Andy Hall wrote:
The Passport Office is the most anal organ of government after HMRC,

Agreed. I had mine done in a photo booth AND checked by the post-office
and my renewal STILL got rejected. The picture needs to be perfectly
dimensioned. Good luck.

PS. I got my money back from the post-office for their (flawed)
checking service.

Jon.

On 2006-08-05 22:51:15 +0100, Dave said:

Anyone know if the passport office will accept photos taken with a (home)
digital camera 3.1Mpix?
The reason I ask is that the blurb says the pictures must not be trimmed! So
even if the pic is otherwise ok, unless it can be printed (not cut to) the size
they state they won't accept it? Thinking about it maybe guillotining it
accurately would be ok? Just wondered anyway - before spent £££ on the P.O.
photo booth.

The Passport Office is the most anal organ of government after HMRC,
with the DVLA coming third. They make the ex-ODPM look like superstars.

If you are not in a hurry for your passport and don't mind a stream of
correspondence back and forth, then give it a go. Otherwise, use
their defined thing and play their silly game.

i used a digital camera pic for mine, my mothers and fathers and had no
problems. Just make sure u follow the recommendations for size,
background, no smiling etc. and % of face in image and u shouldnt have
any problem. I did use photoshop to get the exact dimensions tho. Also
did swmbo driving licence this way with no probs.

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:09:17 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-08-05 22:51:15 +0100, Dave said:

Anyone know if the passport office will accept photos taken with a (home)
digital camera 3.1Mpix?
The reason I ask is that the blurb says the pictures must not be trimmed! So
even if the pic is otherwise ok, unless it can be printed (not cut to) the size
they state they won't accept it? Thinking about it maybe guillotining it
accurately would be ok? Just wondered anyway - before spent £££ on the P.O.
photo booth.

The Passport Office is the most anal organ of government after HMRC,
with the DVLA coming third. They make the ex-ODPM look like superstars.

If you are not in a hurry for your passport and don't mind a stream of
correspondence back and forth, then give it a go. Otherwise, use
their defined thing and play their silly game.

The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.



--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

Ed Sirett wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:09:17 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-08-05 22:51:15 +0100, Dave said:

Anyone know if the passport office will accept photos taken with a (home)
digital camera 3.1Mpix?
The reason I ask is that the blurb says the pictures must not be trimmed! So
even if the pic is otherwise ok, unless it can be printed (not cut to) the size
they state they won't accept it? Thinking about it maybe guillotining it
accurately would be ok? Just wondered anyway - before spent £££ on the P.O.
photo booth.
The Passport Office is the most anal organ of government after HMRC,
with the DVLA coming third. They make the ex-ODPM look like superstars.

To be fair, the issue of photo specs and quality has changed due to the
updating of requirements; whereas many years ago there was simply a
paper copy on your passport and a second one buried in the Home Office
files somewhere, now they are all digitised and more importantly, are
assessed for biometric parameters to facilitate computer recognition of
photos. That's why you can no longer smile, open your mouth etc.

The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.

Certainly if you're just renewing, no verification is needed at all now,
provided you are recognisably the same individual in your old and new
photos.

David

The message
from Lobster contains these words:

Certainly if you're just renewing, no verification is needed at all now,
provided you are recognisably the same individual in your old and new
photos.

Oh, that's simple - I still have a couple of spare photos from the same
strip of four from ten years ago. Wonder if they'll notice if I change
my name to Dorian Grey?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On 2006-08-06 09:25:19 +0100, Ed Sirett said:

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:09:17 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-08-05 22:51:15 +0100, Dave said:

Anyone know if the passport office will accept photos taken with a (home)
digital camera 3.1Mpix?
The reason I ask is that the blurb says the pictures must not be trimmed! So
even if the pic is otherwise ok, unless it can be printed (not cut to) the size
they state they won't accept it? Thinking about it maybe guillotining it
accurately would be ok? Just wondered anyway - before spent £££ on the P.O.
photo booth.

The Passport Office is the most anal organ of government after HMRC,
with the DVLA coming third. They make the ex-ODPM look like superstars.

If you are not in a hurry for your passport and don't mind a stream of
correspondence back and forth, then give it a go. Otherwise, use
their defined thing and play their silly game.

The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.

Yes, especially when the list includes accountants, lawyers, bank
managers, teachers and policemen.

