Charles Ellson wrote: > 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] > I was thinking more along the lines of SC as explained here: https://www.sis.gov.uk/careers/working-for-us/security-vetting/what-is-security-clearance.html And note questions 3 h et seq on the application form here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28419/Form_NSV001.pdf They simply ask for the applicant to explain any name changes! -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Charles Ellson wrote: >> 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] >> > >I was thinking more along the lines of SC as explained here: >https://www.sis.gov.uk/careers/working-for-us/security-vetting/what-is-security-clearance.html > >And note questions 3 h et seq on the application form here: >https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28419/Form_NSV001.pdf > They simply ask for the applicant to explain any name changes! > Probably in most cases (e.g. married woman) the information supplied makes it merely a case of contacting relevant record holders to compare the answers with the records. It is rather more enquiring than the enhanced DBS check so possibly structured to make further enquiries to the applicant unnecessary if the information is available from the more routine GRO/DSS/MOJ etc. records; DBS checks are currently made by outside contractors who presumably do not have easy access. The details requested for parents etc. seem to be a bit more than they were 15 and 40 years ago, possibly not unrelated to cases/trials where security checks appeared to totally ignore people's siblings and in-laws.

On 25/08/2013 21:53, Charles Ellson wrote: > On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Goddard > Probably in most cases (e.g. married woman) the information supplied As a newly married woman applying for a passport in the UK, you have to send in your old passport, your birth certificate and your marriage certificate.

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:18:02 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: >On 25/08/2013 21:53, Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:08:36 +0100, Ian Goddard > > >> Probably in most cases (e.g. married woman) the information supplied > >As a newly married woman applying for a passport in the UK, you have to >send in your old passport, your birth certificate and your marriage >certificate. > Only if you choose to be known by your husband's surname otherwise you can carry on as you were. A married woman who continues to use her own surname can request that an observation is entered on her passport that ' THE HOLDER IS THE WIFE OF ................. (name of husband)' or if she uses both surnames that 'THE HOLDER IS ALSO KNOWN AS...................'. The latter case requires corroborative evidence of such use. [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118565/marriage.pdf]

In message <b7uvh4Fp3d7U1@mid.individual.net>, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> writes: [] >And note questions 3 h et seq on the application form here: >https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil >e/28419/Form_NSV001.pdf They simply ask for the applicant to explain >any name changes! > > In the OP's (friend's) case, the actual explanation is the problem! Though just _describing_ the change might work, even though that's not actually an _explanation_ here. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." - Woody Allen