How do you vet someone you're dating in the UK if criminal records aren't public?
Posted by itsnotsanfran@reddit | AskABrit | View on Reddit | 100 comments
Hi all – I'm from the U.S., and I’m curious about how things work in the UK when it comes to vetting people, especially for dating or relationships.
Over here, criminal records (at least arrests and mugshots) are relatively easy to access. There are public databases, county jail websites, and even background check services where you can find someone’s mugshot, arrest history, or court cases. It’s not uncommon for people to look someone up if they’re about to meet in person after chatting online.
From what I understand, the UK has much stricter privacy laws, and criminal records aren't publicly searchable like they are in the U.S. So that got me wondering – how do people in the UK handle this? Do you just take someone at their word about their past? Are there legal ways to check someone’s history (e.g., for serious offenses)? Or is it considered invasive or inappropriate to try?
Genuinely curious how the culture around trust and safety in dating differs. Thanks!
Shriven@reddit
People don't vet other humans in any normal place TBF.
But if you have concerns you can do either a Sarahs law or Clares law request to police and they may tell you something
Redgrapefruitrage@reddit
Yeah I don’t know anyone who wanted to check their partners criminal past when they first met them. It’s not normal practice.
ThomasRedstone@reddit
Though the feeling that you are even considering that request should be enough to walk away!
EmLa5@reddit
I mostly agree but I think a single parent going into a relationship should do it, you need to know who is around your kids.
ThomasRedstone@reddit
Yeah, I think the key is that if you're doing it based on concerns then leave anyway, checks can only identify people who are known abusers.
Single parents and anyone who's been in an abusive relationship in the past should probably make the request.
skeletonclock@reddit
Strongly disagree. Everyone thinks they can "tell" an abuser but real women's experiences disprove that every day. Abuse gets worse over time and ramps up when you're trapped (living together / married / pregnant).
IMO it's sensible to admit you're only human and that abusers are master manipulates, and use the laws that are there for your protection, at least before taking a big step like getting married.
No one would believe my ex was abusive when they met him, including people he'd been friends with for a decade. These guys are GOOD. They don't start with violence on day 1 because they know you'd be out. Don't assume you're cleverer than them, because if you're wrong, you're in way over your head.
ThomasRedstone@reddit
You're absolutely right, and I probably worded it poorly, if someone is making the request based on things that have happened or serious suspicions that they can't consiously explain, they should leave either way.
Many abusers have no criminal record, and there always has to be a first victim.
But when someone is in that situation, with their ability to trust their own judgement impaired, then anything that can help them get out of a good thing.
I think for a lot of people the idea of being background checked feels invasive, unsettling and a violation of trust, and will feel they've done something wrong to make a partner want to do those checks, it's something people probably just need to get over though (though I can't see it not hurting).
rebecca7p@reddit
Gosh, I've never even considered that it might be possible to research someone's criminal history! I honestly can't say it's ever crossed my mind whilst dating.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
That totally makes sense—and I think that highlights a really interesting cultural difference. In the U.S., it's definitely more normalized to look someone up, especially if you're meeting them online. It’s not always about assuming the worst, but more about feeling safe and informed.
Of course, it can get messy—like false positives or judging someone unfairly—but at the same time, if someone had a serious history of violence or abuse, a lot of people would want to know before getting emotionally or physically involved.
It’s interesting that it’s not really a consideration in the UK. Do you think that’s more because people just trust their instincts, or because there's more confidence in the legal system protecting people if something does go wrong?
BuzzAllWin@reddit
Also interestingly , from a cultural perspective it always sems like your are forever defined by your crimes in america, felony offences, which can be kind of minor seem to fuck you for ever
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
While it’s true that some felony offenses can have lifelong consequences, I also think there are certain roles where public safety and trust have to come first. For example, someone with a history of larceny probably shouldn’t be a financial advisor, and a rehabilitated sex offender working closely with children raises obvious concerns.