I'm just about to have to do a passport renewal - I think I'll get a
consular service to do it for me - much less hassle.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-08-06 09:25:19 +0100, Ed Sirett said:

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:09:17 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-08-05 22:51:15 +0100, Dave said:

Anyone know if the passport office will accept photos taken with a
(home)
digital camera 3.1Mpix?
The reason I ask is that the blurb says the pictures must not be
trimmed! So
even if the pic is otherwise ok, unless it can be printed (not cut
to) the size
they state they won't accept it? Thinking about it maybe
guillotining it
accurately would be ok? Just wondered anyway - before spent £££ on
the P.O.
photo booth.

The Passport Office is the most anal organ of government after HMRC,
with the DVLA coming third. They make the ex-ODPM look like superstars.

If you are not in a hurry for your passport and don't mind a stream
of correspondence back and forth, then give it a go. Otherwise, use
their defined thing and play their silly game.

The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.

Yes, especially when the list includes accountants, lawyers, bank
managers, teachers and policemen.

I'm just about to have to do a passport renewal - I think I'll get a
consular service to do it for me - much less hassle.




Mine was countersigned by a bloke down the road ("company director") ha
ha. No query, and that was 6 years ago

Lobster wrote:

To be fair, the issue of photo specs and quality has changed due to the
updating of requirements; whereas many years ago there was simply a
paper copy on your passport and a second one buried in the Home Office
files somewhere, now they are all digitised and more importantly, are
assessed for biometric parameters to facilitate computer recognition of
photos. That's why you can no longer smile, open your mouth etc.

No, that's why biometric technology is a *long* way from being
appropriate for this type of use. As soon as the politicos stop
listening to the tech sales people the better!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Ed Sirett wrote:

The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.

It would be interesting to know if they ever reject a witnessing due to
the witness being of "insufficient standing"...

I did have one that I had countersigned for someone rejected once the
(by the girl in the post office) because she said my signature went
outside of the box provided - by a fraction of a mm!

(I have never quite worked out why in their logic being a company
director makes you a person of standing, since most people can simply
buy a company directorship for £100 along with the company).

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , Stuart Noble
writes
The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.
Yes, especially when the list includes accountants, lawyers, bank
managers, teachers and policemen.
I'm just about to have to do a passport renewal - I think I'll get a
consular service to do it for me - much less hassle.


Mine was countersigned by a bloke down the road ("company director") ha
ha. No query, and that was 6 years ago

My previous passport was renewed in New Zealand, so it couldn't have
been countersigned by anyone



--
geoff

raden wrote:

My previous passport was renewed in New Zealand, so it couldn't have
been countersigned by anyone

I applied for UK passports for my kids, in the US. A countersignature
WAS required, but a 'person of standing' in the local community, with US
citizenship, was acceptable. One application was signed by a bank
manager, the other by the head of the school my child was attending.
When my daughter's 5-year (child) passport expired, a countersignature
was again required for her adult passport - children can change quite a
bit in 5 years.

The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

I did have one that I had countersigned for someone rejected once the
(by the girl in the post office) because she said my signature went
outside of the box provided - by a fraction of a mm!

Given that the scan the signatures and, at least in the case of hte
driving license, scale them down, what's the problem with scaling it
down a bit more? Damned silly restriction and makes you sign in
something other than your usual way 'cos it's cramped.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

John Rumm wrote:
Lobster wrote:

[...]
photos. That's why you can no longer smile, open your mouth etc.

No, that's why biometric technology is a *long* way from being
appropriate for this type of use. As soon as the politicos stop
listening to the tech sales people the better!

Hear, hear. I figure we are light years away from usable automatic face
recognition for reliable person recognition. It seems to me, thinking
purely technologically, that fingerprints or iris scans are the only
currently plausible biometric possibilities. As for tales of the
feasibility of automatically recognising people from street CCTV images
of faces ... !

Best regards,

Jon C.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-08-06 17:17:13 +0100, said:


John Rumm wrote:
Lobster wrote:

[...]
photos. That's why you can no longer smile, open your mouth etc.

No, that's why biometric technology is a *long* way from being
appropriate for this type of use. As soon as the politicos stop
listening to the tech sales people the better!

Hear, hear. I figure we are light years away from usable automatic face
recognition for reliable person recognition. It seems to me, thinking
[...]

There are some immigration lines installed with iris scan equipment at
Heathrow Terminal 3 arrivals. However, every time I've been through
there recently it hasn't been in use. It's not clear whether it ever
has been in use. I asked one of the immigration officials and received
a shrug of the kind that normally only the French know how to do.

