On 24/08/2013 17:03, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > Can you give us _any_ more details (names, places)? Either by posting or > email if you don't want to make them public? (I have some security > clearance - though you only have my word for that, but I can give you > [privately] my works address which would go some way to showing you. > Though other than search the BMD records [which anyone here could do] - > and Medway area parish ones, which are the only ones I know my way > around, if that's where he was baptised - I'm not sure I could help much.) Why on earth do you want more details about a personal matter? What the man needs to do, is change his name by deed poll, or else use his passport as proof, if he has one, but sounds like he doesn't have a passport, or I don't think this problem would have arisen.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 23:26:27 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: > >On 24/08/2013 17:03, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > >> Can you give us _any_ more details (names, places)? Either by posting or >> email if you don't want to make them public? (I have some security >> clearance - though you only have my word for that, but I can give you >> [privately] my works address which would go some way to showing you. >> Though other than search the BMD records [which anyone here could do] - >> and Medway area parish ones, which are the only ones I know my way >> around, if that's where he was baptised - I'm not sure I could help much.) > > >Why on earth do you want more details about a personal matter? > >What the man needs to do, is change his name by deed poll, > I doubt if he needs to and it might interfere with the continuity required to verify the connection between his birth identity and his current identity. A deed poll involves more than just a name change, part of the process is the permanent renunciation of your name as used prior to the change which appears to be incompatible with what is required. >or else use >his passport as proof, if he has one, but sounds like he doesn't have a >passport, or I don't think this problem would have arisen. >

Renia wrote: > What the man needs to do, is change his name by deed poll, It's a more subtle (and possibly more stupid) problem than that. What he needs to do is *prove* that he's the person named on birth certificate as XXX YYY rather than ZZZ as given in his passport etc. In effect changing his name by deed poll simply repeats the claim that he was XXX YYY and says is now ZZZ. But it doesn't prove the claim. ISTM a rather stupid problem because the security check is on him, the person described and shown in the photograph in the passport, all the rest of the documentation and any other evidence the check might throw up as ZZZ. If all that evidence shows him to be suitable then the birth certificate isn't going to add to the sum of human knowledge. I think it rather depends on what the nature of the check is. If it's an internal HR tick list mandated by ISO9000 or the like then he may be doomed as such methods are designed to eliminate all possibility of the intervention of intelligent thought. If they're just gathering a load of data to ship off to Special Branch or whoever it is who does the checks then I'd have thought the professionals should be able to work round it - it's not likely to be a novel problem for them. But even in the latter case HR may still have the tick list to fill before they think they can proceed (and as it's HR I'm using the word "think" in its loosest possible sense). -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:08:40 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Renia wrote: >> What the man needs to do, is change his name by deed poll, > >It's a more subtle (and possibly more stupid) problem than that. What >he needs to do is *prove* that he's the person named on birth >certificate as XXX YYY rather than ZZZ as given in his passport etc. In >effect changing his name by deed poll simply repeats the claim that he >was XXX YYY and says is now ZZZ. But it doesn't prove the claim. > >ISTM a rather stupid problem because the security check is on him, the >person described and shown in the photograph in the passport, all the >rest of the documentation and any other evidence the check might throw >up as ZZZ. If all that evidence shows him to be suitable then the birth >certificate isn't going to add to the sum of human knowledge. > >I think it rather depends on what the nature of the check is. If it's >an internal HR tick list mandated by ISO9000 or the like then he may be >doomed as such methods are designed to eliminate all possibility of the >intervention of intelligent thought. If they're just gathering a load >of data to ship off to Special Branch or whoever it is who does the >checks then I'd have thought the professionals should be able to work >round it - it's not likely to be a novel problem for them. But even in >the latter case HR may still have the tick list to fill before they >think they can proceed (and as it's HR I'm using the word "think" in its >loosest possible sense). > The problem possibly compares best with that of a person in the same circumstances undergoing an enhanced DBS check (which requires more proofs to be supplied by the applicant than a passport application does) for which the guidance does not seem to go beyond "If there are any discrepancies in the information provided by the applicant and/or the identity documents supplied, and fraud is not suspected, please seek clarification from the applicant." [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230541/ID_Checking_Guidance_DBS_v11.pdf]