RhinoRhys@reddit
Employers in the UK can do what's called a DBS check, Disclosure and Barring Service. No experience in the financial sector but anyone working with children or vulnerable adults is required to have a DBS check done before they are employed.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
I’m more focused on the general public’s ability to access this kind of information—not employers, who obviously do background checks and wouldn’t hire someone with a serious criminal history for sensitive roles. I’m sure that’s standard worldwide.
What feels jarring to me about the UK is that the general public doesn’t have that same agency to see criminal records. Why aren’t these records public information? Why shouldn’t they be? I get the importance of rehabilitation, but I don’t think it should always come before the safety of the wider community.
RhinoRhys@reddit
It's entirely an invasion of privacy and trust and just downright rude. Even searching someone's social media is considered creepy if you haven't explicitly asked for and been given it.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
I hear you, but can I ask—why exactly is it considered an invasion of privacy, a breach of trust, or just downright rude to know if someone has committed a crime? After all, crimes are offenses against society and the state, not just the individual. Shouldn’t the public have some right to be informed about risks that might affect their safety? It’s less about prying and more about being responsible and aware.
The social media thing obviously goes without saying.
RhinoRhys@reddit
Assuming the worst about someone is generally quite rude. You don't assume they're a criminal then work upwards.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
Let me give you a hypothetical example, just to paint the picture and explain where I’m coming from:
Imagine a family living in a nice, quiet area—let’s say Richmond or somewhere in Kent. Two young kids, a dog, a swing set in the garden. The kind of place where people feel safe leaving their back door unlocked during the day.
Now imagine a man moves into the house next door. Polite, keeps to himself. Nothing outwardly alarming. The parents smile, wave, maybe chat with him over the fence. The kids sometimes see him while playing outside. He fits the profile of a single, young urban professional who obviously has the kind of income to live in that sort of area. He's clean cut, well-mannered, polite, so he doesn't fit the stereotype of what we'd consider an "offender".
What they don’t know is that this man is on the sex offenders register due to a conviction for child-related offenses from several years ago. Under UK law, that conviction is private. Unless the police believe he poses a current risk to children—or the parents file a specific request under Sarah’s Law—no one tells them. No automatic disclosure. No warning. The burden is entirely on the family to suspect something and go through formal channels.
So here’s the question I’m wrestling with: Shouldn’t those parents have the right to know? Why is the onus on the parents to deliberately seek out this information?
Here in the US, we get notified if a sex offender is going to move nearby. And sex offenders can't live within a certain distance of a school or any recreational area that children might frequent; they also have to routinely report to the authorities on their whereabouts or risk jail time.
It seems absurd to me that in the UK, you'd have no way of knowing this unless you have suspicions and present your case in such a way that the police would divulge that information to you, and if you don't quite meet the threshold of their disclosure then too damn bad.
RhinoRhys@reddit
If he's not deemed a risk, what's the issue?
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
The issue is, most people don't knowingly want to live next to a sex offender, especially if they have young children?
What knowledge do the parents have of this person's rehabilitation simply because they're not incarcerated? Let's say the kids are playing in the yard and the parents aren't watching their kids like a hawk because they trust their neighbors, but unbeknownst to them, there's a sex offender who lives next door who was convicted of taking inappropriate pictures of children.
What's stopping this offender from taking photos of the children when their parents are out of sight?
It's not illegal for him to own a camera and since he's no longer incarcerated, he can live wherever he wants and no disclosure is necessary from his end.
I get that the situation I've painted here seems absurd and extremely unlikely, but I just wanted to highlight that it shouldn't be on the onus of the parents to go seek out this information once they suspect any funny business. They should have that information outright or be notified by the authorities.
But it seems to me that most Brits, such as yourself, believe that once someone has paid their debt to society that their right to privacy supersedes a community's right to safety.
Slight-Brush@reddit
I think you’re underestimating what ‘rehabilitation’ is meant to achieve.
