NationStates Jolt Archive

In the Islamic Emirate of UK, a girl's passport application was rejected because the photo shows her "bare shoulders".

And the offending photo is.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/08/14/npassport14.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/14/npassport14.xml
A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulders.

Hannah Edwards's mother, Jane, was told that the exposed skin might be considered offensive in a Muslim country.

The photograph was taken at a photo-booth at a local post office for a family trip to the south of France.

Because of the way the camera was set up, the picture came out showing Hannah's shoulders.

The family had it signed and presented it at a post office with the completed form but were told that it would not be accepted by the Passport Office.

A woman behind the counter informed them that she was aware of at least two other cases where applications had been rejected because a person's shoulders were not covered.

Mrs Edwards, a Sheffield GP, said: "I was incensed. I went back home and checked the form. Nowhere did it say anything about covering up shoulders. If it had, I would have done so, but it all seems so unnecessary.

"This is quite ridiculous, I followed the instructions on the passport form to the letter and it was still rejected. It is just officialdom pandering to political correctness.

"It is a total over-reaction. How can the shoulders of a five-year-old girl offend anyone? It's not as if anything else was showing, the dress she wore was sleeveless, but it has a high neck."
...
..


one-off incident involving an idiotic clerk? dhimmitude?

Passport photo is supposed to be just your head and neck, I belive.

Hurrah for appeasement of Muslim fundies! We must give into their demands and remove the scandalous passport photo :rolleyes:

Actually, the EU has pretty strict standards on passport photos. (http://www.swedenabroad.com/pages/general____8486.asp)

Click the "Nya Riktlinjer för Passfoton" to see what they are (the file is in English). That girl's photo clearly does not adhere to them.

Ironically, British Customs Officemay care more about it than Saudi or Indonesian Customs Office.

That's a bit overboard. Why would someone go to Iran or Saudi Arabia anyway, non-Muslims can't even go to Saudi Arabia.

Ummm, I says quite clearly on the passport form what is and isn't accepted. That the parents of this girl can't read is their problem.

I have to say this but man she has big eyes. Anyway you can nly have head and neck in shoulders. believe me last month I had to go through 4 different forms before they finally accpeted the damn photo

Too much shoulders, head too close to the top, head too small....the photo was going to be rejected for all those reasons anyway.

I take and print about 100 passport photos a week, none of which get rejected by the passport service...I know what's acceptable and what isn't...

Keep in mind that part of the job of the Customs Office is to keep the people it represents alive when they go overseas.

Yes, it's silly, but if it saves her life, who gives a fuck?

Keep in mind that part of the job of the Customs Office is to keep the people it represents alive when they go overseas.

Yes, it's silly, but if it saves her life, who gives a fuck?

If only everyone thought that way instead of whining all the time.

Heh. Any excuse to criticize Islam.

I have to say this but man she has big eyes.

That was my first reaction as well. I didn't think "human child" I thought "poorly disguised alien."

That's a bit overboard. Why would someone go to Iran or Saudi Arabia anyway, non-Muslims can't even go to Saudi Arabia.


Huh????

The girl's photo, as has been said before, clearly is unacceptable based on the rules.

When you go to another nation, you have to obey its laws and morals, no matter how phucked up they may be.

The girl's photo, as has been said before, clearly is unacceptable based on the rules.

When you go to another nation, you have to obey its laws and morals, no matter how phucked up they may be.

It's not a question of obeying Saudi rules. The photo didn't obey British rules.

It's not a question of obeying Saudi rules. The photo didn't obey British rules.

European in fact. Not just British.

It says she was told that it may offend people in the middle east, thats it. This person was probably from Britain and certainly had no idea what they were talking about.

The girl's photo, as has been said before, clearly is unacceptable based on the rules.

When you go to another nation, you have to obey its laws and morals, no matter how phucked up they may be.

I can't speak for all Muslims, of course, but when I lived in the Emirates, people didn't seem to mind children under, say, age 12, wearing shorts or that kind of shirt. But I went to an American school over there, so it might have been a compromise between the American and European families and the locals. And the UAE isn't the strictest state when it comes to dress.

It says she was told that it may offend people in the middle east, thats it. This person was probably from Britain and certainly had no idea what they were talking about.

They told her odd things, I agree. However, the picture still does not conform to the very clear requirements for a picture on an European passport or ID card.

Actually, I have to retract everything I've said on this thread. Just looked up the leaflet issued with passport application forms and nowhere on it does it say that shoulders must be covered. The photo may have failed on something else but that definatly isn't the reason.

http://www.passport.gov.uk/downloads/PLE_04Eng-Photo.pdf

That child terrifies me. Her eyes are looking into my soul........:(

It says she was told that it may offend people in the middle east, thats it. This person was probably from Britain and certainly had no idea what they were talking about.
The person was probably from Britain and as such hadn't bothered reading the instructions on taking a passport photo because he/she didn't think they would apply to him/her.

The story is in the Daily Telegraph...not as rapid as the Daily Express but nonetheless a right wing paper given to inane screeching concerning subjects that, after a little digging turn out to be non stories.

