General UK immigration & work permits; don't post job search or family related topics!
Please use this section of the board if there is no specific section for your query.
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
-
Marco 72
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:53 pm
- Location: London
Post
by Marco 72 » Mon May 21, 2007 6:27 pm
Still, there is absolutely nothing in the form or in the guide even suggesting that the "professional standing" referee must have a British passport or even be a British citizen. It might have been an oversight on the Home Office's part, but I don't see how they could deny an application if someone used a non-British citizen as 'professional' referee.
-
maveli62
- Junior Member
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 9:44 am
Post
by maveli62 » Mon May 21, 2007 6:55 pm
accepted referees as per HO
Accountant
Articled clerk of a limited company
Assurance agent of recognised company
Bank/building society official
Barrister
British Computer Society (BCS) - Professional grades which are Associate (AMBCS), Member (MBCS), Fellow (FBCS) (PN 25/2003)
Broker
Chairman/director of limited company
Chemist
Chiropodist
Christian Science practitioner
Commissioner of oaths
Councillor: local or county
Civil servant (permanent)
Dentist
Designated Premises Supervisors
Director/Manager of a VAT registered Charity
Director/Manager/Personnel Officer of a VAT registered Company
Engineer (with professional qualifications)
Fire service official
Funeral director
Insurance agent (full time) of a recognised company
Journalist
Justice of the Peace
Legal secretary (members and fellows of the Institute of legal secretaries)
Local government officer
Manager/Personnel officer (of limited company)
Member of Parliament
Merchant Navy officer
Minister of a recognised religion
Nurse (SRN and SEN)
Officer of the armed services (active or retired)
Optician
Person with honours (e.g. OBE MBE etc.)
Personal Licensee Holders
Photographer (professional)
Police officer
Post Office official
President/Secretary of a recognised organisation
Salvation Army officer
Social worker
Solicitor
Surveyor
Teacher, lecturer
Trade union officer
Travel agency (qualified)
Valuers and auctioneers (fellow and associate members of the incorporated society)
Warrant officers and Chief Petty Officers
-
SYH
- BANNED
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:06 pm
- Location: somewhere else now
Post
by SYH » Mon May 21, 2007 7:04 pm
Marco 72 wrote:Still, there is absolutely nothing in the form or in the guide even suggesting that the "professional standing" referee must have a British passport or even be a British citizen. It might have been an oversight on the Home Office's part, but I don't see how they could deny an application if someone used a non-British citizen as 'professional' referee.
Let's be careful here. It specifically says one referee must be a british citizen, of course it is possible to be a citizen without a passport. Also it is possible for the profeesional person not be a british citizen but that's probably why they want that person to be of profesional standing.
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/1 ... idean1.pdf
-
champion
- Member
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:31 pm
Post
by champion » Tue May 22, 2007 11:47 am
SYH wrote:Marco 72 wrote:Still, there is absolutely nothing in the form or in the guide even suggesting that the "professional standing" referee must have a British passport or even be a British citizen. It might have been an oversight on the Home Office's part, but I don't see how they could deny an application if someone used a non-British citizen as 'professional' referee.
Let's be careful here. It specifically says one referee must be a british citizen, of course it is possible to be a citizen without a passport. Also it is possible for the profeesional person not be a british citizen but that's probably why they want that person to be of profesional standing.
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/1 ... idean1.pdf
I pointed this out to BIA long back and told them it says 1 person must be british doesn't mean that another person should be
they said there is a mistake both the people should be british if not then ur app might delayed / canceled
but as we know no one knows on this and I am sure even case worker dont know in details
-
SYH
- BANNED
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:06 pm
- Location: somewhere else now
Post
by SYH » Tue May 22, 2007 11:53 am
champion wrote:
I pointed this out to BIA long back and told them it says 1 person must be british doesn't mean that another person should be
they said there is a mistake both the people should be british if not then ur app might delayed / canceled
but as we know no one knows on this and I am sure even case worker dont know in details
Incredible! If you follow the directions you can be put upon. I generally check off every requirement on my application to show I completed their tasks and expectations. It shouldn't be held against you but why take a chance?
-
Marco 72
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:53 pm
- Location: London
Post
by Marco 72 » Tue May 22, 2007 12:13 pm
champion wrote:I pointed this out to BIA long back
How did you do that? Or do you mean you spoke to one of their call centre workers? They don't really know anything apart from what is written on the form and the guide.
-
transpondia
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: London
Post
by transpondia » Tue May 22, 2007 12:21 pm
champion wrote:SYH wrote:Marco 72 wrote:I pointed this out to BIA long back and told them it says 1 person must be british doesn't mean that another person should be they said there is a mistake both the people should be british if not then ur app might delayed / canceled
but as we know no one knows on this and I am sure even case worker dont know in details
When the new forms were first printed, we went over them with the Parliamentary liason and made several corrections. The 1st Refereee full name was asked for twice for example. Some corrections made it to the revised form and some didn't.
