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.

As per the original question: yes some people clearly do believe it, and no it’s not true.

20 or so posts all being extremely grumpy about the OP having the temerity to be right does feel like a pile-on.

Yet I can’t see anywhere where someone has claimed they have a ‘legal right’ to do that. She has misrepresented a PPs point on this thread and seems very determined to ignore the special privileges on DBS that trans people DO have and the risks that creates. Even the government has acknowledged that there is an issue but are presumably just crossing their fingers and hoping for the best.

I’m interested to know what you think of the privileges that trans people have that undermine the robustness of the DBS system as pointed out on this thread?

I honestly would like to know too, because so far being trans made all my security vetting a multi-day slog, instead of something that takes average person 15 minutes to complete.

But what would I possibly know about the subject 😀

So let me put this very simply and bluntly so we can all think about it carefully...

...what is a DBS for? Who is it designed to stop? And where does the system fail?

It's supposed to stop anyone who is a threat and intends to break the law and is a threat to children.

Therefore the people there is a problem with are the people who will commit fraud if it gives them opportunities to carry out illegal activities.

Why are people who claim a trans identity and issue in this context?

Changing name itself is a potential issue. It makes it more difficult to track someone even with other name disclosures.

The people who are most likely to change their name are women. The vast majority of name changes are by marriage. This is where you note patterns of offending - women are significantly less likely to have been involved in any kind of violent crime and even less likely to be involved in a sexual based crime. So risk here is lower. Men are significantly less likely to change their name.

Then you start to look at other reasons to change name and it does start to get murkier. There's having a name you don't like, family complications, being trans and because you have something to hide.

You have to take the last group very seriously. This group are very willing to lie, and will have good reason to. They don't mind a bit of fraud. They are criminals and their intent is to commit criminal activity. Now this group can include women, but sex based patterns of offending reveal that women are still low risk.

Now let's take this further in terms of understanding criminal patterns. Sex offenders are overwhelming male and unfortunately figures show that trans identifying males are over represented in this group. We should be taking applications for name changes in this group, more seriously and reducing the ability to defraud most within this group.

Instead their loopholes that make it harder to verify identity, and one of the risks here is over reliance on the DBS itself and not checking information relating to identity elsewhere. The loopholes make that harder. Plus you need to factor in that makes who change their name are effectively higher risk than males who don't, and females who do to begin with.

Sexual abuser by nature look for weaknesses in systems to make it easier to escape detection.

The point about fraud and trans people telling the truth is irrelevant. The issue is the loophole and the liar. And who is higher risk of doing that, and why.

The risk is ALWAYS about people who WANT to lie and deceive. It's not about the innocent nice transwoman who is your friend and wouldn't hurt a fly and therefore criticising the system is 'transphobic'. No the system has weaknesses and unfortunately the profile for a trans identifying males is much higher than the general population therefore the checks need to be, at least equal to, if not higher for this group if we take safeguarding and prevention of fraud seriously. Instead we have the opposite dynamic where checks are actually weaker than anywhere else.

Risk assessing is about seeing behaviour patterns not identity. In law we can't discriminate in a way that disproportionately affects one group, but we certainly could tighten checks that are weaker for one group if we can demonstrate everyone is being treated equally for legitimate concerns about criminal behaviour. In other words we close the loophole and talk about how the loophole attracts people with criminal intent, who may claim trans identity nefariously in order to help their offending.

Laws are there not to prevent law abiding citizens from offending. Laws are there because criminals offend and lie and cheat. The DBS is trying to detect criminals. If fraudly filling in a DBS is too easy under certain circumstances then we need to look at this.

In other words when we look at criminal behaviour we aren't remotely interested in the behaviour of 'the nice transperson'. We are interested in the patterns of behaviour of criminals and how criminals can exploit. One of these happens to be through exploiting the good nature of people who think we all should be kind and not talk about offending patterns because they think it's 'transphobic'. It makes us blind to the people who are a problem if we focus on the good people.

Great post RTB.
It's wearying having to repeat the purpose of safeguarding children in the face of the tedious Me Me Me brigade.