The reason the photo was rejected is because it does not conform to legal standards (as many posters here have already pointed out).

Of course I find the OP's screeching to be quite amusing in a sad kind of way...

That child terrifies me. Her eyes are looking into my soul........:(
She's reading your mind and reporting everything to MI6.

She's reading your mind and reporting everything to MI6.
:eek:
*dons tinfoil hat*
Not again!

Is it just me or reading the article I got the impression that the girl was not actually DENIED a passport … rather counseled by a post office worker that she had seen others be denied?

The person was probably from Britain and as such hadn't bothered reading the instructions on taking a passport photo because he/she didn't think they would apply to him/her.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11573464&postcount=20

That was my first reaction as well. I didn't think "human child" I thought "poorly disguised alien."
:p

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11573464&postcount=20
I was paraphrasing the quoted post for satirical purposes. British people never think the instructions apply to them. I'm amazed Ikea is so successful here.

Actually, the EU has pretty strict standards on passport photos. (http://www.swedenabroad.com/pages/general____8486.asp)

Click the "Nya Riktlinjer för Passfoton" to see what they are (the file is in English). That girl's photo clearly does not adhere to them.
So which one of them is you?
I'm betting the fat guy with the beard. He's doing a sexy 'come-hither' look in the first pic, much as I suspect you practise in front of the mirror before heading out.

Is it just me or reading the article I got the impression that the girl was not actually DENIED a passport … rather counseled by a post office worker that she had seen others be denied?
Indeed, but why let that get in the way of a good story? Besides, the mother is clearly lying as she says she 'followed the instructions on the form to the letter', which she didn't because the photo doesn't comply with the regulations clearly set out in the form.

I was paraphrasing the quoted post for satirical purposes. British people never think the instructions apply to them. I'm amazed Ikea is so successful here.
I'm amazed more Britons haven't died due to poorly constructed IKEA furniture.

Indeed, but why let that get in the way of a good story? Besides, the mother is clearly lying as she says she 'followed the instructions on the form to the letter', which she didn't because the photo doesn't comply with the regulations clearly set out in the form.

I linked to the form. Where on the form does it say that shoulders are not to be exposed?

Indeed, but why let that get in the way of a good story? Besides, the mother is clearly lying as she says she 'followed the instructions on the form to the letter', which she didn't because the photo doesn't comply with the regulations clearly set out in the form.
So she is all up in arms about a kindly post office worker’s opinion about passport acceptance

Is this really news worthy?

This is why all passport photos worldwide should be full-body and naked.

Why? To maximize identifying characteristics and to minimize cultural favoritism. :)

I linked to the form. Where on the form does it say that shoulders are not to be exposed?
Who says the shoulders would have been even a problem at all? either on the british or other side?

So far all we have is the opinion of a post office worker that there is a rejectionable picture and on what basis it is going to be rejected

This is why all passport photos worldwide should be full-body and naked.

Why? To maximize identifying characteristics and to minimize cultural favoritism. :)

That wouldn't be such a creepy comment if this whole subject came up cuz of a like 6 year old girl...

This is why all passport photos worldwide should be full-body and naked.

Why? To maximize identifying characteristics and to minimize cultural favoritism. :)
Also minimise hijackings.
Hard to conceal weapons while naked.

This is why all passport photos worldwide should be full-body and naked.

Why? To maximize identifying characteristics and to minimize cultural favoritism. :)
LG is making sense..........
The end is extremely fucking nigh!!!!!

Who says the shoulders would have been even a problem at all? either on the british or other side?

So far all we have is the opinion of a post office worker that there is a rejectionable picture and on what basis it is going to be rejected

Well they wouldn't. It's within the rules and the family were travelling to France, I doubt the French would have a problem with it. I was merely pointing out to all the people saying its the mother fault, she should have read the rules that she did and the photo was within them.

Also minimise hijackings.
Hard to conceal weapons while naked.

That depend on how determined you are :D

That wouldn't be such a creepy comment if this whole subject came up cuz of a like 6 year old girl...
Why does a 6 year old girl need a passport of her own anyway?

I linked to the form. Where on the form does it say that shoulders are not to be exposed?
I don't believe it does. However, if you take a look at the EU regulations (which come with the form) which Fass linked to earlier, you'll notice it says that the head must take up a specific proportion of the photo - a regulation that the photo in question is in breach of.

So she is all up in arms about a kindly post office worker’s opinion about passport acceptance

Is this really news worthy?
Slow news day, plus it's the Daily Telegraph. They like to denounce political correctness almost as much as the Daily Mail.

Why does a 6 year old girl need a passport of her own anyway?
Everyone who travels needs a passport, even newborns.
Trying to prevent kidnappings and baby-trading I guess.

Slow news day, plus it's the Daily Telegraph. They like to denounce political correctness almost as much as the Daily Mail.
Which is why it is also known as the Maily Telegrah. *nod*

I don't believe it does. However, if you take a look at the EU regulations (which come with the form) which Fass linked to earlier, you'll notice it says that the head must take up a specific proportion of the photo - a regulation that the photo in question is in breach of.

