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.

I think sleepless was referring to general reissues of birth certificates not because of GRC - my husband lost his, and his replacement was dated when reissued, not the orginal date.

Although this was a while ago.

My first statement about all this said 'This means anyone can...' so yes, anyone can declare themselves 'trans' at any point.

The date of reissue is not the same as the date of registration (see example below if it posts.) Your husband's certificate should still have the original date of registration on it and below that, the date of reissue..

Sleepless's point was that a certificate that had been changed by GRC would 'flag' because the date of registration would be 'out'. It wouldn't because the date of registration would be the same as the original.

How would you process my application (mum lost my BC, thanks mum) or my DCs (adopted)?

And what if Pete the Paedo doesn't tell you that's his old name and the police - like many posters have said - have lost track of him due to the fact he's changed his name to Don or Donna?

Nope.
Huntley was the reason that universal CRB replaced list 99.

He would have passed a CRB
and probably its successor the DBS

Thanks, i understand now.

If someone is handling paperwork, and never seeing the applicant it would be very difficult to know that their sex has been concealed.

Its the whole point of the process, after all.

That seems cobblers. What is the need to conceal anything? Everyone has been born. Having an accurate birth record is no cause for shame and might, in some circumstances, be an important fact to be accessed during medical treatment.

😶

From the doc Pencils posted:

'Before we can issue a passport in the changed gender, we need evidence
confirming the gender change is likely to be permanent (unless the customer
identifies as a crossdresser). '

In which case, hey ho?!

'Crossdressers

We can only issue a passport if it is established the customer is using their new
identity for all purposes. You, the examiner, must not issue a passport in a name or gender a customer uses for some but not all purposes.
If the customer cannot provide medical evidence, they must make a statement confirming they permanently use the preferred identity. They must also have a referee confirm their new identity and send us evidence if they have changed their name (see Names – evidence to change a name).'

(my bold)

A statement, eh?. There's robust.

'You must not send written communications about a change in gender to a customer, without speaking to them first, in person or by phone, to:
• give them the opportunity to discuss their application
• tell them what evidence we require for their application
• ask if they consent to HM Passport Office sending them written
communications about their passport application
• check we have the correct address and email address to prevent unintended
wrongful disclosure of information

We do this because a letter could be intercepted and cause unnecessary distress or alarm to them'

Good lord, do they think trans people are made out of glass? In what world are HMP Office so delicately egg-shell stepping around for fear of 'causing alarm'?

You’d think wouldn’t you?

Not wishing to derail but on the subject of identity and records, in its wisdom the NHS will not only falsify the sex of a patient on its systems but also erase all previous medical history to complete the ‘concealment’.

it is beyond ludicrous. I hope all doctors who have to treat such patients have good indemnity protection for when things go wrong.

They’ll be demanding a pinky promise next!

Obviously, I'd hope the passport office would double check the address given its a pain in the arse otherwise, but why would the passport be more sensitive if lost than anyone elses?

Isnt the process admitting that the holder appears a different sex to the one recorded?

I think that the biggest issue for me is that if the trans special route is not a safeguarding loophole, why is it not available to anyone else? (As I think @MrsOvertonsWindow pointed out earlier).

That makes it all the more striking to me that it is a loophole.

...and I'm puzzled as to why such a tiny percentage of the population gets a whole special dedicated sensitive application route to themselves - disproportionate privileging of one small part of society, or what?!🙄

The crucial point, imo, is that it's a section that one can opt into.