Do I hire a private investigator

System

It is dubious so i put the theory to the test using my fb! My wife shows up if you search my name :eek: i was not logged in when i did it but when you go to view my fb you get the message "user does not exist or is currently invalid" if you login you see my fb.

Looking on wikihow about fb blocking...

If the account you're using isn't friends, or a friend of a friend of that person, and you use a standard search, it's just like searching for them while logged out, which is discussed in the next step. Note: If the account you are using isn't friends, or a friend of a friend of that person and you don't find them, you might still find them by looking through the list of friends of known friends of them. If you do find them this way while using a totally unrelated account but don't find them the same way while using your own account, there is a high chance that they've blocked you.

What she's saying could be true :rotfl:

FBaby

In this instance, OP's ex will likely have looked at OP's profile from his wife's profile in order to block her. When OP performs a general search, Facebook discounts the blocking (as Facebook doesn't want people to know who has blocked them) but recalls that the profile was viewed from that account which elevates it in the search results and suddenly you've got someone with such and such a surname who lives near a location associated with the OP's ex. OP tries to view profile but is told it doesn't exist, which is a flaw in Facebook's programming (and a well known one at that) that indicates she's been blocked. It's enough to dig a little more.

I think this is it! It does actually state who you are married to in the search list of people, who whereas I couldn't imagine having to click on each one of them to find it, I can now see how just putting the surname, you could come to someone in the drop down list stating they were married to someone with his name.

Still incredible as indeed, firstly, they would have had to go through the surname as they believed to be, then the variance(s), and then get to the ones where there is no link at all (as friends or friends come first), then geographically, before getting to a stranger leaving far away, but yes, I can see how you would get there if going through 1000s of profiles.

Everything is quite an amazing series of coincidences, firstly that it turned out that he had indeed used a variance of his actual name, then that she found out the right variance, then that she came across his wife and that the wife happened to specify that she was not only married, but married and mentioning his name, and then that her profile was open to the public and of course, that success came just as that thread was started.

However, I can now see that it is possible.

FBaby

What she's saying could be true

Ha ha, posted my post before I read yours. That's two of us now

ManofLeisure_2

Guest101 wrote: »

The information isn't the GPs to decide what to do with.


It belongs to the patient.


The exceptional circumstances are for example:


Patient is being sectioned under the mental health act.


Not the patients ex wants some details.

I'm afraid I don't believe this to be correct. My son is also a doctor (as BucksLady's husband) and he says that exceptional circumstances do not ''just'' relate to the mental health act.

Guest101

ManofLeisure wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't believe this to be correct. My son is also a doctor (as BucksLady's husband) and he says that exceptional circumstances do not ''just'' relate to the mental health act.

Not 'just', it was an example.


Without being funny it's rare that Doctors, or any clinical / medical professional is trained in the DPA, or FOI.


Working in Comms for the NHS I'm very well acquainted with both pieces of legislation.


Some medical information can be shared without a court order, for obvious reasons.


But personal information (which is not quite the same thing) which has no bearing on treatment is very much a no-no.


The mental health act is a good example as sectioning requires 2 medical professionals opinions, obviously not being able to discuss the patient would make this impossible.


The RTX number is often used on modern wards, instead of names, to protect even that information. But a Doctor will still know the names and case history of their patient, and will still leave instructions for the nursing team on the ward.


Similarly referring someone to physio, for example, would be redundant unless they had the notes to back it up.


However a doctor would be hard pressed to justify telling the physio of an abortion the patient had 10 years ago - which has no relevance what so ever.


The information is owned by the patient, not the organisation. Not all information is available to the patient (for safeguarding reasons for example)


And similarly for safeguarding there are pathways for referral which would protect the person in question

dktreesea

To the skeptics, this is more common than you might think. I can think of at least two people up here who have come here to work, have families down in London who don't want to move, and who don't want to have to pay for hotel fees during the week. They have both moved in with girlfriends/mistresses. The girlfriends have no idea. They are smart. They don't go home every weekend. They tell their wives they have to work that weekend. When they go on holidays with either of their families they tell the other family they are going away for work.