As are some of the fotos that are stamped as "ok" in the UK leaflet by the way. Which means that they are still right to reject it, but we cannot really blame the parents.

I don't believe it does. However, if you take a look at the EU regulations (which come with the form) which Fass linked to earlier, you'll notice it says that the head must take up a specific proportion of the photo - a regulation that the photo in question is in breach of.

Oddly enough, I prefer to use the British regulations that come with the British form. The photo even confroms to the regulations about a neutral expression and looking directly into the camera that are waived for a child this young. The reason quoted was the shoulder thing and not anything else.

non-Muslims can't even go to Saudi Arabia.

Actually, non-muslims are welcomed in Saudi Arabia.

They are not allowed in Mecca and Medina.....

Oddly enough, I prefer to use the British regulations that come with the British form. The photo even confroms to the regulations about a neutral expression and looking directly into the camera that are waived for a child this young. The reason quoted was the shoulder thing and not anything else.
You can use British regulations if you wish, but the fact is that any passport belonging to an EU citizen must comply with EU regulations. Which the photo doesn't.

You can use British regulations if you wish, but the fact is that any passport belonging to an EU citizen must comply with EU regulations. Which the photo doesn't.

But the woman probably did not recieve those rules - just the British ones.

"A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulders.

Hannah Edwards's mother, Jane, was told that the exposed skin might be considered offensive in a Muslim country." :upyours:

This political correctness bullshit has gone two damn far. British citizens traveling to France denied a passport because it might be offensive to some some Muslim country. Pure unadulterated bullshit. :mad:

You can use British regulations if you wish, but the fact is that any passport belonging to an EU citizen must comply with EU regulations. Which the photo doesn't.

It could just be me being dense, but I'm struggling to see the problem with the photo according to either the EU of the British instructions. The two are pretty much the same.

So far all we have is the opinion of a post office worker that there is a rejectionable picture and on what basis it is going to be rejected
Correction: Opinion of a PO worker as to what might be a rejectionable pic and on what basis it might be rejected.

All they were trying to do, seems to me, is help the mother out by giving her some advice. Last thing you want to happen is wait a couple of weeks for a passport and then be told the photo's been rejected and as a result you can't go off on holiday.

The mother could have then called the Passport Office ppl herself and checked that the pic was suitable, or simply handed it over in the hope it would pass.
However it seems she felt it was easier to call the newspaper and have a big whinge to them over it.

But the woman probably did not recieve those rules - just the British ones.
Not my fault. When I last applied for a passport (three years ago) I received both British and EU information packs.

Actually, the EU has pretty strict standards on passport photos. (http://www.swedenabroad.com/pages/general____8486.asp)

Click the "Nya Riktlinjer för Passfoton" to see what they are (the file is in English). That girl's photo clearly does not adhere to them.

The article said it was rejected because it might be offensive to some Muslims, not because it didn't meet the standards. A big difference.

A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said it was not its policy to reject applications with bare shoulders.

"The guidance set out on the application form doesn't include it, this picture should have been absolutely fine," she said. "If people follow those rules there should be no problem.

From the article.

The photo is acceptable.

That's a bit overboard. Why would someone go to Iran or Saudi Arabia anyway, non-Muslims can't even go to Saudi Arabia.

You don't know what you are talking about. Many non-Muslims live and work in Saudi Arabia. :rolleyes:

It could just be me being dense, but I'm struggling to see the problem with the photo according to either the EU of the British instructions. The two are pretty much the same.
EU instructions state the face should take up approximately 70-80% of the photo. The girl's face takes up perhaps 50% of the photo.

That wouldn't be such a creepy comment if this whole subject came up cuz of a like 6 year old girl...

That's just a happy twist of fate. :)

LG is making sense..........
The end is extremely fucking nigh!!!!!

YAY! :D

Everyone who travels needs a passport, even newborns.
Trying to prevent kidnappings and baby-trading I guess.
Since when? I've travelled on my parents passport before, as has my sister. I've only had a passport for about 3 years.

YAY! :D
The Five Horesmen of the Apocalypse cometh, Famine, War, Pestilence, Death, and most poweful of all, Mud.

EU instructions state the face should take up approximately 70-80% of the photo. The girl's face takes up perhaps 50% of the photo.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11573606&postcount=57

Since when? I've travelled on my parents passport before, as has my sister. I've only had a passport for about 3 years.

It depends on the rules of the country you are visiting:

http://www.passportsandvisas.com/passport/faqpassport.asp#ca2

In the scheme of things, it's a good idea to have one.

The Five Horesmen of the Apocalypse cometh, Famine, War, Pestilence, Death, and most poweful of all, Mud.

Silliness.