On release they are meant to no longer be a risk to the public.
Prison isn’t meant to be a slap on the wrist for doing a bad thing, it’s meant to ensure (support, and help) you not do it again.
Sounds a bit like you’d prefer every sentence to be a life sentence so no criminal ever had to interact with the ‘rest of the world’ ever again.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
Not at all. The example I used is pedophilia. Surely you don’t think pedophilia and petty theft are on the same level of egregious?
People should absolutely know if a sex offender is moving to their neighborhood.
A person who committed a petty shoplifting offense should absolutely be able to move on with their life and be able to move towards a positive trajectory in whatever endeavors they may choose for themselves.
Slight-Brush@reddit
Where would you suggest that sex offenders (who are deemed no longer a risk to the public) live?
In perhaps a large secure compound, with only other offenders?
You can look at the UK legal guidance for managing and registering sex offenders here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05267/
RhinoRhys@reddit
Well if they've paid their debt to society, there is no longer a safety issue.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
How is it irrelevant to dating? What person do you know knowingly date a pedophile or a person who has previously committed crimes against children?
RhinoRhys@reddit
Well nobody, but that's got nothing to do with them living in Kent next door to a family of 4 though.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
Why not? How do we really know that? If they hurt children in the past, who’s to say that by living next door to that family, that the family isn’t vulnerable? Even more so since they don’t know of that neighbors previous harm to children.
Andy_McNob@reddit
What about people with bad intentions that have no criminal record? At the end of the day, everyone is a mystery.
At base, criminal records aren't public because that's the way we like it. You can ask the question as many ways as you wish, but that is the ultimate reason.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
Sure—everyone is a mystery to some extent. There will always be people with bad intentions who’ve never been caught, and no system can account for that entirely. But that shouldn’t be a reason to ignore the value of information that does exist.
Criminal records aren’t a crystal ball, but they are a data point—often a significant one. If someone has a violent or abusive past, especially involving vulnerable people, knowing that history doesn’t automatically mean you assume the worst. It just gives you the chance to make a more informed decision. And frankly, people deserve that choice—especially when it comes to their safety or their children’s safety.
As for “that’s the way we like it”—I get that. Cultural norms differ. But just because something is tradition doesn’t mean it’s above question. There’s a meaningful discussion to be had about whether a total wall of privacy around criminal records still serves the public interest in a time when most of our other information is far less protected.
So the question isn’t just why it’s that way—but should it still be? And who does it really protect?
Andy_McNob@reddit
The irony of a US citizen debating the balance between individual rights and childrens' safety is hilarious. Second Amendment, anyone?
Also, I suspect you are an LLM. Can I check your criminal record, please?
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
You’re welcome to check — DM me and I’ll share my legal name. I have no criminal record because I was raised to respect the law. I’m proud to live in the United States of America — the land of the free and the home of the brave — where I can protect my property with a gun and access public information to keep my family safe.
By contrast, you live in a welfare state that no longer manufactures much and keeps vital safety info locked away from the public. Maybe it’s time to rethink what freedom really means.
Andy_McNob@reddit
Lol, the oh so polite facade eventually slips.
It's OK, you keep your guns, I'll chill here in the UK on the welfare state, safe in the knowledge that my criminal record will remain forever hidden.
I still think you're an LLM, prompted by an illiterate halfwit who debates in bad faith.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
Why is stating the facts impolite? The economic situation in your country is dire and on the verge of collapse; that’s not impolite, those are the facts.
You’re allowed to think as you wish, if I’m an LLM and you’re continuously debating one, who’s really the halfwit?
jolie_j@reddit
I’m not an expert so can only speak from personal experience.. but my take on safety would be based on vibes, and I try to meet their friends, even casually, early ish too. I think their friends can be a great indicator of what they’re like as a person and who they like to hang out with.
Beyond that, before a first date I’d try and find someone on socials. Obviously doesn’t give you a criminal check, but can help with a vibe check. And of course due to privacy that’s not always possible.