For those following the thread...
[1] Both referees must be British citizens and there should be no confusion on that point. To change this rule to anything else would require legislation.
[2] At least one referee must hold a CURRENT British passport.
-
Marco 72
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:53 pm
- Location: London
Post
by Marco 72 » Tue May 22, 2007 12:28 pm
Transpondia, the passage you are quoting was not written by me...
-
SYH
- BANNED
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:06 pm
- Location: somewhere else now
Post
by SYH » Tue May 22, 2007 12:55 pm
transpondia wrote:
[For those following the thread...
[1] Both referees must be British citizens and there should be no confusion on that point. To change this rule to anything else would require legislation.
[2] At least one referee must hold a CURRENT British passport.
That's silly. One referee must hold a current British Passport.
Why is that if they are both British?
That doesn't prove anything.
Can anyone justify the necesity of the referee needing a British Passport if he is of British Nationality
-
transpondia
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: London
Post
by transpondia » Tue May 22, 2007 2:22 pm
SYH wrote:That's silly. One referee must hold a current British Passport.
Why is that if they are both British?
That doesn't prove anything.
Can anyone justify the necesity of the referee needing a British Passport if he is of British Nationality
In the bigger picture, it means they will have the biometric details of one referee plus whatever other data records those are linked to. So at least one referee will be subject to heavy scrutiny with current technology.
Not that I endorse this strategy, or disclaim it either. It's just to explain what their strategy is...
-
SYH
- BANNED
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:06 pm
- Location: somewhere else now
Post
by SYH » Tue May 22, 2007 2:32 pm
Not true, that depends if they got the Passport recently.= fir biometric details so I squash that theory.
-
transpondia
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: London
Post
by transpondia » Tue May 22, 2007 2:36 pm
SYH wrote:Not true, that depends if they got the Passport recently.= fir biometric details so I squash that theory.
The bigger picture doesn't happen overnight. It will take some evolution to bring about 100% of the applicants, but it is in scope. So don't squash the rationale.
-
SYH
- BANNED
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:06 pm
- Location: somewhere else now
Post
by SYH » Tue May 22, 2007 2:38 pm
transpondia wrote:
The bigger picture doesn't happen overnight. It will take some evolution to bring about 100% of the applicants, but it is in scope. So don't squash the rationale.
Fair enough but I still personally think it is silly
-
transpondia
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 11:17 pm
- Location: London
Post
by transpondia » Tue May 22, 2007 2:45 pm
SYH wrote:
Fair enough but I still personally think it is silly
If you enjoy irony, consider that unmarried partners can act as referees for their partner, but civil partners and spouses cannot vouch for their partner.
-
John
- Moderator
- Posts: 12320
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:54 pm
- Location: Birmingham, England
![United Kingdom United Kingdom](./ext/rmcgirr83/nationalflags/flags/gb.png)
Post
by John » Tue May 22, 2007 2:53 pm
The guide AN states :-
We will not accept a referee who is or appears to be your relative.
-: so Transpondia whilst you may be right, I think that if a referee has the same address as the applicant then there is a possibility that the position may be queried.
Accordingly I see using an unmarried partner as an unnecessary risk. If at all possible an unmarried partner should not be used.
John
-
Dawie
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 1699
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:54 pm
- Location: Down the corridor, two doors to the left
Post
by Dawie » Tue May 22, 2007 3:00 pm
If your unmarried partner is a relative then you are committing incest. If the Home Office denies your application because they say your unmarried partner is a "relative" then they are basically accusing you of incest.
That's gross.
In a few years time we'll look back on immigration control like we look back on American prohibition in the thirties - futile and counter-productive.
-
John
- Moderator
- Posts: 12320
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:54 pm
- Location: Birmingham, England
![United Kingdom United Kingdom](./ext/rmcgirr83/nationalflags/flags/gb.png)
Post
by John » Tue May 22, 2007 3:08 pm
If your unmarried partner is a relative then you are committing incest.
That would surely depend upon what relative the person is! For example, in the UK first cousins are allowed to marry and undoubtedly would not be committing incest in an unmarried situation.
Nevertheless cousins are relatives.
John
-
Dawie
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 1699
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:54 pm
- Location: Down the corridor, two doors to the left
Post
by Dawie » Tue May 22, 2007 3:11 pm
John wrote:If your unmarried partner is a relative then you are committing incest.
That would surely depend upon what relative the person is! For example, in the UK first cousins are allowed to marry and undoubtedly would not be committing incest in an unmarried situation.
Nevertheless cousins are relatives.
Yeah I know, just playing devil's advocate! But it's a fine line between what's a relative and what's not.
Where do step-parents, step-brothers, adoptive parents, etc all fit into the definition of what's a relative?
And of course, ultimately, we are all related to each other!
In a few years time we'll look back on immigration control like we look back on American prohibition in the thirties - futile and counter-productive.