War, Famine, Pestilence, Death and Silliness. :)

Actually, I have to retract everything I've said on this thread. Just looked up the leaflet issued with passport application forms and nowhere on it does it say that shoulders must be covered. The photo may have failed on something else but that definatly isn't the reason.

http://www.passport.gov.uk/downloads/PLE_04Eng-Photo.pdf

Yes, the first "good" photo of a kid is very similar to the one rejected because of political correctness.

Yes, the first "good" photo of a kid is very similar to the one rejected because of political correctness.

And ironically this first "good" photo is just as unacceptable under EU regulations due to the low % of the picture actually used by the face.
Britain needs to start paying more attention.

A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said it was not its policy to reject applications with bare shoulders.

"The guidance set out on the application form doesn't include it, this picture should have been absolutely fine," she said. "If people follow those rules there should be no problem.

From the article.

The photo is acceptable.
Fine, but following EU regulations to the letter, it wouldn't be. Frankly, the woman shouldn't have kicked up such a fuss anyway. It should have been a case of get another photo taken, or use the one already taken. If she was in a Post Office, chances are there was a photo booth nearby where she could easily have had another photo taken. In a matter of minutes she could have had in her hand a passport application form that would definitely been accepted.

Oddly enough, I prefer to use the British regulations that come with the British form. The photo even confroms to the regulations about a neutral expression and looking directly into the camera that are waived for a child this young. The reason quoted was the shoulder thing and not anything else.

The child is 5, which isn't young enough to waive the rules regarding expression etc.

There are several regulations that the photo in question breaks; the parents were probably told these and the PO worker in question probably added "oh yeah, and I've heard once or twice about someone getting their photo rejected because of bare shoulders; you might have trouble with that, I'm not sure."

Fine, but following EU regulations to the letter, it wouldn't be. Frankly, the woman shouldn't have kicked up such a fuss anyway. It should have been a case of get another photo taken, or use the one already taken. If she was in a Post Office, chances are there was a photo booth nearby where she could easily have had another photo taken. In a matter of minutes she could have had in her hand a passport application form that would definitely been accepted.

Then you need to get the photo resigned by a respectable member of your community who has known the child for 2 years adn refill the form as the other photo is glues to the first one. It's not as easy as you make out.

The child is 5, which isn't young enough to waive the rules regarding expression etc.

There are several regulations that the photo in question breaks; the parents were probably told these and the PO worker in question probably added "oh yeah, and I've heard once or twice about someone getting their photo rejected because of bare shoulders; you might have trouble with that, I'm not sure."

Has anyone even bothered to read the leaflet I posted? It states that expression restrictions are waived for children aged 5 and under.

Fine, but following EU regulations to the letter, it wouldn't be. Frankly, the woman shouldn't have kicked up such a fuss anyway. It should have been a case of get another photo taken, or use the one already taken. If she was in a Post Office, chances are there was a photo booth nearby where she could easily have had another photo taken. In a matter of minutes she could have had in her hand a passport application form that would definitely been accepted.

Nope, because 99% of photo booths do not produce photos that are acceptable for a passport. They always come out too bright (from the flash), with reflection on glasses (again, from the flash), shadows, head to small/big, head to far from/close to the top of the pic etc...

They're very rarely acceptable. The only way to definitely get one that will be accepted is to get one taken by a human who kows the regulations, takes acceptable photos regularly as part of their job, and can make sure that you're set right.

Frankly, the woman shouldn't have kicked up such a fuss anyway.

Why not? The reason she was given for the rejection is pure and simple reverse discrimination and just plain bull.

Has anyone even bothered to read the leaflet I posted? It states that expression restrictions are waived for children aged 5 and under.

What the leaflet says and what the desk people at the passport office accept are different. It's my job to take acceptable passport photos of customers; I deal regularly with the Passport Office, I know what they do.

What the leaflet says and what the desk people at the passport office accept are different. It's my job to take acceptable passport photos of customers; I deal regularly with the Passport Office, I know what they do.

And as I posted above, a spokeperson for the passport office said this photo was fine.

Frankly, I've had it with having to adhere to the fucking over-zealous douche bags of the middle east. They need to get over themselves.

And as I posted above, a spokeperson for the passport office said this photo was fine.

Which it isn't. It would have been rejected at some point anyway.

Why not? The reason she was given for the rejection is pure and simple reverse discrimination and just plain bull.
The application was not rejected. It wasn't even made. The woman at the post office said that the photo 'may' be rejected because of the photo. As Nadkor said, chances are that that was an add-on to other possible reasons for the application being rejected.

Which it isn't. It would have been rejected at some point anyway.

So you now not only know better than the official documentation issued with the application forms, you know better than the passport office themselves. I don't know what you do for a living but you must be very important, being able to tell important government institutions what the should and shouldn't be doing :rolleyes:

In fact, if you read the article properly it's clear that this wasn't the only reason given. The story leads in with "A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulders", but when it comes to telling us what actually happened, it becomes clear the situation was a little different:
The family had it signed and presented it at a post office with the completed form but were told that it would not be accepted by the Passport Office.

A woman behind the counter informed them that she was aware of at least two other cases where applications had been rejected because a person's shoulders were not covered.