Was it possible to deduce the manner in which the image would be
captured? For example, position of seating or lighting with respect to
camera? Or device (vice?) for keeping a head steady. I know the paper
(by Daugman) upon which iris recognition principles are based, but the
image capture requirements were no specified in detail; I suppose a
ring lit camera, close up, plus chin rest, would do. Twelve years ago I
did a little work on face recognition for a company involved in airport
security; they had the impression (then) that iris image capture might
be considered quite invasive and would be resisted.

Best regards,

Jon C.

On 2006-08-06 14:18:37 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-08-06 09:25:19 +0100, Ed Sirett said:

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:09:17 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2006-08-05 22:51:15 +0100, Dave said:
en give it a go. Otherwise, use their defined thing and play their
silly game.

The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.

Yes, especially when the list includes accountants, lawyers, bank
managers, teachers and policemen.

I'm just about to have to do a passport renewal - I think I'll get a
consular service to do it for me - much less hassle.




Mine was countersigned by a bloke down the road ("company director") ha
ha. No query, and that was 6 years ago

Yes, I've done a few for people on that basis and the fuzz haven't
taken me away yet.... :-)

On 2006-08-06 14:24:13 +0100, John Rumm said:

Lobster wrote:

To be fair, the issue of photo specs and quality has changed due to the
updating of requirements; whereas many years ago there was simply a
paper copy on your passport and a second one buried in the Home Office
files somewhere, now they are all digitised and more importantly, are
assessed for biometric parameters to facilitate computer recognition of
photos. That's why you can no longer smile, open your mouth etc.

No, that's why biometric technology is a *long* way from being
appropriate for this type of use. As soon as the politicos stop
listening to the tech sales people the better!

Oh don't say that. There's a whole industry gravy train surviving on
that one....

On 2006-08-06 17:17:13 +0100, said:


John Rumm wrote:
Lobster wrote:

[...]
photos. That's why you can no longer smile, open your mouth etc.

No, that's why biometric technology is a *long* way from being
appropriate for this type of use. As soon as the politicos stop
listening to the tech sales people the better!

Hear, hear. I figure we are light years away from usable automatic face
recognition for reliable person recognition. It seems to me, thinking
purely technologically, that fingerprints or iris scans are the only
currently plausible biometric possibilities. As for tales of the
feasibility of automatically recognising people from street CCTV images
of faces ... !

Best regards,

Jon C.

There are some immigration lines installed with iris scan equipment at
Heathrow Terminal 3 arrivals. However, every time I've been through
there recently it hasn't been in use. It's not clear whether it ever
has been in use. I asked one of the immigration officials and received
a shrug of the kind that normally only the French know how to do.

On 2006-08-06 14:31:22 +0100, John Rumm said:

Ed Sirett wrote:

The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.

It would be interesting to know if they ever reject a witnessing due to
the witness being of "insufficient standing"...

I did have one that I had countersigned for someone rejected once the
(by the girl in the post office) because she said my signature went
outside of the box provided - by a fraction of a mm!

(I have never quite worked out why in their logic being a company
director makes you a person of standing, since most people can simply
buy a company directorship for £100 along with the company).

I pondered that one. It may be that there's an audit trail. As
soon as Companies House receives the completed 288 form, the directors'
personal details appear against the company. That's easily traceable
complete with home address, the lot. One can also cross reference
backwards to identify if there is more than one directorship.

I suppose that they could check to see if there's disqualifications
etc, but it seems a bit unlikely that the Passport Office would do
checks to see whether the director is knowingly trading while
insolvent. That would be hard to detect from the annual submitted
accounts for a small firm anyway.

Amusingly, I applied for a Costco card. Not that I use them at all
frequently, but occasionally they do have good prices on branded goods
such as bottled water that make it worth a visit. Their acceptance
criteria are bizarre.

Option 1 is to be a business. They want to see a bank statement,
utility bill and have the VAT number. That's what I did.

Option 2 is like the passport thing. Except that they add civil
servants, firemen, policemen, ambulance drivers and a few others.
There seems to be no logic in the criteria.

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:31:22 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

Ed Sirett wrote:

The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.

It would be interesting to know if they ever reject a witnessing due to
the witness being of "insufficient standing"...

I know, personally, of at least one case of this.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-08-06 14:31:22 +0100, John Rumm
said:

Ed Sirett wrote:

The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.

It would be interesting to know if they ever reject a witnessing due to
the witness being of "insufficient standing"...

I did have one that I had countersigned for someone rejected once the (by
the girl in the post office) because she said my signature went outside
of the box provided - by a fraction of a mm!

