- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
I'll probably be one of those unlucky bunch to be called for interviews. I got my approval on the 05/05/07, but am still waiting for my Citizenship ceremony invitation...and then I have to get a date, etc. So, by the time I get to the passport phase, it'll be June. Maybe, I'll be lucky and not get called for an interview???sakura wrote:Actually, maybe this is old news, but I have not seen anything on this on the board recently. So you need a face-to-face interview for your first adult British passport.
Hope no one is nervous about interviews!
http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/applying/nationality/ and http://www.passport.gov.uk/passport_fir ... rviews.asp
The scary part is what happens if you can't provide the correct answers to questions about your life? Imagine never being able to obtain a passport because your memory isn't what it used to be.OL7MAX wrote:Why face to face interviews? To ask you a load of questions (up to 200 questions) and see if you know the answers.
You know what the scary part is? That they know the answers.
I suppose paranoia as in if you don't have anything to hide then you have nothing to worry about.paranoia
Hmm, not as fast as you obviously.paranoia
That's not a valid reason for handing yet more liberty and privacy away. I take it you're an immigrant (jumped through hoops). It's not in the interest of the majority to have a HO with access to answers on 200 odd questions about your life outside of what you have on the forms. It's a recipe for disaster and even more serious ID theft (Bear in mind that govt is pathetic at IT security) not to mention inconvenience, false negatives and misery for millions. For some people it involves a couple of hundred miles to their nearest interview and a couple of days off work. And that expense is in addition to the passport charges that will keep going up because of all the tens of thousands of additional pen pushers whose salary and generous pension needs to be paid for. Ridiculous! If it were such a good idea every other country in the developed world would have passport interviews.but we've all jumped through hoops already to get this far, so hey
It's reassuring to have so many psychiatrists all in one room and particularly gratifying to know that they are all specialists in the diagnosis of psychotic illnesses. It's a stroke of pure luck that they even agree on a definition of paranoia, something other psychiatrists have yet to achieve.it can indeed be classified as paranoia
Which is exactly what I said.We should be more appauled by the fact that they do know the answers to the 200 questions in the first place... and not that they are asking us these questions.
tekaweni, having a detailed alternative plan isn't, and never was, a pre-requisite to protest. If that were the case we couldn't argue against higher taxes without proposing an alternate budget, we couldn't have rallied against a war in Iraq without suggesting an alternate way of deposing Saddam. If there are serious flaws in a plan they should be pointed out. Period. And without conditions. The seriousness of those flaws should steer the discussion.but criticism about what they are doing without even a hint at what you would prefer to see instead isnt useful discussion
That is the point. It's up to the government to make a case for the interviews (with a full cost-benefit analysis) not to opponents to provide an "alternative".OL7MAX wrote:Not that I don't have ideas, but I refuse to propose them here as it'll dilute the conversation. Besides, when someone proposes a change to status quo it is up to them to provide the convincing reasons. And all the HO can muster is the usual rubbish about terrorists and fraud.
So, only psychiatrists are allowed to use the term paranoia according to you? Nice!OL7MAX wrote:It's reassuring to have so many psychiatrists all in one room and particularly gratifying to know that they are all specialists in the diagnosis of psychotic illnesses. It's a stroke of pure luck that they even agree on a definition of paranoia, something other psychiatrists have yet to achieve
If a lot of my personal information was available to anyone it would definitely annoy me that it was available in the first place and not the fact that it was gathered together. But I do cut my temper a lot of slack as a lot of it was inevitable because they can do it more efficiently now because of the technology and use national security as the excuse for doing so. If there was a protest to regain a lot of the liberties that has been eroded over the years, I would happily take part. But protesting against the gathering of the information that is already available, that is not my cup of tea.Would you be agreeable to interviews if that were the sole pretext for them collecting and storing the answers in the first place i.e. if they started collecting these answers purely to be used in the interview situation and only because there are interviews?
We'd still have slavery if people didn't criticise governments. And all governments would be fascist dictatorships.