It says there that the woman behind the counter told them it wouldn't be acceptable.

In the second paragraph it then says that the woman behind the counter said she had heard of two cases where bare shoulders led to the photo being rejected.

Nowhere does it say that the woman said it was the only reason, or that the photo with bare shoulders would be rejected even if every regulation was met.

The Torygraph is trying to lead the careless reader into making a connection that simply isn't there.

So you now not only know better than the official documentation issued with the application forms, you know better than the passport office themselves.

I did not claim to know better than the documentation; my point is based entirely round what is contained within the documentation.

The photo would not have been acceptable for a passport because it breaks at least two regulations concerning head size and placement; the head is too close to the top of the photo, and it's too small. In addition, there is too much of the shoulders in frame.

Under the regulations (http://www.passport.gov.uk/downloads/PLE_04Eng-Photo.pdf) published by the Passport Service this photo was unnaceptable.

I don't know what you do for a living but you must be very important, being able to tell important government institutions what the should and shouldn't be doing :rolleyes:

If you don't know what I do for a living then you haven't been reading the posts you've been quoting very well:
It's my job to take acceptable passport photos of customers; I deal regularly with the Passport Office, I know what they do.

A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said it was not its policy to reject applications with bare shoulders.

"The guidance set out on the application form doesn't include it, this picture should have been absolutely fine," she said. "If people follow those rules there should be no problem.

"The Post Office obviously has its rules and we can't comment on that. We are aware of a case in the past where an error was made involving similar circumstances, although I don't know the exact details. Staff should be aware of the rules."

The article then goes on to quote the Passport Service saying 'this photo should have being absolutly fine'. This allows the reader, careless or otherwise, to draw the conclusion that due to the pulicity about the case a member of the passport office has seen the picture and declared it acceptable.

If the photo did have other defects then the quote from the passport office would have been more along the line of 'we accept photos with bare shoulders but this picture was unacceptable for X reason'.

The article then goes on to quote the Passport Service saying 'this photo should have being absolutly fine'. This allows the reader, careless or otherwise, to draw the conclusion that due to the pulicity about the case a member of the passport office has seen the picture and declared it acceptable.

If the photo did have other defects then the quote from the passport office would have been more along the line of 'we accept photos with bare shoulders but this picture was unacceptable for X reason'.

No, what is much more likely is that the person from the Passport Service was asked "should a photo be rejected if it contains bare shoulders?" and the person gave an answer without having seen the photograph.

I can guarantee you right now that this photo is unacceptable regardless of her shoulders.

No, what is much more likely is that the person from the Passport Service was asked "should a photo be rejected if it contains bare shoulders?" and the person gave an answer without having seen the photograph.

I can guarantee you right now that this photo is unacceptable regardless of her shoulders.

The use of the phrase 'this photo' implys that the photo is in the possesion of the speaker.

The photo would not have been acceptable for a passport because it breaks at least two regulations concerning head size and placement; the head is too close to the top of the photo, and it's too small. In addition, there is too much of the shoulders in frame.

Nowher on that document does it give a rule as to how close the head can be to the top of the photo and the size of the head has only to be 21mm to be big enough.

Nowher on that document does it give a rule as to how close the head can be to the top of the photo and the size of the head has only to be 21mm to be big enough.

The diagram in the regulations shows it to be too close to the top of the picture.

In addition, we (in work) were sent a guide, from the passport office, about how to take photos that are acceptable, and how to make sure they are printed correctly. This guide is for takers/printers, and isn't sent with a passport application form.

It says that the head should be in the centre of the photo. The printing machine we use has dimensions put into it by a passport office employee and it automatically positions the head once we click to locate the top and bottom. The head is always lower than that.

The preceding posts cinch something I've been thinking of for a while.

I've noticed that every Brit I've ever spoken to or heard speak bellyfeels Parliament's policies. For those of us who haven't read 1984, bellyfeel was a Newspeak word. It means, in the sense that any Newspeak word can be put into normal English, an enthusiastic, unquestioning, brainwashed acceptance that in America is practically unimaginable.

It puzzles me that whenever I've seen a group of Americans and a group of Brits debate(not as teams) about something the British government is doing, there is never, ever a single Brit who opposes Parliament's policies. In America, with an at least *semi*-reasonable government, many of the things that have happened of late in England(gun control reminiscent of Hitler, "Islamic banking", "deferred success", and of course this), would be considered abominations, and yet I see their citizens accepting them unquestioningly. Can anyone explain this?

I'm not flaming, this is just my experience.

The preceding posts cinch something I've been thinking of for a while.

I've noticed that every Brit I've ever spoken to or heard speak bellyfeels Parliament's policies. For those of us who haven't read 1984, bellyfeel was a Newspeak word. It means, in the sense that any Newspeak word can be put into normal English, an enthusiastic, unquestioning, brainwashed acceptance that in America is practically unimaginable.

