Right to be recognised as English and not just British!

Change British Passports to English, Welsh, Northern Ireland or Scottish. The Irish get their own. If we're different countries why not recognise this????

Why is this idea important?

Change British Passports to English, Welsh, Northern Ireland or Scottish. The Irish get their own. If we're different countries why not recognise this????

Passport entitlement

People who choose to live outside of the UK in order to avoid paying tax (income, inheritance capitol gains etc) should lose the right to a British passport and also their right to vote in elections.

Entitlement to a British passport should require a person to pay their full dues to the state. Anyone who chooses to avoid any of the taxes that may be levied has by default shown that they have no social responsibility to this country and therefore the state should require those persons to relinquish their passport. In the same manner, if such persons wish to avoid paying tax then they lose the right to vote.

Companies who promote tax avoidance should be fined double the amount that they have saved each and every tax avoider.

Why is this idea important?

People who choose to live outside of the UK in order to avoid paying tax (income, inheritance capitol gains etc) should lose the right to a British passport and also their right to vote in elections.

Entitlement to a British passport should require a person to pay their full dues to the state. Anyone who chooses to avoid any of the taxes that may be levied has by default shown that they have no social responsibility to this country and therefore the state should require those persons to relinquish their passport. In the same manner, if such persons wish to avoid paying tax then they lose the right to vote.

Companies who promote tax avoidance should be fined double the amount that they have saved each and every tax avoider.

STOP POLICE BEING ABLE TO SEIZE PASSPORTS WITHOUT A SPECIFIC COURT ORDER

Currently the police can seize a persons passport without an order of the court specifically allowing them to do so. Without a passport a person is  prevented from going abroad, prevented from ,saddly today, getting a bank acccount, prevented from getting or changing their job, prevented from getting a solictor to act for them, prevented from getting a mortgage.

Why is this idea important?

Currently the police can seize a persons passport without an order of the court specifically allowing them to do so. Without a passport a person is  prevented from going abroad, prevented from ,saddly today, getting a bank acccount, prevented from getting or changing their job, prevented from getting a solictor to act for them, prevented from getting a mortgage.

Personal status is never dependent on any losable document

To enact a principle that already follows by common sense from disability discrimination as a principle. That no person's status, as they move around, shall ever depend in any way on bearing a physical document that is capable of getting lost or stolen.

Human error exists, much as the Victorians wanted to believe otherwise. It is not a safe society if human error can cause devastation to your planned day and to the whole order of your life, such that you can't resume your routine life until you have reestablished your status somehow, it is not always obvious how and might incur great expense.

Obviously this is an extension of the repeal of identity cards, and is part of the case against them. But as should have been learned from the identity cards issue, this reasoning is not limited to identity cards, it applies to any form of bearing a document to prove your status.

If you have ever needed your birth certificate, say for a job, were you sure where it was or that itr was in your possession? Then you were relieved you could obtain a copy of it, not have your life mucked up irreversibly by loss of one copy. That could be different if you are a refugee or asylum seeker.

The lost documents issue applies to everyone, as human error applies to everyone. But disability discrimination comes into it too and helps to prove the argument – because there are disabilities that can make you more likely to lose a document. Dyspraxia and attention deficit include clumsiness at the "fine motor" level. A person's extent of physical dexterity, or capability to keep attention focussed, is never entirely their own fault even if you say "be careful". More physically serious conditions of jerks and fits here the body is not wholly under voluntary control, make a very visible issue out of small documents' losability. Folks with those conditions move around independently, rightly for still having their own lives under their own control. It follows that disability discrimination is done by any requirement ever to prove your status with a losable document. Think also of the learning diasabled.

This would have the effect of abolishing passports, but of course we still have to issue them so long as other countries have not adopted this fair principle and still require them. But it prevents us requiring them, and it is just blatantly nice and enlightened that this forces the immigration system to work liberally. The bigots' view just gets neatly totally overturned by the facts of human error that stand in its way.

Most noticeably in daily life, is that it would abolish tickets and physically borne passes on public transport.

By statistical chance tickets will sometimes get lost, and it gets very scary then. How fair is that to the victim of crime when a ticket gets stolen along with their money?  Transport systems breach public safety by not providing any simple committal guaranteed means whereby they will always get the passenger out of trouble in any situation around a lost or stolen ticket that is not the passenger's fault. e.g. I have seen a man put off a train at unstaffed station Rosyth, at 2226 at night, who wanted to be allowed to go to the staffed focal point of Edinburgh to seek a way out of his trouble. I made an urgent query to First Scotrail about this as a witness and I did not get an answer that made any foolproof commitment to provide anything for the passenger in such a situation. They left it wholly to the abusable discretion of often nasty train conductors.

When I was 21 I had an experience of stolen wallet at Carmarthen and a train conductor who was visibly an anti-young bigot turned very nasty and just not believing the situation was genuine, I got other station staff's backing in complaining against him and in them finding out what to do but it still involved me needing to have a third party to contact, which is mortifying and not at all certain, and them having to travel to a station and get charged extra for the service, and when they asked , what if I they were infirm and unable to make that journey, they got no answer but "oh well..um..er.."

This is, and always has been, flagrantly an abuse of the public in any society constituted to consider public safety. No matter how culturally accepted this situation is by habit, dating from the ruthless uncaringness of the nineteenth century, it is now unsustainable under scrutiny of responsibility to transport users, concerning: risking travellers' safety, and human fallibility, such as is always considered in road accident prevention systems, and minorities.

Why is this idea important?

To enact a principle that already follows by common sense from disability discrimination as a principle. That no person's status, as they move around, shall ever depend in any way on bearing a physical document that is capable of getting lost or stolen.

Human error exists, much as the Victorians wanted to believe otherwise. It is not a safe society if human error can cause devastation to your planned day and to the whole order of your life, such that you can't resume your routine life until you have reestablished your status somehow, it is not always obvious how and might incur great expense.

Obviously this is an extension of the repeal of identity cards, and is part of the case against them. But as should have been learned from the identity cards issue, this reasoning is not limited to identity cards, it applies to any form of bearing a document to prove your status.

If you have ever needed your birth certificate, say for a job, were you sure where it was or that itr was in your possession? Then you were relieved you could obtain a copy of it, not have your life mucked up irreversibly by loss of one copy. That could be different if you are a refugee or asylum seeker.

The lost documents issue applies to everyone, as human error applies to everyone. But disability discrimination comes into it too and helps to prove the argument – because there are disabilities that can make you more likely to lose a document. Dyspraxia and attention deficit include clumsiness at the "fine motor" level. A person's extent of physical dexterity, or capability to keep attention focussed, is never entirely their own fault even if you say "be careful". More physically serious conditions of jerks and fits here the body is not wholly under voluntary control, make a very visible issue out of small documents' losability. Folks with those conditions move around independently, rightly for still having their own lives under their own control. It follows that disability discrimination is done by any requirement ever to prove your status with a losable document. Think also of the learning diasabled.

This would have the effect of abolishing passports, but of course we still have to issue them so long as other countries have not adopted this fair principle and still require them. But it prevents us requiring them, and it is just blatantly nice and enlightened that this forces the immigration system to work liberally. The bigots' view just gets neatly totally overturned by the facts of human error that stand in its way.

Most noticeably in daily life, is that it would abolish tickets and physically borne passes on public transport.

By statistical chance tickets will sometimes get lost, and it gets very scary then. How fair is that to the victim of crime when a ticket gets stolen along with their money?  Transport systems breach public safety by not providing any simple committal guaranteed means whereby they will always get the passenger out of trouble in any situation around a lost or stolen ticket that is not the passenger's fault. e.g. I have seen a man put off a train at unstaffed station Rosyth, at 2226 at night, who wanted to be allowed to go to the staffed focal point of Edinburgh to seek a way out of his trouble. I made an urgent query to First Scotrail about this as a witness and I did not get an answer that made any foolproof commitment to provide anything for the passenger in such a situation. They left it wholly to the abusable discretion of often nasty train conductors.

When I was 21 I had an experience of stolen wallet at Carmarthen and a train conductor who was visibly an anti-young bigot turned very nasty and just not believing the situation was genuine, I got other station staff's backing in complaining against him and in them finding out what to do but it still involved me needing to have a third party to contact, which is mortifying and not at all certain, and them having to travel to a station and get charged extra for the service, and when they asked , what if I they were infirm and unable to make that journey, they got no answer but "oh well..um..er.."

This is, and always has been, flagrantly an abuse of the public in any society constituted to consider public safety. No matter how culturally accepted this situation is by habit, dating from the ruthless uncaringness of the nineteenth century, it is now unsustainable under scrutiny of responsibility to transport users, concerning: risking travellers' safety, and human fallibility, such as is always considered in road accident prevention systems, and minorities.

Abolish interviews for passport applicants

Since 2007, adults applying for their first UK passport have been required to attend a face-to-face interview at their nearest passport office.  The scheme was designed to reduce fraudulent applications for passports, and even though more than half a million people have been interviewed, only 8 people have had their passport application rejected as a result.  No one was ever prosecuted or convicted of fraud though.  It seems like a lot of inconvenience and expense for little benefit, so I think the interviews should be scrapped.

Why is this idea important?

Since 2007, adults applying for their first UK passport have been required to attend a face-to-face interview at their nearest passport office.  The scheme was designed to reduce fraudulent applications for passports, and even though more than half a million people have been interviewed, only 8 people have had their passport application rejected as a result.  No one was ever prosecuted or convicted of fraud though.  It seems like a lot of inconvenience and expense for little benefit, so I think the interviews should be scrapped.

Decentralise passports for expats back to local embassies

British expats abroad are now being forced to renew their passports centrally in Düsseldorf. Like almost every other country in the world, I would like to see this return to local embassies and no longer be centralised in Germany.

Why is this idea important?

British expats abroad are now being forced to renew their passports centrally in Düsseldorf. Like almost every other country in the world, I would like to see this return to local embassies and no longer be centralised in Germany.

Remove passports from the list of documents needed to prove immigration status

Under teh 1996 immigration act companies are required to prove the immigration status and the right to work of all personnel employeed, which has to be retained for government auditing.  The businesslink.gov.uk website lists many forms of documentation that UK citizens may be asked to provide to prove they have the right to work in this country.  This is often overlooked and companies regularly insist that employees MUST provide their passport to be copied and retained by the employer.

Why is this idea important?

Under teh 1996 immigration act companies are required to prove the immigration status and the right to work of all personnel employeed, which has to be retained for government auditing.  The businesslink.gov.uk website lists many forms of documentation that UK citizens may be asked to provide to prove they have the right to work in this country.  This is often overlooked and companies regularly insist that employees MUST provide their passport to be copied and retained by the employer.

Posting of Passports to be made more flexible

Use the Royal Mail to deliver passports – the current private delivery company does not attempt to deliver to rural areas, just sends a letter and then demands that a person stays in a whole day to receive their passport.  It is possible to get a two hour delivery slot, but this costs a significant amount of money.

Why is this idea important?

Use the Royal Mail to deliver passports – the current private delivery company does not attempt to deliver to rural areas, just sends a letter and then demands that a person stays in a whole day to receive their passport.  It is possible to get a two hour delivery slot, but this costs a significant amount of money.