Thread: Passport applicants face questions on credit history

Spotted this in Computerweekly

Strange that...

I can't quite work out why a senior civil servant at the Cabinet Office seems to think people will be quite happpy to answer questions from a Civil servant about a matter that is largely of no concern to the State unless I'm being nicked for credit fraud. If they can't find out how to prove someone is who they are without poking into private matters then they truly have lost the plot.

It will in all probability come down to the definition of "a fit and proper person". If you have any discretion of who you would like in any given club, then you tend to perform various checks; one of which might be (a)"has this person got a history of racking up big debts and then legging it?", or (b) "has this person got a bank account/credit card/charge card and are those accounts being managed responsibly?" (though how you define that when the banks have been playing fast and loose with the world's economy is beyond me). If you decide that they fall into (a) they get fcuked off at the high port, and if (b) then you look at their application in more depth (presumably in a more than favourable light).

as Mr F says its probably due to the current climate where some individuals may liquidize any assets and do a runner to Spain for a few years leaving huge debts. A debt becomes non-enforceable if no payment or acknowledgement of said debt has taken place for 6 years or more. Basically it becomes Statute-Barred, which means a creditor cannot get a court to force the debtor to pay, regardless of what Debt Collection Agencies say.

It's somewhat unfortunate that people believe that they have a "right" to a passport. They don't. Sucessive governments have happily issued passports to the hungry masses, as they (thye hungry masses) wanted to head off to the sun for a fortnight a year. but there is no legal requirement for them to be issued willy-nilly. They don't even belong to the person named on them, they remain property of the Crown and must be handed back if requested. (That's how the Mags Court stops suspected football hooligans from attending matches). The proposals for a credit check are nothing more than an exercise to ensure that individuals issued with passports are fit to be ambassodors for the country and are not likely to be a bigger embarrassment than the usual UK tourist abroad is.

Originally Posted by stabradop

as Mr F says its probably due to the current climate where some individuals may liquidize any assets and do a runner to Spain for a few years leaving huge debts. A debt becomes non-enforceable if no payment or acknowledgement of said debt has taken place for 6 years or more. Basically it becomes Statute-Barred, which means a creditor cannot get a court to force the debtor to pay, regardless of what Debt Collection Agencies say.

Clearly I'm being dim but how is that any business of the state in any way, shape or form?

Flip side is..... The State is blurring the difference between State held and privately held databases. By accepting that the State can poke into a database to check you are how you say you are is heading into dodgy areas. ID fraud is a major problem today and who the hell fancies being denied a passport beacuse your ID has been ripped off to carry out fraud. The State has a poor record of ID control, witness the mess CRB cause when people are wrongly reported by CRB as being dodgy.

Other quick point. A passport is the property of HM Crown and can be withdrawn upon the issue of a court order, not because some spotty herbert feels that he'd like to f**k you about. A Passport does not have to be issued to you, but to refuse to issue a passport to someone who does not have any convications in a court of law is going to be tricky. Throw in the fact that that the EU has made it a right to freedom of travel and HM Government could be on a losing streak.

Originally Posted by Mr_Fingerz

It's somewhat unfortunate that people believe that they have a "right" to a passport. They don't. Sucessive governments have happily issued passports to the hungry masses, as they (thye hungry masses) wanted to head off to the sun for a fortnight a year. but there is no legal requirement for them to be issued willy-nilly. They don't even belong to the person named on them, they remain property of the Crown and must be handed back if requested. (That's how the Mags Court stops suspected football hooligans from attending matches). The proposals for a credit check are nothing more than an exercise to ensure that individuals issued with passports are fit to be ambassodors for the country and are not likely to be a bigger embarrassment than the usual UK tourist abroad is.

You are talking about legal technicalities that go back to how we arrived at our constitutional settlement. No Government has the right to withhold a passport from a citizen except in certain very limited circumstances. (Stopping kiddy fiddlers going to Thailand)

I can see some sense in what is being proposed. That is to say an attempt to verify that the applicant for a new passport is who they say they are. Maybe it should be one of the options that I could choose to use, but I certainly should not have to.

It's The State's business because they are your nanny (or rather they think they are).

Originally Posted by BuggerAll

That is to say an attempt to verify that the applicant for a new passport is who they say they are. Maybe it should be one of the options that I could choose to use, but I certainly should not have to.

Bingo. Give that man a shiny new coconut.

Who'll give me odds on "But if you don't want to go through all that hassle, you can sign up for one of these natty I.D cards"?

or

"Of course it's not compulsion by the back door"

Anyone?

Not something that would worry me unduly (have had the financial once over during my SC vetting) but I'm willing to bet there are those that would be less than comfortable with questions of that sort and adopt the path of least resistance.

Originally Posted by Sixty

Originally Posted by BuggerAll

That is to say an attempt to verify that the applicant for a new passport is who they say they are. Maybe it should be one of the options that I could choose to use, but I certainly should not have to.

Bingo. Give that man a shiny new coconut.

Who'll give me odds on "But if you don't want to go through all that hassle, you can sign up for one of these natty I.D cards"?

or

"Of course it's not compulsion by the back door"

Anyone?

Not something that would worry me unduly (have had the financial once over during my SC vetting) but I'm willing to bet there are those that would be less than comfortable with questions of that sort and adopt the path of least resistance.

Thanks, I'd like a coconut. I'll PM you my address to send it to.

The scary thing is that people have very little reason to have to think for themselves any more. Not just when it comes to political views, but also just generally in life.

You don't have to leave home to vote, which in itself is just open to abuse. How many households voting forms are filled in by one person and sent back as if the voter themselves had filled it in.

How many people do you see with Sat Navs in there cars.

Cars of the not to distant future can/will have speed limiters fitted.

Whilst driving down the A1 the other week I saw a sign saying “This sign is not in Use' which by virtue of the fact that it's informing driver's that it's not in use, means that it actually is in use.

This whold ID Card and central Identity register will give people even less reasons to have to think as many regular things will be done at the swipe of a card.

IMHO this is another step to the communist totalitarian state so desired by Jacqui'jackboots' Smith in the spare moments when she is NOT fiddling her expenses claims.