Beyond that.. I don’t know that the culture of trust is better over here. I think possibly our polarisation of political views is not currently as pronounced in as in the USA, which possibly helps. But I can imagine if there was a tool to check out a potential date’s criminal background before a first date, plenty of savvy people would use it as part of their vetting. I certainly would, in the same way that I expect a full, clean STD panel before sleeping with someone for the first time.
rebecca7p@reddit
I think it's more likely that we are following our instincts and the vibes we get from the other person, rather than anything to do with the legal system.
I might Google someone's name or try to find them on Facebook before meeting them, but that's more because I'm nosey than that I'm looking for anything in particular!
Dense_Bad3146@reddit
Why would you want to?
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
I think it comes down to wanting to make informed decisions about who you let into your life. It’s not about assuming the worst, but about having the option to protect yourself if there’s a reason to be cautious. Everyone deserves privacy, but I also believe people deserve safety and peace of mind.
The question was hypothetical, by the way. I just recently learned that sort of information is not publicly accessible in the United Kingdom, and just wanted to learn more while getting a general idea of how people felt about it.
Dense_Bad3146@reddit
I guess it’s just not been something I’ve ever considered doing, equally I’ve never been in a relationship with someone who hit or abused me. Maybe if I had, I’d feel differently
Dense_Bad3146@reddit
Equally in my working life I’ve come into contact with women who have brought men into their lives they should’ve left well alone,maybe it’s that,that protects me. That 6th sense for a wrong un!
HRHCookie@reddit
The difference in violence levels between the USA and UK is stark.
In the USA in 2022 there were 20 000 gun related deaths by homicide (so not including suicide/accidents)
There were 77000 gun related injuries.
In the same year in the UK there were 30 gun related deaths in 2022. All front page news.
There were 12 injuries treated in a hospital. 12. In a year.
We don't live in fear of the serious violence a gun can do.
So yes, it's important to be cautious and of course a bad man doesn't even need a weapon to hurt you, BUT if the vibes are off, it's easier to get away from someone without a gun.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
I totally get that the gun violence stats show a huge difference, and obviously the laws and culture around guns are very different between the US and UK. But what I’m really thinking about are the more insidious things that might not be visible or accessible to the public—things like domestic violence, statutory rape, and other serious offenses that don’t always show up as immediate physical danger.
For example, here in the US, there are systems in place where people can be notified if a registered sex offender moves into their neighborhood. Is there anything similar in the UK? Or are these kinds of risks more hidden from public view? It seems like that lack of access might make it harder to stay informed and protect yourself in certain situations.
GaldrickHammerson@reddit
If you are convicted of something, you can sometimes be put on a register. This is most common with sex offences. I've never known anyone to ever have the gumption to look someone up on it as they start dating.
It's just not cricket
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
Just to clarify—are sex offender registries in the UK accessible to the public, or would someone need to go through the police to obtain that information?
Peterd1900@reddit
No they are not public you have to go through the police
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
Then they are not public because the police will only disclose that information about the individual if your concerns meet the threshold of their disclosure.
It seems that the vast majority of commenters here from the UK feel that making people’s criminal records public is overly invasive and too sensitive to be accessible to the general public. That raises the question of where to draw the line between protecting individual privacy and ensuring public safety.
That’s not to say that individuals with past convictions shouldn’t have some degree of privacy, but when does that privacy become potentially harmful to public safety, even after a sentence is considered spent?
A spent sentence doesn't necessarily mean a person won't/can't reoffend. On the other hand, it doesn't mean someone can't be rehabilitated, but rehabilitation doesn't erase the past, shouldn't that information be publicly accessible regardless?
It’s so odd how you guys get defensive around the necessity of this data being private to protect the individual, but at the same time, it can feel like the safety and peace of mind of the general public isn’t given the same weight. Where’s the balance between privacy and protection?