(I have never quite worked out why in their logic being a company
director makes you a person of standing, since most people can simply buy
a company directorship for £100 along with the company).

I pondered that one. It may be that there's an audit trail. As soon
as Companies House receives the completed 288 form, the directors'
personal details appear against the company. That's easily traceable
complete with home address, the lot. One can also cross reference
backwards to identify if there is more than one directorship.

I suppose that they could check to see if there's disqualifications etc,
but it seems a bit unlikely that the Passport Office would do checks to
see whether the director is knowingly trading while insolvent. That would
be hard to detect from the annual submitted accounts for a small firm
anyway.

Amusingly, I applied for a Costco card. Not that I use them at all
frequently, but occasionally they do have good prices on branded goods
such as bottled water that make it worth a visit. Their acceptance
criteria are bizarre.

Option 1 is to be a business. They want to see a bank statement,
utility bill and have the VAT number. That's what I did.

Option 2 is like the passport thing. Except that they add civil
servants, firemen, policemen, ambulance drivers and a few others. There
seems to be no logic in the criteria.


I neither use Costco nor have any associating with the company; however your
list of appointments seem to consist of public employees. Perhaps such
employees are more easily traced/checked than private-sector company
employees? Civil Servants (above a certain grade) are listed in the 'Civil
Service Handbook (title?)' purchasable annually from HMSO. {It included mail
and telephone addresses for seemingly everybody from Permanent Secretaries -
to office dog-bodies. {You may reverse that listing if you wish].

--

Brian

In message , John
Rumm writes
Lobster wrote:

To be fair, the issue of photo specs and quality has changed due to
the updating of requirements; whereas many years ago there was simply
a paper copy on your passport and a second one buried in the Home
Office files somewhere, now they are all digitised and more
importantly, are assessed for biometric parameters to facilitate
computer recognition of photos. That's why you can no longer smile,
open your mouth etc.

No, that's why biometric technology is a *long* way from being
appropriate for this type of use. As soon as the politicos stop
listening to the tech sales people the better!



Well, here's a good start ..

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...l?tw=rss.index


--
geoff

On 2006-08-06 18:18:37 +0100, said:


Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-08-06 17:17:13 +0100, said:


There are some immigration lines installed with iris scan equipment at
Heathrow Terminal 3 arrivals. However, every time I've been through
there recently it hasn't been in use. It's not clear whether it ever
has been in use. I asked one of the immigration officials and received
a shrug of the kind that normally only the French know how to do.

Was it possible to deduce the manner in which the image would be
captured? For example, position of seating or lighting with respect to
camera? Or device (vice?) for keeping a head steady. I know the paper
(by Daugman) upon which iris recognition principles are based, but the
image capture requirements were no specified in detail; I suppose a
ring lit camera, close up, plus chin rest, would do. Twelve years ago I
did a little work on face recognition for a company involved in airport
security; they had the impression (then) that iris image capture might
be considered quite invasive and would be resisted.

Best regards,

Jon C.

It doesn't seem to be that sophisticated. It's more like an airlock
with transparent walls and doors. There seemed to be no places to put
your head or anything like that. However, the exit from it did not go
to a jobsworth desk. It's entirely possible that this is like Orac in
Blake's 7 - i.e. a perspex box with a few flashing lights that does
bugger all..

It seems implausible that this could process the arrivals from VS602
from Johannesburg any time soon.

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 18:48:42 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

Option 1 is to be a business. They want to see a bank statement,
utility bill and have the VAT number. That's what I did.

And me, it also means that you get a "trade" rather than "personal" card
and thus can shop in the mornings. Some goods are also only available to
"trade" customers only, more than 32 tablets (2 packs) of Paracetamol is
the obvious one.

Option 2 is like the passport thing. Except that they add civil
servants, firemen, policemen, ambulance drivers and a few others.
There seems to be no logic in the criteria.

ISTR they are looking for "professionals" ie those with a good steady
monthly income rather than the hoi poloi workers. Makro has similar
requirements but their clientel are very much from the "council estate"
rather than Costco's "leafy suburb". Oddly Makro's prices are not much
better than yer average Tesco, Costco are nearly always cheaper by a quid
or two. About the only thing that Makro has going for it is the broader
range of products, some that Costco don't do.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 18:08:23 UTC, "Brian Sharrock"
wrote:

I neither use Costco nor have any associating with the company; however your
list of appointments seem to consist of public employees. Perhaps such
employees are more easily traced/checked than private-sector company
employees? Civil Servants (above a certain grade) are listed in the 'Civil
Service Handbook (title?)' purchasable annually from HMSO.