The wives think they are paying for hotel bills out of their own money. they tell the wives they stay in different hotels depending on which one is the cheapest that week. One even has a mate working for Travelodge who always takes messages for the guy.


The problem arises of course when the girlfriend wants to marry. One of the guys has two children to his girlfriend up here.


Muslim guys who come over here to study, often sent by their firms back home, are the same. They marry a second wife here who knows nothing about the fact they already have wives and families back home. When he's recalled, he just gets a religious divorce and leaves his second wife and children here, stranded. His family back home never know about the second wife. There are heaps of guys like this over here. They don't want to pay for accommodation. this way they get a free ride in someone else's house.


One of the guys from London even carried on with his girlfriend and children when his wife and other children came up for a visit.


The main thing, thinking ahead is proof of paternity and inheritance. OP, your boyfriend sounds like he is reasonably well off. If you drop this, then you could be blamed by your son in the future if he misses out on formally being acknowledged by the father, and the inheritance rights that then follow from that, just because you didn't pursue him formally, through the court system.


I wouldn't make the wife finding out your sole objective. Who cares if she knows or not. What's she to you? A stranger. But ensuring the rights of your child is a different matter. He deserves to know who his father is and to be able to get his inheritance in good time.

duchy

REMO works pretty well across many "overseas" areas.
The OP shouldn't be put off by the fact he may claim CI residency.

Odds are if he has any sense he'll agree to a private legal agreement for child support via solicitors rsther than have child support as a matter of public record - but of course he may be so arrogant that he thinks he can fight it all.

Candyapple

Aside from a DNA test to comply with paying the CSA, how does one 'formally acknowledge' being a father? He's not on the birth certificate, he's already abandoned his child without a backwards glance and not seen them for 6 months already, I think it's safe to say this man doesn't give a hoot as to the child he fathered with the OP - so what makes you think that even if it was known that he was the father, that the child has any 'rights' to his estate/fortune when he dies? Just because you are someone's child, doesn't automatically mean you are entitled to your parent(s) inheritance.

OP should contact CSA and see what they say about it given what has been mentioned before about if they have jurisdiction being that he supposedly resides in Jersey. But as others have stated, if he's self-employed, he'll no doubt play around with the figures so that he ends up paying nothing.

duchy

I think in the OP's shoes I'd be feeling - He can cheat on me - his loss but to cheat on and desert my child -I'd go through as much as I had to - making sure he paid child support to my child he treated as disposible !! The thought of a couple of years of courtcases wouldn't deter me.

ManofLeisure_2

Guest101 wrote: »

Not 'just', it was an example.


Without being funny it's rare that Doctors, or any clinical / medical professional is trained in the DPA, or FOI.


Working in Comms for the NHS I'm very well acquainted with both pieces of legislation.


Some medical information can be shared without a court order, for obvious reasons.


But personal information (which is not quite the same thing) which has no bearing on treatment is very much a no-no.


The mental health act is a good example as sectioning requires 2 medical professionals opinions, obviously not being able to discuss the patient would make this impossible.


The RTX number is often used on modern wards, instead of names, to protect even that information. But a Doctor will still know the names and case history of their patient, and will still leave instructions for the nursing team on the ward.


Similarly referring someone to physio, for example, would be redundant unless they had the notes to back it up.


However a doctor would be hard pressed to justify telling the physio of an abortion the patient had 10 years ago - which has no relevance what so ever.


The information is owned by the patient, not the organisation. Not all information is available to the patient (for safeguarding reasons for example)


And similarly for safeguarding there are pathways for referral which would protect the person in question

I don't wish to debate this I'm afraid. I have taken a look at the GMC guidelines for GP's and hope I'm intelligent enough to understand what they mean.