The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) is a non-departmental public body of the Home Office of the United Kingdom. The DBS enables organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to make safer recruitment decisions by identifying candidates who may be unsuitable for certain work, especially that involve children or vulnerable adults, and provides wider access to criminal record information through its disclosure service for England and Wales.

The DBS was formed in 2012 by merging the functions of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. DBS started operating on 1 December 2012. It operates from Liverpool and Darlington. Its equivalent agencies are Disclosure Scotland in Scotland and Access Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland.

Many people are somewhat confused about the processes and procedures of the DBS. The real reason it was created was to stop paedophiles and people with relevant criminal backgrounds from working in an environment where they can cause harm to the public. Although the DBS has moved away from this in recent years and now use bribery to malicious bar innocent people. For instance, senior management are regularly taking ‘gifts’ although these are not ‘gifts’ but bribes under a different header. These ‘gifts’ come in many different forms from holidays, money, cruises, stocks, bonds and investments. These ‘gifts’ are given by referrers to the DBS such as employers and other regulated activity providers. The DBS senior management and Chief executive, currently Adele Downey are involved in these criminal practices and have even on a very regular basis given bribes in the form of ‘gift boxes’ to judges in the Upper Tribunal. This usually occurs on the day of the oral hearings or when someone is not looking. More will be discussed about judges taking bribes in the Upper Tribunal below.


Vulnerable Adults List.

A case involving a former health professional whom was dismissed from their role on trumped up false charges was referred to the DBS in 2010 for consideration of barring. No evidence exists but it is extremely likely that it was followed by a ‘gift’ to a senior official in the DBS. The referring body was an NHS hospital Trust using public funds to bribe DBS officials. Even though this seems like an incredible allegation, it follows on from what official documentation below confirms. The result is correspondence received by the member of the public which was somewhat alarming.


For some strange reason, they believe Vulnerable Adults were harmed during this process although no evidence for this sanction is given apart from just allegations. They state that this member of the public is entitled to appeal this inclusion to the Upper Tribunal. This is an example of where DBS senior management and officials are using taxpayers money to fight legal cases against unrepresented members of the public whom are no longer entitled to legal aid. This is a clear breach of Article 6 of the ECHR which is a right to a fair trial.


Childrens List.

After an appeal was lodged with the Upper tribunal, a somewhat further concerning letter arrives which now DBS officials are now considering to putting this member of the public on the Childrens lists. You would think something very serious has occurred. Unfortunately, these senior management of the DBS were once again taking more bribes in the form of ‘gifts’. The correspondence below shows the DBS’s allegations keeping in mind this is not supported by evidence.



They once again emphasise that the matter can be appealed. Surely the DBS are aware of what they are doing considering they do this job on a daily basis. The theory behind these false sanctions are very simple, there is a ‘gift system’ operating in the senior ranks of the DBS where bribes are common part between referrers, lawyers, judges and DBS senior management. This is in addition to the taxpayers £200 million government investment into creating this criminal empire so senior executives of this organisation can give and take bribes and use the Upper Tribunal appeal process to launder money into legal means.

The above sanctions by the DBS were appealed by this member of the public and clearly you can see they have a water tight case. Unfortunately as the DBS and the Upper Tribunal is involved in a criminal racket system, this case would somewhat become a case involving further bribes, this time to the judge in the Upper Tribunal called HHJ Simon Oliver.



This is what took place throughout the 4 day hearing.