The whole process can take weeks, even for an average person. The form can be quite quick to fill in if you have all the information to hand, though the older you are and the more different employments you have had, or if you have worked or travelled abroad, the longer it takes, as I know from experience.

If you have undergone DBS checks and been cleared, it’s lucky for you that they didn’t vet your social media use, because from your posts on here you shouldn’t be anywhere near children.

Arguably, anyone with a criminal record which involves serious crime should not legally be allowed to change their name and their documentation.

We know that lots of offenders change their name whilst in prison / following prosecution.

This then focuses on the offence not identity.

We are doing this all rather arse about face ATM in terms of preventing fraud and criminal activity more generally.

Transexual males must present a big problem for security vetting as they are all so ashamed of being a transexual they take all pains to hide the fact even to the extent of hiding their true sex from their employers. This deceit must present an unacceptable risk of blackmail.
It's just as well your multi-day slog security vetting never happened then isn't it?

Arguably, anyone with a criminal record which involves serious crime should not legally be allowed to change their name and their documentation.

It was very concerning during the GRR Bill Stage 3. debates when MSP's voted against amendments to stop those who have committed sexual offences from obtaining a GRC.

They even voted against pausing the applications of those charged of sexual offences from applying for a GRC until the case was disposed of.

And as we've seen, the Scottish Government and SPS can't be trusted to track the convictions of convicted offenders who are currently in their prison estate, let alone anything more complicated.

DH has had jobs in the past where it's not just a 15 minutes and a DBS. He hasn't changed his name.

He has done comprehensive checks where they ask all sorts of questions and he needs to provide evidence. Some have been personal but there's a clear reason for knowing.

In this situation, you'd struggle to avoid giving all your names because gaps are a problem.

So I really don't get the drama about hiding things on a job application. Any job that requires higher scrutiny does so for a reason and if it does so for a reason - you've got a legitimate aim and concerns about privacy go out the window. It's those damn pesky article 8 exceptions which affect lots of people. It's legal.

Unless there's an issue, anyone applying for that job understands the legitimate reason for the checks. People who object to the legitimate reason and complain about it taking too long, need to stop centring themselves because it's not about them, it's about wider issues relating to safeguarding.

So 'what would I possibly know about the subject' is one of those weasel phrases - the universe is not centred on the rights of trans people.

What they can do is then have the past name redacted from the final certificate, so the employer or organisation will not see it.

This, from the OP, is the problem, isn't it?

A DBS, even when thorough, is scarce protection given that we know how few sex crimes are reported, let alone prosecuted.

A DBS that gives the impression that a person has never changed their name would be a problem if they had, in fact, changed their name.

I don't know what such a certificate would show:

If a person had changed name and committed a crime, it would show the crime, but not the name under which it was committed?

If a person had changed name and never committed a crime, would.it suggest that said person had had their current name all their life?

How would 'being trans' make security vetting a multi-day slog rather than something everyone else can do in minutes?

He is American so is unlikely to have undergone DBS checks. He also has no regard for women’s rights or lack of consent.

It does seem bizarre that anyone would think that someone with criminal convictions seeking access to children or vulnerable adults, that would be prevented by knowledge of those convictions, would be concerned about committing fraud.

this is on the woodcraft folk website -

The Disclosure and Barring Service sensitively and confidentially process DBS applications for transgender applicants. They’ve provided a step by step procedure that we can follow to ensure an applicant’s correct gender and name is displayed on their certificate.

1. The applicant must go on to the online DBS system and complete their application as usual.
2. On their application they MUST select the gender they identify with and answer ‘No’ to the question have you been known by any other names (if they wish not to disclose this information).
3. Once they’ve completed their application they’ll need to contact the Membership team ([email protected] or call 020 8126 9339 ) immediately, OR the DBS Sensitive Department (see page 3) providing the following information:

• A request for their application to be taken through the sensitive process
• A scanned copy of their change of name deed/certificate (if applicable)
• Contact telephone number and email
• Home address

This is probably where the misunderstanding has happened.