No_Button_9112@reddit
“Vetting someone I’m dating”
Has never crossed my mind. If anything I’m completely uncomfortable with someone wanting to “vett me”
Not even uncomfortable per-se, just like fuck off?
If you want to know ask, if you can’t take me at my word, go away
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
Totally fair that you feel that way—just to clarify though, I wasn’t saying I personally go around vetting everyone I date. It was more of a hypothetical, especially comparing how things work in the U.S. vs. the UK. Over there, access to criminal records is a lot more public, so the idea of “vetting” someone—especially for safety reasons—isn’t that out of the ordinary.
That said, your reaction actually kind of proves my point: if someone did have a violent past, and there’s no public record of it, and their sentence is spent, what’s motivating them to be upfront about it in a relationship? It feels like, legally and socially, the burden is not on them to disclose. So from the other side—if you're the person who could be at risk—you just have to hope for honesty?
I’m not saying everyone should be tracked forever, but I do think there’s a tension here between protecting someone’s right to move on from their past and someone else’s right to feel safe.
No_Button_9112@reddit
Apologies over the delay, poker
Firstly, want to say I was speaking figuratively and I totally understand, no worries
I can’t speak for everyone so I’ll mention I’ve been involved in supply, part of the past and I actively coach people from my lived experience, so that they’re in a position to make informed decisions regarding choices which may well implicate the rest of their lives
I think there’s been a generational shortage of real world education, as obscured by government propaganda and backdated practices, of which formal education has been a mouthpiece. This had led to people whom, through no major fault of their own, are ill informed; and as a result have many times. ended up sacrificing their wellbeing and autonomy.
This has then led to the overtly private culture we have in the UK, conceiving the problem you’ve put forward in your post.
Yeah here’ll you have to take people at their word, or go through the hoops I’ve noticed others have mentioned. The overarching problem is a broken education system. I’m sorry life’s this way, but we seem to get by, and that’s part and parcel of the British way of life
Similar_Quiet@reddit
There is a tension. Generally the UK errs on the side of offenders being rehabilitated, whereas in the US your reputation is tarnished forever.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
That’s a good point about the UK’s focus on rehabilitation. In the U.S., it’s not that someone’s reputation is always tarnished forever—it really depends on the offense. Most misdemeanors can be expunged or sealed after some time, but serious violent or sexual offenses generally stay on a person’s record for life.
So there is some room for second chances, but certain convictions do carry lifelong consequences here.
Wenlocke@reddit
Another thing we dont have that crops up from time to time in the US is that felony disenfranchisement is not a thing. No criminal conviction can ever permanently remove your right to vote.
You can't vote whole you're serving a custodial sentence, but one you're out, your voting rights go back to normal (but even the "Prisoners can't vote" thing is contentious)
Similar_Quiet@reddit
It's exactly the same here. It's just fine differently. Some things stay on record forever, we just limit who can access said records
Wootster10@reddit
There are several laws that are in place for certain convictions.
Sarah's Law - This allows someone to ask the police if someone who has regular access to their child if they have a criminal history that may mean they present a danger to the child.
Clare's Law - This allows someone to ask the police if someone they're dating has a violent past or history.
These are highly specific questions. So you can ask if they're a sex offender only if they have contact with your child. If you have no children the police will not disclose anything. Under Clare's law they won't tell you if they have a drug smuggling conviction, or financial fraud.
jolie_j@reddit
I’m British, but I think the point is, if a potential date who you’ve met online asks you “have you got a history of sexually assaulting past partners?”, you’re going to say no regardless of whether that’s true. If you’re the sort of person who sexually assaults people, you’re not going to admit to that.
dinobug77@reddit
But OP mentioned arrest record. So someone is accused of something and then not even charged they can still see they were once arrested?
Honestly that doesn’t sound right to me.
jolie_j@reddit
Yeah.. personally I’d be more interested in knowing relevant convictions of someone I’m becoming serious with. Which to some extent is covered by Clare’s law.