It puzzles me that whenever I've seen a group of Americans and a group of Brits debate(not as teams) about something the British government is doing, there is never, ever a single Brit who opposes Parliament's policies. In America, with an at least *semi*-reasonable government, many of the things that have happened of late in England(gun control reminiscent of Hitler, "Islamic banking", "deferred success", and of course this), would be considered abominations, and yet I see their citizens accepting them unquestioningly. Can anyone explain this?

I'm not flaming, this is just my experience.

I can explain it. You haven't heard many debates involving Brits.

The preceding posts cinch something I've been thinking of for a while.

I've noticed that every Brit I've ever spoken to or heard speak bellyfeels Parliament's policies. For those of us who haven't read 1984, bellyfeel was a Newspeak word. It means, in the sense that any Newspeak word can be put into normal English, an enthusiastic, unquestioning, brainwashed acceptance that in America is practically unimaginable.

It puzzles me that whenever I've seen a group of Americans and a group of Brits debate(not as teams) about something the British government is doing, there is never, ever a single Brit who opposes Parliament's policies. In America, with an at least *semi*-reasonable government, many of the things that have happened of late in England(gun control reminiscent of Hitler, "Islamic banking", "deferred success", and of course this), would be considered abominations, and yet I see their citizens accepting them unquestioningly. Can anyone explain this?

I'm not flaming, this is just my experience.

You clearly haven't been reading the right "debates".

The preceding posts cinch something I've been thinking of for a while.

I've noticed that every Brit I've ever spoken to or heard speak bellyfeels Parliament's policies. For those of us who haven't read 1984, bellyfeel was a Newspeak word. It means, in the sense that any Newspeak word can be put into normal English, an enthusiastic, unquestioning, brainwashed acceptance that in America is practically unimaginable.

It puzzles me that whenever I've seen a group of Americans and a group of Brits debate(not as teams) about something the British government is doing, there is never, ever a single Brit who opposes Parliament's policies. In America, with an at least *semi*-reasonable government, many of the things that have happened of late in England(gun control reminiscent of Hitler, "Islamic banking", "deferred success", and of course this), would be considered abominations, and yet I see their citizens accepting them unquestioningly. Can anyone explain this?

I'm not flaming, this is just my experience.

NS is not representative of the UK as a whole, I think. Anway you should check out Bogmarsh's posts. (Though he could well be a WUM),

Anway, I was out with an english freind last night. He told me that he believes the UK is on the verge of a massive crackdown on islam. Just no-one's talking about it.

The application was not rejected.

"A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulder"

"The family had it signed and presented it at a post office with the completed form but were told that it would not be accepted by the Passport Office."

"A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said it was not its policy to reject applications with bare shoulders.

"The guidance set out on the application form doesn't include it, this picture should have been absolutely fine," she said. "If people follow those rules there should be no problem."

"Bare shoulders don't come into that at all. We can't see any instruction to that effect so all we can do is apologise to Mrs Edwards. It was clearly a mistake made by the clerk at the post office.

"It is the first time we have heard of such a rejection and we will take it up with that particular office."

"A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulder"

"The family had it signed and presented it at a post office with the completed form but were told that it would not be accepted by the Passport Office."

"A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said it was not its policy to reject applications with bare shoulders.

"The guidance set out on the application form doesn't include it, this picture should have been absolutely fine," she said. "If people follow those rules there should be no problem."

"Bare shoulders don't come into that at all. We can't see any instruction to that effect so all we can do is apologise to Mrs Edwards. It was clearly a mistake made by the clerk at the post office.

"It is the first time we have heard of such a rejection and we will take it up with that particular office."
Owned.

"Nowhere does it say that the woman said it was the only reason, or that the photo with bare shoulders would be rejected even if every regulation was met.

Nowhere was any other reason given for the rejection. In fact the article goes on to say the photo should have been accepted. :rolleyes:

Under the regulations (http://www.passport.gov.uk/downloads/PLE_04Eng-Photo.pdf) published by the Passport Service this photo was unnaceptable.

Did you look at the first GOOD photo in the regulations?

"A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulder"

"The family had it signed and presented it at a post office with the completed form but were told that it would not be accepted by the Passport Office."

"A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said it was not its policy to reject applications with bare shoulders.

"The guidance set out on the application form doesn't include it, this picture should have been absolutely fine," she said. "If people follow those rules there should be no problem."

"Bare shoulders don't come into that at all. We can't see any instruction to that effect so all we can do is apologise to Mrs Edwards. It was clearly a mistake made by the clerk at the post office.

"It is the first time we have heard of such a rejection and we will take it up with that particular office."

Technically it wasn't rejected. In the UK the post office offer a service whereby the will look over an application form at the counter before you post it to the passport office. This saves time as it means mistakes are pointed out to you there and then rather than you having to wait for the froms to arrive at the passport office, be processed and then sent back to you.

The forms weren't rejected as only the passport office can reject them and they never recieved them, all the post office worker can do is point out mistakes. I you still want to send them in then it is your choice.