I am not against constructive criticism at all. But the brand of criticism handed out by a lot of people including you is to just appear in the limelight as a macho rebel wanting to appear powerful with an tint of anarchy added to the mix. If a country was to be created with of 100 such people then there would be 100 political parties with noone ready to pay any sort of attention to the other and all the resources available would not be used for anything constructive but to get everyone of each other's back. And there are places like that where there are a just so many political parties that it is not possible for any particular party to come into power by themselves and the coalition party formed do not last that long and is not powerful enough to bring in any changes. Now, do I need to be a professional social scientist to figure out that a country made up of only people like you is a prefect recipe for a disaster?If that were the case we couldn't argue against higher taxes without proposing an alternate budget, we couldn't have rallied against a war in Iraq without suggesting an alternate way of deposing Saddam.
Yes! They get it from all the sources available and if we want to draw the line, draw it so that HMRC or Equifax or DVLA etc doesnot have our records and not criticise the government for getting their hands on them as well just because it is easier to find support for any anti-government rant in an immigration forum.If they need to have answers on 200 questions then where do they get them from? HMRC? Your employer? Equifax? The DVLA? Your NHS history? Who draws the line, and where? And what happens when the whole 200 question list is released into the public domain for future fraudsters to prepare themselves?
True. And even though I had read something along the lines of identity theft and ineligible people applying for the passport through other fraudulent means, I could not re-find the link and thus cannot provide it here. But the onus is indeed upon the government to highlight the reason for the passport interviews which does seem to be pretty scarce right now.Marco72 wrote:That is the point. It's up to the government to make a case for the interviews (with a full cost-benefit analysis) not to opponents to provide an "alternative".
Do you have any data on the number of "valid passports issued to fraudsters"? How much money is lost through fraud because of this? What is the cost of the passport interviews scheme? This is a cost-benefit analysis.tekaweni wrote:Marco 72 - the case for the interviews is due to the number of valid passports being issued to fraudsters using other people's ids, made possible because there is no human contact throughout the process.
Just to have an insight, assuming that the cost-benefit analysis turns out to be a loss for the government, would you suggest that we scrap the idea or should we continue with it to strengthen the integrity of our passports and combat the fraudulant applications?Marco72 wrote:How much money is lost through fraud because of this? What is the cost of the passport interviews scheme? This is a cost-benefit analysis.
And it is also commonly accepted that one line of attack on the character of the points of the debater does not annul the entire debate. But, it also doesn't change that I feel that you are way too eager to criticise and twist everything just to stand out in the crowd rather than be constructive.OL7MAX wrote:It is commonly accepted that when a debater resorts to attacking other debaters he has effectively lost the argument. And, arguably, the plot.mental (psychotic illness)...macho rebel poser... pretend anarchist...etc
They will know a lot more about you than will fit in a 30 minute interview.30 min is too long in my opinion, it's not in their right to know that much about a person.
The damage they can do you when an individual database is compromised is not a patch on what can happen when they put it all together. We live in an age where information can be manipulated like never before in history. The scrouge of modern technology is the immense power of databases and data mining software. From the Tesco loyalty card to the NHS records they are worth massive amounts of money. Companies like Equifax have nothing more than large databases and they are worth hundreds of millions of pounds.I dont think they'll even need to collect any data - the amount of data on all of us in numerous databases
Ah, but you shouldn't bother your head with pretty little things like that. Just trust us that this is a Good Thing. And it'll reduce terrorism, you know.What is the cost of the passport interviews scheme? This is a cost-benefit analysis.
Wow! You went through all that trouble to find some'dirt' on me?.. I feel flattered.
I admittedly went overboard with the other poster but different people need different ways to get the message across. Anyone who has been through my prior posts know that unlike you it isn't my normal tone to be offensive nor am I talented enough to effortlessly pick up arguments with everyone. If anyone who criticises you is immature in your view, then that is your problem and not mine.Mature discussion involves keeping to the subject at hand rather than pulling faces at people and calling them names - including words like idiot and stupid. And you seem to like referring them to shrinks.
Got proof?.. or trying to wriggle out of a twist?if you aren't calling them psychotic (in other threads)