Incident in question

On day 1 of the oral hearing:

  • Within 5-10 minutes of the oral hearing initiating, HHJ Simon Oliver puts his hand over the microphone and says ‘Do you have anything for me?’. His head was down at this moment and we believe he was talking to the other side but no one specifically. The DBS barrister ‘BJ’ from Blackstone chambers in London, also putting his hand over the microphone (Only after HHJ Simon Oliver directed he do so with hand gestures) says ‘My client has a gift for you from The Trust’. Kevin Brooks from the Treasury Solicitors (TSOL), now called the Government legal department, approaches the judicial bench with a box (the size of a book) in an orange Sainsbury’s carrier bag. HHJ Simon Oliver immediately puts his other hand up whilst his initial hand was still on the microphone and stops Kevin Brooks in his tracks. HHJ Simon Oliver directs his right hand to his left to which Kevin Brooks puts his head down and follows to the end of the judicial bench. Mr Brooks tucks the box in neatly under or behind the bench or a table at the end of the bench away from sight although we could still see a piece of the carrier bag appearing from the area it was placed in. At this moment, a gasp appears in the courtroom about the incident and apparently the way Mr Brooks approached the judicial bench. Michael Flynn (Norwich magistrates court judge), a specialist panel member whom also had his hand on his microphone during this period continued writing something whilst he clearly noticed the event. Janice Funnell (child psychologist from Merton council), another specialist member laughed at the incident. Simon Oliver had an embarrassed smirk on his face as in ‘Have i been caught?’. After this, BJ and HHJ Simon Oliver took their hands off the microphone. We are not sure if Michael Flynn or Janice Funnell had their hands on the microphone at this time as we were not observing them or their hands at this time.
  • The first day of the hearing was not bad. The judiciary seemed straight forward and impartial. Michael Flynn began doing some minor hand gestures towards the end of the day which we did not consider a major problem at the time. He did the hand gestures around 4-5 times (in guise that’s he’s not interested).
  • An adjournment took place around lunchtime at HHJ Simon Oliver’s request. At this time, the DBS barrister BJ asked the appellant that they can leave the courtroom and have a break and to come back in 15 minutes. During this break, the DBS senior management and officials were sat in the back of the courtroom started preparing boxes quickly. Whilst the appellant was outside the courtroom, the DBS senior management (at the request of the DBS CEO Adele Downey), placed a box under the judicial bench. It is unknown what contained in the box but it is very highly likely that it was money in the form of a bribe. When the entire courtroom came back, the DBS senior management and BJ directed to HHJ Simon Oliver that there was ‘something’ under the table for him. HHJ Simon Oliver nodded in acceptance but did not approach the area of the judicial bench where the DBS senior management were pointing towards. 
  • Towards the end of the hearing on the first day when the judiciary were retiring, HHJ Simon Oliver, Janice Funnell and Michael Flynn stood up to leave and were partly gone through the back door. Janice Funnell was the first one to leave through the back door and HHJ Simon Oliver was partly through the back door and Michael Flynn was in the process of going through the back door. That is when Kevin Brooks of the TSOL and unknown members in the back of the court room uttered some words (unknown to what it was) and pointed out to the box under the judicial bench/table. To this, HHJ Simon Oliver said ‘Oh yeah’ and directed Michael Flynn pick up the box as Michael Flynn was the last one to leave through the back door. Michael Flynn picked both boxes casually and put it with the rest of the items in his hand and left through the back door. At this incident, there was a gasp in the back of the courtroom in shock. HHJ Simon Oliver in the meantime had a grin on his face pretending he didn’t know what he was doing. We are unsure if it was the same boxes that were placed in the morning and the early afternoon as it was picked up quite quickly and Michael Flynns back was also turned towards us during this time. If we remember correctly, it was exactly the same boxes as the boxes that were placed there previously did not appear to be there any longer. Michael Flynn placed one box under his left arm and another box in his left hand with a folder and notepad and quietly left through the back door.

On day 2 of the oral hearing:

  • On the second day of the hearing, substantial number of hand gestures started off by HHJ Simon Oliver and Michael Flynn. Michael Flynn was more proficient in the hand gestures and he also made facial expressions and gasping noises throughout the day. HHJ Simon Oliver just did hand gestures.
  • The box in the carrier bag was no longer visible from where we were sitting and we believe the box was removed the day earlier was the same box that was no longer there. The second box, we could not see at all.
  • By the end of the morning before lunch, we noticed Michael Flynn give an excess of 30 hand gestures in the form of a wave insinuating he is not interested in the appellants case and the defences. HHJ Simon Oliver did minor hand gestures, probably around 5-10 during this same period.
  • A witness called JR was being cross examined. During the cross examination, Michael Flynn puts his hand over the microphone and asked the appellant to change the question nearly 5-10 times. HHJ Simon Oliver agreed to this. Michael Flynn also continued his hand gestures to another 40-50 in the afternoon. HHJ Simon Oliver also did the same at around 20 times.
  • Michael Flynn started doing facial expressions by moving his head away in a gesture that he is not interested or he is not listening. This happened nearly 30-40 times in the afternoon alone.
  • Michael Flynn started questioning JR about the job but that is as far as his specialist knowledge went. He was actually learning from the witnesses rather than agreeing or disagreeing with the specialist element. Michael Flynn also put his hand up during the appellants cross examination of JR stating he wants to listen to JR and not the appellant. Simon Oliver did the same in addition to Michael Flynn.
  • During the afternoon hearing. Michael Flynn threw his pen on the judicial bench several times, around 10 times in a gesture that he’s fed up of listening to the appellant speak. A racist comment was made at this time that ‘Your the type of person who should just be working at a petrol station’. This was by Michael Flynn and is a racial slur. Due to the appellants unrepresented nature, they didn’t know how to respond. Michael Flynn also tried to put words in their mouth.
  • The appellant spoke in regards to a golliwog matter where staff members at the former employer were carrying golliwogs and the management of the hospital took no action against the perpetrators. HHJ Simon Oliver said to this remark with his hand once again on the microphone ‘Golliwogs are not a racist, it was at once inappropriate’. Michael Flynn had a stern look on his face and nodded yes.
  • During JRs cross examination, HHJ Simon Oliver said to JR ‘Would you like his name on the internet if BJ upholds this case?’. JR responds by saying ‘Well, most hospitals are aware of him and to stay away from him’. HHJ Simon Oliver and Michael Flynn said ‘That’s good’. This was incredibly concerning as this was an actual request by the judge to one of the witnesses. We do not believe hands were on any microphones at this time so it may have been recorded although HHJ Simon Oliver kept his distance from the microphone quite a bit.
  • Michael Flynn and HHJ Simon Oliver puts their hands over the microphone about 3 times whilst they whispered to one another without any other party involved what they were discussing. 

On day 3 of the oral hearing:

  • During the cross examination of GB, Michael Flynn and HHJ Simon Oliver carried on their hand gestures. Michael Flynn may have carried out 50-60 hand gestures, 20 pen throws on his desk, 30 facial expressions and moving his head away and 2 whispers with Simon Oliver. Michael Flynns hands were once again on the microphone several times that we could not count the amount of times he did it. The same with HHJ Simon Oliver where he nodded his head around 5 times and waved his hand about 20 times.
  • When the appellant questioned GB about JRs statement ‘well, JR said in her statement that……..?’. The appellant was immediately interrupted by Michael Flynn and HHJ Simon Oliver saying ‘ no, no, no ,no ,no’ and tapping and banging their hands on the table. Michael Flynn once again nodding several times. HHJ Simon Oliver says ‘That’s now 5 times you have misquoted’. In fact, the appellant did not misquote, it was an actual statement in JRs statement. The hand gestures were far greater on this day and nothing the appellant was saying was being heard.
  • A witness called GB was very honest and said that the appellant has to give the judge a gift if they want a favoured judgement. To this remark, HHJ Simon Oliver put his hand on the microphones and told GB ‘No, no, no!’ and ‘shhhh’ to prevent the appellant finding out what happened earlier on.
  • Michael Flynn started an allegation about the appellant not being qualified and that the appellant lied to an agency they were working with. The appellant stated that a clinical specialist does not have to be qualified and they can practice with an equivalent and they did not lie to any agency or anyone for that matter. Michael Flynn stated ‘Your not qualified’ about 15 times and ‘Yes, you did lie’ about 10 times. This was based on no evidence. The appellant said ‘well, the agency are specialists and they never said that’. Michael Flynn states ‘What, they are more specialist then me!’. The appellant said ‘I don’t know what your knowledge of the field is’. Michael Flynn states ‘Well, that should tell you then’ very rudely whilst still doing hand gestures and putting his hand over microphones. Michael Flynn then asks BJ and the TSOL to ask The Trust ‘Whether the appellant needs to be qualified’. If Michael Flynn was a specialist, he should have no problem answering this question himself rather than asking The Trust. Michael Flynn and HHJ Simon Oliver said to the appellant ‘Don’t worry, this isn’t going to form part of the judgement, we just want to know for ourselves, its all OK, don’t worry about it’. HHJ Simon Oliver said ‘Yes, don’t worry, its OK’. The response from The Trust came back that the appellant does not have to be qualified to practice so therefore the appellant was correct all along although the judgement does not report this and only reports the fabricated version.
  • When the appellant was being cross examined and was in the dock, HHJ Simon Oliver and Michael Flynn said ‘Move closer to the microphone, we want to capture all the content so there are not mistakes whilst their hands were on the microphone themselves.
  • Michael Flynn did 3 hand gestures during the appellants cross examination and nearly 20 times rolling his eyes and moving his face in annoyance. HHJ Simon Oliver at this time sat back smirking and grinning behind his hand.
  • Towards the end of the days hearing, HHJ Simon Oliver asked the DBS barrister BJ using hand gestures, whilst his other hand was on the microphone once again about the box that was placed in the corner of the bench on the first day. HHJ Simon Oliver was trying to see if the appellant knew about what happened so that Mr Oliver can protect himself better. BJ said ‘So you gave Mr ‘KA’ a bribe?’ . The appellant responded and said ‘no, i did no such thing. it was a fee KA requested for an employment reference’. On that note, Mr Oliver seemed satisfied that he was protected.

On day 4 of the oral hearing:

  • This day summing up was occurring. BJ spent over 30 minutes we believe on his summing up.
  • HHJ Simon Oliver said to BJ that the appellant was a ‘deserted rat’ to which Michael Flynn nodded his head.
  • When the appellant was summing up their case, Michael Flynn was waving his hand again about 20-30 times as though he is not interested, HHJ Simon Oliver did it 3 times.
  • Michael Flynn shouted out at the appellant during summing up ‘What, you want to work in a hospital?’. The appellant said ‘Yes, i do and i didn’t harm any child or vulnerable adult’. To this response, Michael Flynn and HHJ Simon Oliver responded ‘Well, that’s what we will consider’. Facial expressions and head movements were occurring during this comment.
  • The appellant put forward a case that their human rights have been breached and the procedure to bar was breached which is correct. Michael Flynn waved his hand at this remark. The appellant further mentioned the golliwog and HHJ Simon Oliver says ‘I already mentioned it yesterday, its not racist, it was made in to a big thing at one time’. This comment was made in a much lower voice away from his microphone.
  • Eventually 10 minutes in to the summing up, Michael Flynn and Simon Oliver once again were putting their hands over the microphones and whispering to one another. This occurred 3 times. Eventually HHJ Simon Oliver put his hand up in gesture of STOP! And thats enough of the appellants summing up when they had another 20 minutes of material to put forward which put forward errors of law and facts.
  • The last issue we remembered when the appellant was asking HHJ Simon Oliver how long will it be before they receive the judgement. He said with a smirk on his face that he will be going on holiday for 3 weeks and so the appellant will not receive the judgement under the end of July 2014. He also stated that he will be on a beach somewhere on a last minute holiday. To this remark, Michael Flynn, Janice Funnell, BJ and others in the back of the courtroom could be heard smirking and laughing. We believe this was HHJ Simon Oliver indirectly implying the contents of the box he retrieved on the first/second of the hearing contained monetary/holiday value and that he will be spending it on a luxury holiday on a beach.
  • The final moment was when the judiciary were leaving, Michael Flynn and HHJ Simon Oliver with grins of their faces stood up and continued waving their hand at the appellant as though they are not interested for nearly 20 seconds before retiring.

Throughout the hearing, it was only Janice Funnell who acted professionally and listened to both sides but we believe she was looking towards HHJ Simon Oliver to understand what he was doing throughout. We think Janice Funnell has an approach that ’Its a mans world’ rather then act on anything she will observe is wrong. Although our complaint does not relate to her as we had confidence she behaved herself professionally throughout the majority of the hearing.

After observing the judgement, it was clear it was filled with lies, falsehood and deceit and clearly the appellant wasn’t heard. In fact, it would be sensible to say the appellant should not have turned up at the hearing. No safeguarding concerns were identified and no evidence supported the false allegations made against the appellant by the judiciary. The conduct of the judiciary shows they are/were severely biased as even a mere act of impropriety should not exist when handling cases when clearly with the substantial incidents addressed above shows this matter has gone beyond a mere act or a single incident. 

In 2015, the appellant asked the tribunal to reconsider the case under ‘errors of law’. The appellant received a somewhat concerning letter and response from HHJ Simon Oliver basically stating he will in future consider issuing a civil restraint order that the appellant does not agree with his judgement when the appeal was on errors of law. Once again, HHJ Simon Oliver did not respond to the grounds of appeal under errors of law but rather ignored it just like he ignored it at the hearing and at the review of the decision. HHJ Simon Oliver was using his professional powers for personal gain by trying to push the appellant around once again. 

We were also somewhat surprised that HHJ Simon Oliver and other members of the courtroom and judiciary were making a mockery of the court system and communicating with hand gestures the majority of the time and placing hands on microphones throughout the hearing too.

Furthermore, the judiciary, mainly HHJ Simon Oliver and Michael Flynn should be suspended from their duties pending disciplinary action against them and also criminal charges placed upon them for:

Complaint made to the Upper Tribunal President.

A complaint was made to Justice Williams Charles of the Upper Tribunal, Administrative Appeals Chamber about the issues raised. Initially Justice Williams Charles ignored all correspondence but after persistence from the appellant for over a year, he responded. He accepted the complaint and investigated it. After 6 weeks of investigating, the conclusion of Justice Williams Charles was:

  • The appellant was lying but does not support it with evidence. He claims the allegation in ‘incredible’?
  • He refuses to investigate the matter of the gift box exchanging hands claiming the allegations is ‘incredible’? and does not require further investigation.
  • He also claims in his letter that the recordings ‘cannot be retrieved’ on the ‘Dart Server’? and he has not got access to it. No reasons or investigation has been carried out or provided. We believe it has been deliberately deleted to cover up the bribe in question and the behaviour complained of.
  • The president of the Upper Tribunal claims the appellants ‘Makes matter up’?. No evidence is provided.

Complaint made to senior management of the DBS.

After this traumatic incident which involved several public officials, judges and NHS hospitals giving and taking bribes using public money and using the Upper Tribunal legal system to launder it through ‘legal means’, this member of the public contacted the DBS CEO to resolve the matter in question. The response was the case was closed without an investigation. In fact, the Director of Operations and the Chief Executive responded somewhat very rudely as though they were talking to one of their own staff members. Particular attention should be paid to the matter concerning the allegations of bribery which senior management do not want to answer. In fact, they do not deny the allegations but merely close the case and refuse to correspond further. This is an indirect admission that something is wrong in their decisions and sanctions otherwise they would not have a problem addressing the concerns and questions raised. They constantly repeat matters that are not relevant such as accusing this member of the public of repeating themselves. As you can see, they are not repeating themselves but demanding an investigation. Once again senior management of the DBS are trying to move away from taking responsibility for their actions.




Complaint to the Government Legal Department.

A complaint was also made to the CEO Mr Jonathan Jones of the Governments Legal Department. An organisation that also uses public funds to fight government legal challenges (and also bribe them using these funds). The response was he states he investigated the matter but he never provides an investigation report or corresponds the matter further. This is because he also has something to hide. Please judge for yourselves.