Nowhere was any other reason given for the rejection. In fact the article goes on to say the photo should have been accepted. :rolleyes:

Did you actually read any of my posts explaining clearly why it would have been rejected anyway, and pointing out that it's most likely that the person who made the statement was just asked about a photo which had been rejected because it had bare shoulders and they said that was no reason to reject a photo and that it shouldn't have been rejected? No? Didn't think so.

Simple fact is that the photo would have been rejected regardless of the coveredness of the girl's shoulders.

This is quite ridiculous, I followed the instructions on the passport form to the letter and it was still rejected. It is just officialdom pandering to political correctness.

http://www.orlyowl.com/orly.jpg

The photographs must be: close up of your head and top of your shoulders so your head takes up 70%-80% of the photograph.

I don't think this needs to be discussed anymore.

Did you look at the first GOOD photo in the regulations?

You mean the one that has the subject's head a distance from the top of the picture?

The preceding posts cinch something I've been thinking of for a while.

I've noticed that every Brit I've ever spoken to or heard speak bellyfeels Parliament's policies. For those of us who haven't read 1984, bellyfeel was a Newspeak word. It means, in the sense that any Newspeak word can be put into normal English, an enthusiastic, unquestioning, brainwashed acceptance that in America is practically unimaginable.

It puzzles me that whenever I've seen a group of Americans and a group of Brits debate(not as teams) about something the British government is doing, there is never, ever a single Brit who opposes Parliament's policies. In America, with an at least *semi*-reasonable government, many of the things that have happened of late in England(gun control reminiscent of Hitler, "Islamic banking", "deferred success", and of course this), would be considered abominations, and yet I see their citizens accepting them unquestioningly. Can anyone explain this?

I'm not flaming, this is just my experience.

Put simply - That is utter bollocks.

Did you actually read any of my posts explaining clearly why it would have been rejected anyway, and pointing out that it's most likely that the person who made the statement was just asked about a photo which had been rejected because it had bare shoulders and they said that was no reason to reject a photo and that it shouldn't have been rejected?

Simple fact is that the photo would have been rejected regardless of the coveredness of the girl's shoulders.

The language in the quote by the person from the passport service implys that they had the photo in their possesion. 'this photo' implys it was in their hand, 'that photo' would have implied that someone was showning to them and 'a photo with the shoulders exposed' would imply that they were dicussing a photo the person had not seen.

You mean the one that has the subject's head a distance from the top of the picture?

Nowhere on the leaflet does it give a distance that the top of the head must be from the top of the photo. If it was an issue that would invalidate the picture then it would state it somewhere.

The language in the quote by the person from the passport service implys that they had the photo in their possesion. 'this photo' implys it was in their hand, 'that photo' would have implied that someone was showning to them and 'a photo with the shoulders exposed' would imply that they were dicussing a photo the person had not seen.

Regardless; the point that the photo would have been rejected anyway stands.

The photo would have been rejected anyway by the Passport Service. They're ridiculously anal about them.

Nowhere on the leaflet does it give a distance that the top of the head must be from the top of the photo. If it was an issue that would invalidate the picture then it would state it somewhere.

It does state it somewhere; in the regulations sent to my workplace by the Passport Service, and in the software we use that was configured by them that automatically places and sizes the head.

Ah the torygraph, most moral panic loving of all the papers that try to come off as broadsheets, its blatant jingoism the reasons the photo wouldn't have been accepted are nothing to do with religion.

Ah the torygraph, most moral panic loving of all the papers that try to come off as broadsheets, its blatant jingoism the reasons the photo wouldn't have been accepted are nothing to do with religion.

Source?

Just get another passport photo and stop bringing this to the worlds attention... Jesus...

-snip random quotes purporting to prove me wrong-
If you perhaps read the article properly, you may come to the conclusion, like any well-balanced, mentally competent person, that at no point was the application rejected. That line was clearly written by the journalist reporting the story. If you would care to read further down the article, as opposed to cherry-picking quotes, you may notice that the family were told, by a woman working at the post office, that the application 'may not be accepted'. Now, I accept that in some realities 'may not be accepted' = 'rejected'. However, this reality is not one of them. Perhaps the one you are currently inhabiting is.

If you perhaps read the article properly, you may come to the conclusion, like any well-balanced, mentally competent person, that at no point was the application rejected. That line was clearly written by the journalist reporting the story. If you would care to read further down the article, as opposed to cherry-picking quotes, you may notice that the family were told, by a woman working at the post office, that the application 'may not be accepted'. Now, I accept that in some realities 'may not be accepted' = 'rejected'. However, this reality is not one of them. Perhaps the one you are currently inhabiting is.

The people at the post office are terrible, terrible human beings.

They don't reject applications for a passport; they're not allowed to. But they do, with cheerful visciousness, throw back applications in your face if they find anything dubious about any part of the application. That's not rejecting the application, granted, but it's not processing it, taking it from you to send on to the real passport-checkers, either. Instead, you're sent away, ashamed and embarrassed, clutching your faulty application like an unwanted baby.

It's not an official Rejection of the application, you're right, but it's an official personage telling you your application is faulty, and that you should take it away and try again.

