Skip to main content

Children's Passport Photos - success

Lib Dem Leadership Contender John Hemming MP today claimed a major success in his campaign to simplify passport photograph rules.

I am pleased that following my questions on the bureaucratic nightmare of the new passport photographs that the government are starting to see sense.

The most stupid rule was to require babies to keep their eyes open and mouth closed. Between 12th September and 27th November 15,441 child passport applications were rejected because of the new photo rules for children aged 5 and under.

I started asking questions about this in early autumn and the government changed the rules (which they revealed in a written question dated 9th Jan). Now photographs of children five years and under will be accepted if they show the child smiling or frowning, with their mouth open, their eyes looking away from the camera and reflection or glare on their glasses. Babies under one year do not now need to have their eyes open.

I have heard of one person who sent 20 photographs to try to get a passport for their child. Another person who has spoken to me had the application rejected because the father was holding the baby. I am still not sure that if someone's hand appears in the picture the photo will be rejected and will be harrying the government further on this.

This is a victory for common sense. It is a good reason why the Liberal Democrats should be the party campaigning for government to serve the people rather than people serve the government - which is one of my slogans in the Lib Dem Leadership contest.

Comments

John Kasino said…
Another victory for common sense.

Well done John
John Kasino said…
Hey John,

Great news!

Tom Watson has declared for you today.

That's 1 of the 7 you need!
Tristan said…
I like that slogan :)

It is a core Liberal belief and could do with more direct airing.

Congratulations on getting that concession too. Its amazing how uncommon common sense is, especially when bureaucracy is involved...
TonyF said…
It's a very good slogan. So did you and your buddies in power in Birmingham ask if it was ok to give £75K of taxpayers money to KPMG as consultants for who gets the super casino considering most people in Birmingham can't afford to use it and would have preferred that money going to good use in the community?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…