That's one group. But it also includes people such as Chartered
Engineers, for example. Again, I guess they are traceable. I seem to
qualify about three different ways!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

Guy King typed


The message
from Lobster contains these words:

Certainly if you're just renewing, no verification is needed at all now,
provided you are recognisably the same individual in your old and new
photos.

Oh, that's simple - I still have a couple of spare photos from the same
strip of four from ten years ago. Wonder if they'll notice if I change
my name to Dorian Grey?

I think they now require the photo to be taken no more than a month
before the date of your passport application.

There was a datestamp on my last photo booth mugshot strip.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
Guy King typed


The message
from Lobster contains these words:

Certainly if you're just renewing, no verification is needed at all now,
provided you are recognisably the same individual in your old and new
photos.

Oh, that's simple - I still have a couple of spare photos from the same
strip of four from ten years ago. Wonder if they'll notice if I change
my name to Dorian Grey?

I think they now require the photo to be taken no more than a month
before the date of your passport application.

There was a datestamp on my last photo booth mugshot strip.

There wasn't one on the photo I printed out at home :-) !

David

Brian Sharrock wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-08-06 14:31:22 +0100, John Rumm
said:

Ed Sirett wrote:

The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.
It would be interesting to know if they ever reject a witnessing due to
the witness being of "insufficient standing"...

I did have one that I had countersigned for someone rejected once the (by
the girl in the post office) because she said my signature went outside
of the box provided - by a fraction of a mm!

(I have never quite worked out why in their logic being a company
director makes you a person of standing, since most people can simply buy
a company directorship for £100 along with the company).
I pondered that one. It may be that there's an audit trail. As soon
as Companies House receives the completed 288 form, the directors'
personal details appear against the company. That's easily traceable
complete with home address, the lot. One can also cross reference
backwards to identify if there is more than one directorship.

I suppose that they could check to see if there's disqualifications etc,
but it seems a bit unlikely that the Passport Office would do checks to
see whether the director is knowingly trading while insolvent. That would
be hard to detect from the annual submitted accounts for a small firm
anyway.

Amusingly, I applied for a Costco card. Not that I use them at all
frequently, but occasionally they do have good prices on branded goods
such as bottled water that make it worth a visit. Their acceptance
criteria are bizarre.

Option 1 is to be a business. They want to see a bank statement,
utility bill and have the VAT number. That's what I did.

Option 2 is like the passport thing. Except that they add civil
servants, firemen, policemen, ambulance drivers and a few others. There
seems to be no logic in the criteria.


I neither use Costco nor have any associating with the company; however your
list of appointments seem to consist of public employees. Perhaps such
employees are more easily traced/checked than private-sector company
employees? Civil Servants (above a certain grade) are listed in the 'Civil
Service Handbook (title?)' purchasable annually from HMSO. {It included mail
and telephone addresses for seemingly everybody from Permanent Secretaries -
to office dog-bodies. {You may reverse that listing if you wish].

Airline pilots (don't know about other employees) are another
'permitted' category.

David

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 18:48:42 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

Option 1 is to be a business. They want to see a bank statement,
utility bill and have the VAT number. That's what I did.

And me, it also means that you get a "trade" rather than "personal" card
and thus can shop in the mornings. Some goods are also only available to
"trade" customers only, more than 32 tablets (2 packs) of Paracetamol is
the obvious one.

Option 2 is like the passport thing. Except that they add civil
servants, firemen, policemen, ambulance drivers and a few others.
There seems to be no logic in the criteria.

ISTR they are looking for "professionals" ie those with a good steady
monthly income rather than the hoi poloi workers. Makro has similar
requirements but their clientel are very much from the "council estate"
rather than Costco's "leafy suburb". Oddly Makro's prices are not much
better than yer average Tesco, Costco are nearly always cheaper by a quid
or two. About the only thing that Makro has going for it is the broader
range of products, some that Costco don't do.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail


One of my colleaguesbrought in his daughter's passport photo to be signed.
checking the instructions on the form in detail there was no mention of
who was allowed to sign, so I did. Previously my wife has had to sign -
as a teacher she was "professional" but as an engineer I wasn't.
Maybe things are relaxing ...
hth
Neil

wrote:

Hear, hear. I figure we are light years away from usable automatic face
recognition for reliable person recognition. It seems to me, thinking
purely technologically, that fingerprints or iris scans are the only
currently plausible biometric possibilities.


