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.

What do you ask for with foreign applicants who might not have birth certificates issued within a certain amount of time of birth?

Foreign applicants are all already registered with the government, by virtue of needing right to work, and a visa.

Their share code, which is issued by the government, is issued in their legal name. A lot of them use an anglicised name to be referred to, but their documentation is all issued in legal name.

Any name change prior to coming to the country, would be declared on an overseas police check. Which you also have to have before you can work within a UK school.

You don’t need one to be here, but you do need one for certain job roles.

Thanks for explaining. Was just wondering because my children were born abroad and weren't issued birth certificates and perhaps one day might want to work in the UK.

It makes sense for an NHS number to follow an individual through life, but trans people need it changed because altering name isnt enough to conceal their birth details.

The same would apply to any id that follows an individual through life, including NI number.

Yeah - they’d be overseas candidates due to being born elsewhere, so any regulated employer would follow the “overseas route.”

It’s as regulated, but differently.

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

Yes. This would be interesting If their conviction was for rape when male. The DBS would show the rape conviction but if it's a 'sensitive' application then only the current (female) name would show. Given that rape is a male crime and requires a penis it outs the person anyway.

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?

If they choose the sensitive route then yes, it's a possibility.

Don't forget though, a DBS only shows convictions and, lots of offenders are never caught or prosecuted.
The 2023 review has a whole section on name changes and concluded that...
Conclusion on name change
108. I have to accept that the system by which an individual can change their name presents a degree of risk to the integrity of DBS certificates. I am satisfied that those with responsibility for managing the risk (Home Office, Police, HM Passport Office and DBS) are fully aware of the risk and working together to actively manage it. However, as I have said nobody has been able to conclude that the risk has been wholly eliminated. On the material available to me, I am unable to judge to what degree the mandating of birth certificates or other steps would mitigate the risk, so such recommendation as I can make is very limited.
Recommendation 8: Name change
109. I recommend that the Home Office and the DBS continue the work of assessing what, if any, further steps can be taken to mitigate the risk of individuals circumventing the DBS identification validation process including the consideration of mandating the provision of a birth certificate as one of the documents establishing identity.

This is particularly relevant as a GRC provides a new birth certificate so effectively overrides any point of using an original birth certificate as part of the ID process.

Forgot link to review
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-disclosure-and-barring-regime/independent-review-of-the-disclosure-and-barring-regime-accessible#name-change

If “trans” is not definable, what on earth has been going on for these last few years?

Is it really all a fever dream?

Transgender applicants
102. For transgender applicants the completion of an application for a DBS certificate may be of particular concern requiring as it does the disclosure of extensive personal information, including any names the applicant has used in the past. On the one hand, the fact that they may have transitioned since they were cautioned for or convicted of criminal offences cannot be a reason for not disclosing to potential employers relevant previous convictions. It is after all a criminal record certificate. On the other hand, transgender employees may experience bullying or other negative treatment in the workplace so that, understandably, they would prefer to keep this information from their employer.

Illustrates perfectly the tension between privacy and safeguarding.

I imagine other people may also prefer to keep names they used in the past from their employer, for various reasons - for example someone who has had adverse media attention in the past, or maybe doesn't want to share previous relationship history.

But only a person declaring themselves 'transgender' gets this concession?

Thank you Sleepless for clarifying how this works for teachers. It's good to know that the system works at the chalk face. Hopefully charities and smaller organisations also have the same rigorous approach and one of the issues with predators accessing children is when they haven't been caught before so no records for the DBS to access.

I don’t understand some of your statements regarding “registration date”.

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.”

I only ever had a short form version of my birth certificate and ordered a copy of the long version as it was needed to apply for a visa for another country. The long version states the registration date a few days after my birth (last century) and that it is a certified copy dated 2010. Would this be accepted by you or not?

can i reiterate that there is a special process for trans identified people and if you had been paying attention the link has been posted to the special process for trans identified people.

Why are you so keen to defend obvious loopholes in the dbs system?

You say you acknowledge that they exist, but now you're setting up another thread to trumpet that the problems are 'made up'.

I don't understand where you're coming from.

It certainly doesn't seem to be from a desire to strengthen safeguarding.

Is the point Shedmistress making about there is nothing more than stating “I am trans” to allow someone to be trans?

Couldn’t someone with a history that they want to hide that isn’t a criminal conviction use this loophole to hide a dodgy work reputation?

Why are only trans people permitted to use this “sensitive” process? Is it only trans individuals who should be treated with sensitivity? Even the name of the service adds to the lie that these people are the most marginalised vulnerable people.

Well the USA Supreme Court couldn't find a definition recently so apparently not.

I think the dbs helpline uses current passport or driving licence id as the protected name and gender.

So im assuming thats their definition of trans? More in line with the the PC of GR.

well those are the $64,000 dollar questions, i think the extract that Arabella posted upthread explains it well.

The only thing right now that is bugging me is the OP banging on about something that isn't strictly true and it being a TAAT.

The fact is, there are parts of the DBS process that are specially for trans people, and we know, despite protestations to the contrary also in this thread, that there are cracks, serious ones, as the Ireland conviction shows.

We should all stop being complacent, imo, and lobby that any and all name changes are tracked on a (confidential) central data base. Just in case.

And I’m sure you are happy to undertake the ‘multi day slog’ (I’m not sure why it took you so long, maybe your paperwork is disorganised?) knowing how important it is to prioritise child safeguarding at all times?

Btw, I did a very basic DBS check years ago and it took a lot more than 15 minutes. Maybe your perception of time is a bit off? Or do you just like feeling hard done by?

Anyway, this thread is very useful to reiterate the importance of DBS and its obvious failings. It is also useful to observe those people who are keen to dismiss those failings instead of wanting them discussed with a view to future campaigns to tighten things up. Very useful indeed.

That’s a good point. What about women who have had to change their name to avoid being tracked down and killed by an abusive partner? Why don’t they get special privacy as well?

On second thoughts don’t answer that.

The point of DBS is that it informs safeguarding, not that its the only form of safeguarding.

Asking for orginal birth certificates is in addition to DBS checks, so is local knowledge and googling. Also checking qualifications and references.

Unless someone is under police protection, why should an individual be able to hide previous names?

Surely its the choice an individual can make - if they dont want to disclose, dont apply for positions where safeguarding is crucial.

So this process explicitly allows a man to conceal the fact that he is a member of the sex statistically significantly more likely than a woman to be a sex offender? And tells an employer he is safe to work with children?

Bearing in mind that a tiny proportion of all sex offences even get prosecuted, let alone a conviction, I would say that’s a serious safeguarding risk CREATED by the DBS certification.

Those male transexuals who possess a GRC allowing them to hide their natal sex from their employer also pose a serious safeguarding risk as the risk presented is so different between males & females.

Men protected by the PC of GR can declare that the current name is the only name they have ever used on the DBS application, but they need to contact the special helpline before they do.

The helpline will then ensure that any other names that are attached to the applicant are hidden from the DBS information their employers will see.

If they declare its the only name the have ever used, and haven't informed the DBS that what they intend to do, other names may be listed.

Wouldn't changing NI number be problematic though? Could risk losing previous national insurance contributions.

Shouldn't be allowed to change NHS either though, as that risks health mix ups and issues going missed.

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.”

This is not correct. The new birth certificate is identical to the original in all details except for the new name and the false sex. The date of registration is copied from the original.

Before 2010 applicants had the choice of using the original date of registration or the date the GRC was issued. Since 2010 they all use the original date.

See page 25 of this HM Passport Office guidance from last year:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66156558eb8a1bb45e05e339/Gender_recognition_version_22.pdf