If someone has used more than one name, doesnt disclose it, and doesnt use the sensitivity department, previous names may be listed.

If they used the hotline, all previous names in other genders will be hidden. Even though they have declared on the orginal application that they have not used any other name, and they may or may not have a GRC.

Sorry if this has been highlighted already

On their application they MUST select the gender they identify with and answer ‘No’ to the question have you been known by any other names (if they wish not to disclose this information).

If you are applying for a sensitive position, why would you not want to disclose this information???!

Certainly if you are working in any type of security, you are going to get asked all sorts of questions anyway, so a failure to want to disclose previous identities in these circumstances, would effectively be a red flag in its own right.

I can only speak for our internal vetting procedures, which are quite intense - there’s no way of avoiding providing your original name.

Part of the evidence is we use for documentation checks is full length, original birth certificate. Original as in issued within a year of birth. We check the date.

Any name changes since then have to be evidenced with date of change, and a relevant document.

We also complete a full history check, and an online check, using all the names we have available including what is listed at birth. There is no way our compliance team, who are duty bound to keep information confidential, would not gain access to that information.

If anyone tried to process a DBS without declaring former names, the DBS service reject the application and tell us to resubmit, a cost we pass to the candidate.

There is a link between all registered names a person has had, and they highlight if it’s ever attempted to be side stepped. Usually this is just where pre-marital names haven’t been declared, and we have had it for a non binary individual but I assume it would be the same for trans candidates.

We see people not informing us of convictions, or any form of comments - we always find out. The DBS service is too thorough to let them through.

That may only be the case for Enhanced checks, and specifically those done for education, but I genuinely don’t see how wouldn’t ultimately end up with relevant information.

I'm struggling to think of a role that would need a DBS, but where sex would never be relevant?

Because of news coverage, lots of people are aware that men can recieve female passports - the new EHRC guidance touches on this.

But is it widely understood that the government will hide a persons sex on DBS?

But is it widely understood that the government will hide a persons sex on DBS?

No. And this is why some people are getting all het up about it (and conveniently drawing attention to it, as on here).

On their application they MUST select the gender they identify with and answer ‘No’ to the question have you been known by any other names (if they wish not to disclose this information).

That's instructing people to lie. Doesn't seem a great way of ensuring a system of checks based on honesty will work as well as it should.

So Pete the Paedo who came out of prison over 5 years back and is now known as Donna selects 'gender - female' and then says they have not been known as any other name. Doesn't call anyone. And the DBS is searched under Donna's name.

He won't want to disclose the information because he is a convicted paedo? And wants to get a job in a school?

That sounds thorough.

There is a link between all registered names a person has had, and they highlight if it’s ever attempted to be side stepped. Usually this is just where pre-marital names haven’t been declared, and we have had it for a non binary individual but I assume it would be the same for trans candidates.

This whole shitshow is based on the idea that its somehow an awful thing to have changed one's name. Or 'gender'.

The problem is we are applying the idea that some people are allowed to hide aspects of their history, where nobody else is.

Other people may have reasons to dislike their name. I've known someone change his name because it was his father's, and his father had abused him. I've known women change their names because it was that of a husband they have been stalked by.

Yet these people aren't afforded the special privilege of hiding their name. And/or 'gender'.

Why has this one section of the population - which anyone can choose to identify as - been afforded special privileges and permissions to lie and omit information?

What's staggering is there's no government database linking previous names with your current name, so there's no room for failure to disclose previous names.

It gets more complex for individuals who have lived abroad for any length of time (this includes people born in the UK and with UK nationality).

And this is why breaking some of our ties with the EU over law enforcement post Brexit made no sense whatsoever. The argument about immigrants falls over because we WANT to cooperate on this and share information for fairly obvious reasons. 'Securing our borders' and an emphasis on sovereignty made us vulnerable in other ways.

The whole system needs an overhaul because it's really not fit for purpose.

Because not a single person in a position of power has had the guts to challenge the status quo and go 'why the fuck isn't this also an article 8 exception'. There's a clear legitimate aim and the response seems very proportionate given the checks that are normal for many sectors anyway.