That is part of the problem - lots of others fell for that suggestion as
well.

Its only as they start rolling out these things on wider scales do they
realise that iris scans tend to be insufficently distinct on some races
and ethnic groups (that by supprising coincidence are also very poorly
represented in the engineering communities), and getting decent finger
print scans also requires that you are not a manual worker who regularly
wears theirs away handling bricks and the like[1]. As for getting a iris
scan from an infant (look ahead, don't move your head, keep very still
and don't blink), its working out trickier than expected!


[1] I noted after laying four pallets of block paving recently that I
also had no fingerprints for a week or so!

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

neil wrote:

as a teacher she was "professional" but as an engineer I wasn't.
Maybe things are relaxing ...

IIRC Engineer is now explicitly listed amoung the "professions" allowed...

(I always state my occupation on the forms as "Company Director /
Engineer" - never seems to cause problems)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Ed Sirett wrote:

It would be interesting to know if they ever reject a witnessing due to
the witness being of "insufficient standing"...


I know, personally, of at least one case of this.

Got any more detail to share?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , John
Rumm writes
neil wrote:

as a teacher she was "professional" but as an engineer I wasn't.
Maybe things are relaxing ...

IIRC Engineer is now explicitly listed amoung the "professions" allowed...

But, unlike, say Germany, anybody whose brother has an adjustable
spanner can call himself an engineer


(I always state my occupation on the forms as "Company Director /
Engineer" - never seems to cause problems)


Same applies

--
geoff

The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

[1] I noted after laying four pallets of block paving recently that I
also had no fingerprints for a week or so!

I've had that - though you'll find that actually you'll still leave a
readable trace behind. The sweat glands follow the whorls of your
fingerprint and are deep enough not to get abraded unless your fingers
are bleeding. Next time it happens press a bald finger onto a clean
glass and you'll see the print is still there.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-08-06 17:17:13 +0100, said:

Jon C.

There are some immigration lines installed with iris scan equipment at
Heathrow Terminal 3 arrivals. However, every time I've been through
there recently it hasn't been in use. It's not clear whether it ever
has been in use. I asked one of the immigration officials and received
a shrug of the kind that normally only the French know how to do.

You probably already know this if I have understood the quantity of
flying you do correctly, but there is a working iris recognition system
at Schipol (that's Amsterdam for the non-flyers). You have to
specially sign up to it but once you are a member you can walk up to
it, stick a card in a slot, look in the little scanner hole and the
door swings aside and you're through. A rejection herds you through to
a passport desk much like a livestock fence. I think I've seen about 3
people use it in total out of 6 or 7 trips.

--
Steve F

I've had that - though you'll find that actually you'll still leave a
readable trace behind. The sweat glands follow the whorls of your
fingerprint and are deep enough not to get abraded unless your fingers
are bleeding. Next time it happens press a bald finger onto a clean
glass and you'll see the print is still there.

However, the technology might not be detecting sweat marks, but recording
visually. I don't know.

Christian.

Mine was countersigned by a bloke down the road ("company director") ha
ha. No query, and that was 6 years ago

Yes, I've done a few for people on that basis and the fuzz haven't
taken me away yet.... :-)

Technically, I can't see anything wrong with it, provided you have known the
block down the road for the required period.

In the past, I've just got anyone at work with a Ph.D to do it (there's
quite a few), although the last time, I used our midwife (for the new baby's
passport). The same midwife had delivered his older sister, so had known us
for the required period.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
I've had that - though you'll find that actually you'll still leave a
readable trace behind. The sweat glands follow the whorls of your
fingerprint and are deep enough not to get abraded unless your fingers
are bleeding. Next time it happens press a bald finger onto a clean
glass and you'll see the print is still there.


However, the technology might not be detecting sweat marks, but recording
visually. I don't know.

The scanners that I have seen are optical devices only. So if you can't
see the print, then neither can they.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Ed Sirett wrote:


The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.

Too right, they say that it must be an honest, loyal upstanding pillar
of the community then say that you can get a f**king MP to sign it.
Lets face it most people in prison are better pillars of society than
politicians.

Kevin

On 7 Aug 2006 07:48:44 -0700, "Kev" wrote:


Ed Sirett wrote:


The 'person of standing' must be amongst one of the more archaic,
contentious and anal requirements. Although I believe they may have
altered the rules of late.

Too right, they say that it must be an honest, loyal upstanding pillar
of the community then say that you can get a f**king MP to sign it.
Lets face it most people in prison are better pillars of society than
politicians.

How true.

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland