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.

Honestly - not sure on the points around privilege of hiding a former name for specific circumstances and not others.

All I know for certainty, as I manage the recruitment of education staff every day, is that there are very few safeguarding cracks someone can slip through and any attempt to do so is found out.

There may be a privilege of information issue, but I don’t believe it makes an impact on safeguarding of children, the systems are too thorough.

If they didn’t call anyone, the DBS would contact the prospective employer and inform them the application is incorrect and requires resubmission.

Some crimes are never filtered from appearing on a DBS. Convicted paedophilia is one of them. He’d also be barred from working in regulated activity anyway, so if the DBS received an application for that person, that’s what they’d say.

If Pete the Paedo did try and get a DBS to work in a school, he isn’t going to be successful.

Actually I think people are grumpy about what appears to me to be a thread about a thread.

I have no knowledge of how many people you recruit per year obviously but on average, how many times a year does the DBS contact you to tell you that the application is incorrect and how many people are barred from working in regulated activity?

Where are they getting their information from if the police themselves have lost track of hundreds of people they should be tracking?

It seems to me that the most obvious weak point is if employers don't ask for an orginal birth certificate.

I have never, in over a decade, employed or vetted anyone barred. They don’t apply for regulated jobs, I assume, because there’s no point.

I would say we get 2 or 3 a year that have some sort of comment on their DBS. If they haven’t pre-disclosed, the DBS always will for them. The result comes back with the information on.

Name change - I’ve had one NB individual, ever. Their name and previous name are on their DBS, and the gender section says the gender that’s on their birth certificate.

We get around 5 a year where they need resubmission because of missing names, usually because of pre marital names that have either been missed, or the dates of change wrong.

All of that is out of a sample of circa 1000 applications. Very limited numbers, and incorrect/concerning information always discovered if not disclosed.

I’d imagine so.

All education employers either are, or are managed by a Registered Body, which enables them to ask for a full criminal history.

The question asked varies, but it always asks if they have ever had a criminal conviction, not within a certain time period.

That’s what individuals are asked to disclose, and that’s what is checked for accuracy.

A lot of people won’t have this anymore. What happens then?

How would the DBS know that Donna used to be Pete the Paedo though? They've said they are female and never been known as any other name.

I lost my BC and ordered a new one. I've used it for DBS checks so it must be acceptable.

That is because despite several people saying "yes, we agree" OP isn't acknowledging that we are a) agreeing and b) pointing out the anomaly that there is an extra layer of obfuscation for trans identified people.

The other thread was being derailed because of this. OP constantly rehashing stuff when the conversation has moved on a lot is really bloody annoying.

How can anyone be assured of a FULL CRIMINAL HISTORY when the police have themselves lost track of hundreds of known paedophiles?

We are exploring the system cracks, and having a discussion about where it falls down. That's the point. If we could rely on bad people to be honest we'd not have this issue.

Can I just reiterate, it isn't for 'trans identified people' it is for anyone because 'trans' is not definable.

If a man has a GRC, he has two birth certificates a full original one, and a short replacement one with his new gender on it that will be supported by the GRC?

If he wants to keep his 'trans history' a secret he can apply to the DBS to hide his previous names.

But if the employers want to see the orginal bc he cant hide his orginal name and sex. Doesn’t that make the helpline useless if providing the orginal long birth certificate is standard?

Correct me if I’m wrong..

Isn’t the issue that they’ve lost track of their location, not who they are?

I’ve just seen an article where in 2023 they’d lost track of 503. That number is specific because they know who they are, but not where they are.

Applying for a DBS for any one of those 503 would still flag them on the database and therefore still notify the employer. And also confirm their whereabouts, to be fair.

They’re still a listed paedophile, the system still reflects that, it’s their location that’s unknown.

There's a fundamental tension between privacy and safeguarding. Always will be.

In order to safeguard, privacy is set aside.

Having special dispensation for one set of people suggests that for them, privacy is being given more weight than safeguarding.

I very much hope that the checks and balances mean that safeguarding isn't compromised, but at the very least it is concerning that a special category of person has been set up that anyone can opt into that prioritises privacy over safeguarding.

The DBS uses addresses though?

So how would Donna at Number 42 be linked to Pete in a different county whose last known address is unknown?

It seems the only document that carries across without fail is the NI number. But we won't just link everything to that and tag everything onto it.

You can apply for a DBS with a Passport instead. Which is what I’d assume you’d do.

Education recruitment compliance however would require the BC, even if a PP was provided, because they need a full identity check.

If the original isn’t available, at an absolute push some accept a copy of the original, but the date of registration would be “out” if you tried to use the newer one and it still needs to be full. So still would “flag.”

People who place staff in regulated roles don’t cut compliance corners, and if they do there are real consequences.

You can’t change your name whilst a conviction is unspent, the application would be rejected. If you change it after, a spent conviction wouldn’t come up on a DBS anyway, because it’s spent.

Trying to get round it would mean the police notify the DBS of the link, because their records would reflect all aliases, and the conviction would be disclosed anyway.

It’s really not as simple as some believe.

I'm questioning how many employers actually ask to see an orginal long birth certificate rather than a passport?

The special helpline is to conceal the applicants sex, why bother if the birth certificate outs them anyway?

If the original isn’t available, at an absolute push some accept a copy of the original, but the date of registration would be “out” if you tried to use the newer one and it still needs to be full. So still would “flag.”

Who would 'flag' it? The DBS?

People who place staff in regulated roles don’t cut compliance corners, and if they do there are real consequences.

The Surrey police were accompanying a man who was being investigated for raping a 12 year old boy to schools in Surrey, 6 days before he was arrested by the Surrey Police so I'm really sorry but no, there are no real consequences for cutting corners. Time after time the left hand doesn't seem to know what the right hand is up to.

Trans people change gender, they don't change "sex". And most of them don't do surgery or anything. It is far less effort than doctors, priests and teachers do to access children/women and commit crimes.

And the literally thousands of transwomen that have committed sex crimes as well as murder even, prove you wrong.

The 'socially regressive' is the male predator who enters female spaces and wishes to remove all females sex-based rights. Those people have no right to breathe air in a free and decent humane society.

If you provided us with a birth certificate that wasn’t full, and had a registration date of last year when you were born in 1985 - we’re not accepting it.

It wouldn’t get as far as applying for a DBS. It’s not valid documentation in the context of compliance procedures for working with children. Those procedures aren’t just made up, they’re informed and regulated by various bodies.

I was just gonna ask why don't they just link everything to NI number? Because that doesn't change, does it? It could be required whenever someone is arrested, convicted, on job application forms and on the dbs form. Would make everything join up better.

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/new-snp-shame-trans-killer-35401766?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
This article proves that you're wrong about it hiding their crimes