You can see the confusion; it's not "Rejection", but it is a 'rejection'!

The people at the post office are terrible, terrible human beings.

They don't reject applications for a passport; they're not allowed to. But they do, with cheerful visciousness, throw back applications in your face if they find anything dubious about any part of the application. That's not rejecting the application, granted, but it's not processing it, taking it from you to send on to the real passport-checkers, either. Instead, you're sent away, ashamed and embarrassed, clutching your faulty application like an unwanted baby.

It's not an official Rejection of the application, you're right, but it's an official personage telling you your application is faulty, and that you should take it away and try again.

You can see the confusion; it's not "Rejection", but it is a 'rejection'!
It wasn't really. It was helpful advice, telling the woman that her daughter's application 'may not be accepted'. More to the point, it was a polite way of saying 'Well, you can leave it with us but it might not be accepted, or you can take it away and get another one, although that could take some time'. Sadly, what the dopey mother interpreted it as was 'Eh, do you really think this pathetic excuse for a passport application is going to be accepted? Go whinge to the Torygraph about how unfair life is and how Muslims are clearly encroaching on our civil liberties by not letting us use unsuitable photographs in our passports despite the fact it has nothing to do with Muslims anyway'.

It wasn't really. It was helpful advice, telling the woman that her daughter's application 'may not be accepted'. More to the point, it was a polite way of saying 'Well, you can leave it with us but it might not be accepted, or you can take it away and get another one, although that could take some time'. Sadly, what the dopey mother interpreted it as was 'Eh, do you really think this pathetic excuse for a passport application is going to be accepted? Go whinge to the Torygraph about how unfair life is and how Muslims are clearly encroaching on our civil liberties by not letting us use unsuitable photographs in our passports despite the fact it has nothing to do with Muslims anyway'.

That's the other way to view the interaction, yes! Having seen the full-on, contemptuous 'rejection' style of Helpful Passport Advice (and other Helpful Advice on other topics) at the Post Office on several occasions, though, I appreciate that this seems to be how the mother perceived it.

It's a pretty minor point, but the application was clearly 'rejected' (not "Rejected", obv.), judging by the story, if the reporting's accurate.

The important point is why it was 'rejected'. Unless the Post Office worker has a clarification to make, the story says it was rejected because the "woman behind the counter informed them that she was aware of at least two other cases where applications had been rejected because a person's shoulders were not covered", and this photo showed bare shoulders.

If that is true, and that's what was actually said, then the Passport Service says "It was clearly a mistake made by the clerk at the post office... We are aware of a case in the past where an error was made involving similar circumstances, although I don't know the exact details".

Some worker made a mistake, that's all. No big deal! It's got overtones of pedophilia, different cultural mores, and a big beaurocracy (sorry for the spelling) making life difficult for people, so if it was a slow news day and there was a corner to fill, you can see why it got in the paper; but I don't think it's worth making a big song and dance about, whichever side of the debate you're on.

It's ridicolous to even make this "big news". I don't even want to know how many photographs are turned down for various reasons, simply because they do not comply with the rules set up for passport photos.

Thanks to the new passports which are supposed to be biometrically readable you must not smile on the new photos. Can you imagine what kind of impression that gives to the people who get to see your "frowning" passport? Oh. Look. Another "happy" customer.

So, little lemur-girl (those eyes!) didn't get her passport? Big deal. Make a photo according to the requirements and she'll get one. *shakes head*

Put simply - That is utter bollocks.

What, the hitleresque gun control, the religiously sensitive banks, the euphemistic language or the "everybody agrees with the gov't"? im guessing youre referring to the fourth, but it could be to any of them.

Also, that statement was not based only on what I see in NS. My community has a lot of foreigners, particularly Brits, and none of them has ever contradicted any of Parliament's stance on the issues I mentioned.

"A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her photograph showed her bare shoulders.

Hannah Edwards's mother, Jane, was told that the exposed skin might be considered offensive in a Muslim country." :upyours:

This political correctness bullshit has gone two damn far. British citizens traveling to France denied a passport because it might be offensive to some some Muslim country. Pure unadulterated bullshit. :mad:
She was not denied a passport

Read the article instead of geting mad

The language in the quote by the person from the passport service implys that they had the photo in their possesion. 'this photo' implys it was in their hand, 'that photo' would have implied that someone was showning to them and 'a photo with the shoulders exposed' would imply that they were dicussing a photo the person had not seen.
And yet with all this anaylasis you miss a big part of it ... I bolded the incorrect part at least according to this article

I believe the quoted person in the article was from the post office ... unless you guys do something compleatly different over at the post office (If so I apologise)

The Torygraph is trying to lead the careless reader into making a connection that simply isn't there.
And it has worked it's magic with the rabid rightwingers on this forum, so I guess we can mark up another success for mindless kneejerk reaction.

And it has worked it's magic with the rabid rightwingers on this forum, so I guess we can mark up another success for mindless kneejerk reaction.
It sure did work