Arrests.. bit more of a grey area. If someone had been arrested but not convicted for sexual assault I can certainly see the argument in wanting to know.. so many sexual assault cases just don’t have the evidence to convict. But on the flip side, it’s not fair for the people who are genuinely innocent.
It’s honestly not something I’d given much thought to until this post tho, so it’s not been an issue or consideration for me in my dating life when I was meeting people from tinder etc
ThomasRedstone@reddit
And if not you're going to be pretty offended.
Lloytron@reddit
Thankfully I've gone my whole life without needing to wonder if the people I am going out with are violent sociopaths..
I mean what are the chances of two of us dating?
ThaiFoodThaiFood@reddit
This has literally never been a consideration for me.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
You’d honestly be surprised at the kinds of people who have seriously disturbing pasts—and how easy it is to miss it if you don’t know what to look for.
I know someone personally who dated someone for months before finding out they had a history of arson, stalking, and harassment. None of it ever came up in conversation, and they had no reason to suspect anything—until things started to get weird. On top of that, the person they were dating had legally changed their name (they were trans), so even basic googling wouldn’t have turned up their past.
Not saying that’s the norm, but it’s situations like that where having some way to verify someone’s background would’ve made a big difference. It’s not about assuming everyone’s a criminal—it’s about being able to protect yourself if there’s a reason to dig deeper.
ThaiFoodThaiFood@reddit
No, I think I'd be adequately accurate in assessing the amount of people who have seriously disturbing pasts.
jolie_j@reddit
You say that.. but some people are horrendous and are very good at hiding it. I’ve never had the misfortune of (knowingly) meeting someone like that, but have a look at this guy, for example. He had a long term partner, family, office mates, friends… who never suspected anything.
“At the time of his arrest, he was working as a post-doctoral researcher and lecturer in geophysics at the University of Birmingham.[11] Falder was well-liked in his peer group, and was described as being extroverted, funny and larger than life.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Falder
(Not that knowing his criminal background would have helped in that specific case, since he didn’t have one.. until he did have a huge one and is now locked up)
ThaiFoodThaiFood@reddit
Sounds like a knobhead to me.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
That’s really great to hear—you’re lucky to have that kind of intuition. Not everyone does, though, and unfortunately some people have been hurt or made vulnerable because they trusted too easily. It’s those folks who might really benefit from having access to more information to keep themselves safe.
ThaiFoodThaiFood@reddit
I'd say in general that British people are more reserved and less trusting than Americans.
SheketBevakaSTFU@reddit
I’m an American and I think you watch too much true crime.
craftyhedgeandcave@reddit
Get them absolutely trashed and observe them
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
Do people in the UK feel like it’s better this way—keeping those records private? I get that it protects people from stigma and gives them a chance to move on from their past, but I also wonder how that balances against someone’s right to protect themselves in relationships or even in everyday life.
MojoMomma76@reddit
Those records are mostly private, but as other posters have mentioned if you are in a close relationship with someone and have some misgivings you can do a Clare's Law (domestic violence) or Sarah's Law (child abuse) request for information to the police, who will disclose anything which could place you at risk. Local papers also do carry local conviction records, or used to before most of them got killed by internet news. The balance does have to be between rehabilitating people and keeping the public safe, and I think we mostly get it right with the new disclosure laws now.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
That’s really helpful context—thanks for breaking that down. I can see how Clare’s Law and Sarah’s Law are meant to strike a balance between rehabilitation and public safety, but I guess what stands out to me is how passive the process is on the public’s end. You essentially have to go through the police, explain your concerns, and hope they decide it meets the threshold for disclosure.
That kind of setup seems to take a lot of agency away from the individual, especially in early dating stages where you might feel something is off but don’t necessarily have "evidence" to justify a request. In the U.S., for better or worse, you can often just look someone up—even if it’s just to give yourself peace of mind.
It makes me wonder how women in the UK, for example, navigate online dating when there’s no easy way to check whether someone has a violent or abusive history. Do people just rely more heavily on gut feeling, friends' opinions, or reporting to the police after something goes wrong?
Not saying either system is perfect, but the UK approach feels like it puts a lot of the burden on individuals to justify their suspicions before they’re allowed to access information that could be really important.
pintsized_baepsae@reddit
The answer to your questions is yes. Except maybe the last one, as some people will go to the police when they have a suspicion of something... Whether the police do something is a different question.
The answer to your first point is, really, common sense. Don't meet at anyone's home for the first / first few dates. Tell your friends where you're going and with whom. Google them. If the vibes are off, that's that.
I actually have a vague connection, in the form of mutual friends, to someone who was murdered by a guy she met online. Not a single attempt to vet him could've prevented that - he had no convictions, no weird vibes, nothing. The mutual friend even met him and said he came across super well, was really considerate and all... Until he decided to kill a young woman.
JinxThePetRock@reddit
That kind of setup seems to take a lot of agency away from the individual, especially in early dating stages where you might feel something is off but don’t necessarily have "evidence" to justify a request.
If you're having those feelings why are you bothering to pursue it? If it feels off, leave, get rid of it. If I even had the suspicion or the thought to background check someone then that is already enough reason to walk away.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
I agree that if something feels off, trusting your instincts and stepping away is really important. But sometimes those feelings aren’t clear or come much later, especially if someone is good at hiding things or presenting well at first.
Background checks or doing a little digging aren’t always about suspicion from the start—they can be about wanting peace of mind or protecting yourself from surprises down the line. Not everyone has strong instincts right away, and sometimes people want to be cautious without outright walking away immediately.
MojoMomma76@reddit
Hmm. I can sort of see your point, but honestly as an older British woman (I'm 47 and have been in the same relationship since I was 30) I kissed *a lot* of frogs in my twenties and it wasn't that hard to pick out the wronguns.
We're a smaller country and closer knit than the US, and usually meet potential partners through friends of friends, though internet dating is now much more common than it was when I was dating.
But many of my close female friends are single and do the online thing - I would say all of them are fairly hyper alert to small social cues that indicate someone isn't quite who they say they are. And as a smaller country the instinctual thing might be a bit easier for us perhaps.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
Thanks for sharing your perspective—it sounds like your experience and the close-knit nature of the UK really help when it comes to spotting the “wronguns.” I can definitely see how knowing people through friends and paying close attention to social cues would make a big difference.
What motivated my original question was actually a personal situation: I have a friend in the UK who can’t travel to the U.S. without a visa, even though UK citizens usually don’t need one. They eventually disclosed a bit about why they need it—a past conviction with a spent sentence—but not much more. That got me wondering how situations like that are handled over there, especially since it seems the culture would view digging into those details as too invasive or private.
It’s really interesting to see the balance between privacy and safety in different places. Thanks for giving me a better understanding of how things work in the UK!
MojoMomma76@reddit
You’re welcome!
Similar_Quiet@reddit
Listen to your "something could be off" feelings. Even if someone in the us doesn't have a record, it could just mean they haven't been caught yet. Every offender has a first victim.
ThaiFoodThaiFood@reddit
We don't feel anything about it.
Worm_slayer3000@reddit
If you're in a relationship and suspect they might be dangerous you can request details of domestic violence history through the police. If they've committed any crimes you can usually look them up on Google as most court cases are published in local papers.
Pet_of_Nutkicker@reddit
If you’re at the point where you genuinely feel that you need to vet them to such an extent, it’s probably not going to work out.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
I see what you mean, but I’m not sure it’s always about “not working out.” Sometimes people hold back serious disclosures until they feel secure or certain the relationship is going somewhere. If you’re already emotionally invested, finding out something big later can be really shocking and feel like a betrayal.