The conclusion as 聽of 2016 is this matter has been passed on to the Police, the European Court of Human Rights and the local MP of the聽appellant.聽

This page has been created to inform members of the public that the DBS are not barring paedophiles or abusers, they are using bribery and criminal practices to bar innocent people in the public in return for criminal favours by other parties. The senior management of the DBS are on extremely lucrative payscales where a director is making around 拢150, 000 and the CEO is making 拢250, 000 per year. This is in addition to bonuses on top of these salaries. The more concerning aspect of this matter is that now other public bodies can make malicious referrals against former employees as long as they supply the correct ‘gift’ to go along with it. Usually 拢8, 000 in cash would do the trick although no party ever admits this. The DBS regularly places false charges to bar innocent people so the matter can ultimately go to an Upper Tribunal hearing where the senior managements lawyer and judge ‘friends’ can start making a lot of money out of the situation as well as ‘launder’ the ‘gift’ money they receive from many sources to settle their retirements.

The DBS also lie a lot too. Considering they bar innocent people with false charges, they are collecting these statistics and publishing it to the public at the end of the year giving the impression with the high number of barrings and sanctions that they are actually doing some work. In reality, they are not and they are just lying again as usual. The lying and criminal behaviour goes from the CEO level all the way to the caseworker.

Another issue is, the DBS is trying to bar more ethnic minorities with false allegations as well. This is because they do not want the public to think that only ‘white people’ are paedophiles which is the vast majority of cases is the issue. Therefore, they are also acting in a very racist fashion where they are trying to create false stereotypes against the taxpayer whom are the ones who are paying these executive management in the DBS their lucrative paychecks.

Many people reading this will be amazed how this matter can be going on in a democracy and bribery never happens in the UK. Unfortunately, it does occur. You just have to keep your eye open especially in the Upper Tribunal oral hearings where most of the criminal deals聽are going on (with hands on microphones). If you make an allegation of bribery, the response is the one above which is ‘CASE CLOSED’. This is because it is true. This same ‘gift system’ was being used in the late Stephen Lawrence case as well but no one was ever held to account. That case ultimately resulted in murderers being let go because boxes were being passed around containing money and criminal deals.

As the case above shows, the DBS has had plenty and ample opportunities to come to the error of their ways in this case but they have a snobbish attitude to the public, especially if you cannot offer them a ‘gift’. Therefore, it is appropriate to say this matter has to now become public so the real victims of the DBS are supported with the false charges placed on them by this criminal and bribery rife organisation which uses public funds to do so.

If you have been falsely accused by the DBS, its very likely it has a bribery matter involved. There is no point in trying to fight the matter as it is rife throughout the DBS. Have you ever wondered why they CEO and directors constantly are changing over, its because they finally get caught but they usually get exit packages and deals, also paid for by public money. From the above case and the response from the DBS CEO Adele Downey to just one letter requesting an investigation, she states she is refusing to investigate the matter and the case is closed. She also states that its taking up her staffs resources. This is just for sending one letter to her. Lets consider what Adele Downey really does all day, probably nothing but she gets paid a lot of money for not working. Maybe the response from her above should this year reflect on whether she will get a bonus or even a pay rise. She and her directors like the money that come along with the job but they don’t like doing their jobs. They are only there for the ‘gifts’, ‘bonuses’ and ‘favours’. The complaints procedure on the DBS website is as follows:




From the above complaints procedure published to the response this member of the public received is a clear breach on their policy. Particular attention should be paid to the ‘Unreasonably persistent and unacceptable behaviour policy’ where they say that complainants will be responded to ‘professionally, respectfully and sympathetically’. As from the above instances and documents, this is clearly a lie. Once again, the DBS publishes false information on their site. This flows similarly from the false allegations and charges they place on innocent people in the public.


Please comment below your experiences with this criminal organisation and also pass this page to as many people as you can so the public is aware that the DBS is not working in the public interest but their own bribery and money laundering interest.


Thank you for reading


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

The maximum upload file size: 64 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here

%d bloggers like this: