightly that the whole of the person gets checked not just the bit that you want.

I repeat my deleted post.

Plopped back in from Planet Hyperbole, I see.

That is utterly horrific. It’s insane to allow such a system because there are bound to be mistakes made and those mistakes could have dire consequences. But the feelings of a self selecting group who cannot stand there own reality must take precedence.

The sensitive application route allows a "trans" person to hide their real name from a prospective employer.

No other category applicant is accorded the same privilege.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

Makes other employer safeguarding checks pretty irrelevant.
As they are barred from knowing WHAT the previous name was
and WHY the applicant wants to hide it.

A 'reputable' Trans person would not hide their original name
just ask that it was not used on current paperwork
(a bit like married women not having their birth name listed randomly)

You’re the only person saying this.

What others are pointing out is that those few who are both trans and a danger to vulnerable people can take advantage of a system that allows them more opportunity than others to game.

I don't care about anyone being outed, I care about ex criminals, fraudsters, rapists and paed0philes not being employed in sensitive jobs in the first place.

Operation Let Them Speak for the win. Again.

I think you're over-estimating the scope of documentation Bee!

All we want documentation to do is to state the relevant objectively verifiable details about a person, without recourse to the kind of flights of fancy you suggest.

'Awful' and 'Decent' are too subjective to be valid entries on an official document.

People reveal those characteristics through their behaviour. Like you often do.

"Outed"? You mean trans identifying people hope to keep their sex a secret?

I really need the definition of a pile on

people say it a lot and ive still no idea what it means really

on this thread it seems to mean replying to the OP

Oh I don't think there's a pile on. Robust maybe. I don't disagree with @TruthOrAlethiometer main argument, my concern is the is a different loophole.

And I get the impression @TruthOrAlethiometer is quite capable of defending themselves. 👍I hope you would agree @TruthOrAlethiometer !

I personally think it's positive to have the discussion as it's good to get clarity on this issue. It's been interesting for me to work through scenarios.

It was a bit of a shame, though, that the other thread was derailed because it was on an interesting theme.

Found one

an argument or attack by a large group of people against one person

but that doesn’t work if the OP is a question surely

This is true. The DBS asks you to disclose all previous names and known by names, whether you are transgender, or have just changed your name because you've got married, or for any other reason. Or if you're sometimes known as Liz and other times as Elizabeth, you need to tell them about that too.

There is a "sensitive applications team" at the DBS which handles applications from people who are transgender. That means that the information that (for example) Jane Brown used to be John White will be redacted from the certificate, but all records in both names are checked.

This isn't any different from anyone else who changed their names - my DBS certificate just shows my married name, not my birth surname as that's the name I currently use. But records under my old name were checked too. Agree though that there is the possibility for anyone to choose not to disclose their previous names, addresses or anything else in an attempt to be deceptive.

Under the old CRB system - Criminal Records Bureau - only convictions were reported. And Huntley was never convicted or anything, which allowed him to get a job in a school.

The Soham case was what brought an end to the CRB and saw it replaced with DBS. An enhanced disclosure (needed to work in a school) also allows the Police to disclose "intelligence" which they may feel is relevant - such as repeated allegations and charges of rape/sexual offences which never got as far as court, such as in the Huntley case.

my DBS certificate just shows my married name, not my birth surname as that's the name I currently use

Are you sure about that @tammienorrie ? There is a field for “other names” on the certificate, what would that cover if not all other names you have been known as?

Seems timely to post this proof that our concerns are not “fever dreams” or merely about theoretical risks by possible predators, but risks posed by actual, real men that identify as trans.

This study reports concerning findings of paedophilia among males seeking gender reassignment procedures.

The study found that over a period of 5 years at one Oxford clinic, 2 out of 38 males seen were “seeking gender reassignment to facilitate or normalise paedophilia. This latter small group described gender reassignment as a means by which to increase their intimate contact with children, which they viewed to be more socially acceptable in a female role.”

Gender reassignment: 5 years of referrals in Oxfordshire
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018 Volume 35 Issue 9 ^https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-psychiatrist/article/gender-reassignment-5-years-of-referrals-in-oxfordshire/6B5F217162ABD9B3189F2EB82787034E^

These are just the two men who managed to give away their intentions. How many could hide them more effectively?

Let me spell out the issues…

These trans identifying men want to be perceived as women/female in order to get close to children so they can sexually abuse them. They want to deceive people and exploit our knowledge that women are less of a risk to children than men.

They were actively seeking to go through “all the palaver” of hormones and/or surgery. (An inconvenient fact that BeeSouriente tries to wave away as a fever dream. Nice try but NO)

There is nothing to suggest that they don’t also feel ‘genuine’ symptoms of gender dysphoria.

They would want a female name.

They could succeed in getting a female birth certificate.

Deliberately leaving a previous name off the DBS forms so they cannot be checked or connected would be nothing at all to these predatory men. As said, relying on people to be truthful is not compatible with effective safeguarding.

ALL LOOPHOLES NEED TO BE CLOSED.

It’s bizarre to obsess over whether one poster (out of many) maybe had the wrong idea or worded something slightly inaccurately. But thanks for provoking me into making the effort to post this info. It’s always valuable to post facts to counter the disinformation that men like Bee try to disseminate.

Hahahahaha. You’re funny. 😂😂😂