My point is more about the fact that, without access to certain information, people don’t have a real chance to make an informed choice early on—unless the other person chooses to disclose, which they might not always do.
VerityPee@reddit
It’s MUCH harder for them to kill your over here.
silentv0ices@reddit
Honestly not really the human body is pretty vulnerable to heavy hard things and sharp tabby things.
FMLitsSML@reddit
You could get a DBS check done, but I don’t know of any sane person who’d “vet” a potential partner in that way.
Similar_Quiet@reddit
You can't get a DBS check done on someone else.
Even when an employer "does a DBS check", the disclosure is made to the employee and it's up to them to show it to the employer. (Roughly speaking)
FMLitsSML@reddit
Apols, should have said “ask them to do a DBS check”.
Pet_of_Nutkicker@reddit
You could still get it done, you’d just need their written consent.
EightLions539@reddit
Purely vibes
barrybreslau@reddit
This isn't true. You can request details of a partner from the Police under the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme to see if they have previous. If they have, they will tell you. This applies when you have kids and they may have a history of child molestation etc.
SnarkyFool@reddit
If you think the person is creepy and criminal, maybe that enough is a sign you aren't compatible.
Twisted_paperclips@reddit
Generally, we take people at face value.
But equally we have things such as Claires Law - it can be applied for or on behalf of a person if they are worried their spouse / potential spouse may have a violent past. It is only limited disclosure, made directly to the person the concern affects. The person making the application may never hear the results of it (if made on behalf of someone else), or no disclosure may be made (for example if they have a history of non violent offences).
amiescool@reddit
Also to add that if disclosures are made you have to sign before hearing it to say you won’t repeat anything you hear to anyone. It’s pretty serious if you do, so it can’t be made a drama out of either blasting it all over social media like I see sometimes after US vetting of dates goes wrong etc
geeoharee@reddit
Most behaviour you'd worry about in a relationship never gets reported, so I don't really see the point.
itsnotsanfran@reddit (OP)
That’s a really fair point—and honestly, one that applies here in the U.S. too. A lot of the worst behavior in relationships (emotional abuse, manipulation, controlling tendencies) doesn’t leave a paper trail, even when the legal system is accessible.
I guess the difference is that over here, if someone has been arrested or convicted—especially for something violent or predatory—you can usually find that out pretty quickly. So while it’s definitely not a complete picture, it can still be a useful filter in some situations.
That said, you’re right: no background check is a substitute for paying close attention to how someone treats you. The real red flags usually come out in how someone behaves day to day, not what's on a police report.
EitherChannel4874@reddit
Our default isn't usually suspecting everyone of being a potential violent criminal when going on dates.
Either_Reality3687@reddit
Sarah's law let's you check on anyone you want if they've hurt or pose a danger to children This is after a known pedophile killed her but because back then companies couldn't do checks they didn't know.
alexanderbeswick@reddit
Sarah's Law
bluejackmovedagain@reddit
You can request the police share any concerns with you under the (Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme)[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/domestic-violence-disclosure-scheme-factsheet], which is often called Clare's Law. If you have children you can also make a request under the Child Sexual Offences Disclosure Scheme which is known as Sarah's Law.
JazzJ190@reddit
You can apply for Claire's Law if you suspect they have a violent past and are worried they may cause you any serious harm
https://clares-law.com/
Sarah's law if you have children and are worried about any previous sexual abuse crimes especially if you have kids
https://www.sarsas.org.uk/resources/sarahs-law/
Johnny_Vernacular@reddit
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (CSODS) lets you formally ask the police whether someone who has contact with a child or children:
It's not a law, but it is sometimes called 'Sarah's Law'. It gives guidance on how you can ask the cops to use their existing police powers to share information about sex offenders.
If you’re worried about someone’s behaviour towards a child, or something you've seen, heard or been told, you can use Sarah's Law to find out if that person is a risk.
qualityvote2@reddit
Hello u/itsnotsanfran! Welcome to r/AskABrit!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!