Changing your name

The Identity & Passport Service, which addressed her as \’Mrs Bear\’, told her in a letter: "It is deemed to be a frivolous change of name, which would bring IPS into disrepute. It could also pose problems for you at border control in some countries.

"IPS is not questioning the validity of the deed poll, however, it is not prepared to issue a passport in a frivolous name which could compromise our mission statement \’safeguarding your identity\’."

This about the woman who changed her name by deed poll to "Pudsey Bear".

And I\’m afraid the IPS is entirely in the wrong here. If you change your name by deed poll you have changed it in a legal manner. That means both that you have changed it using the legal system and that the legal system now regards that as your name.

That is, that this is now your name.

You may have done this for frivolous reasons. You may have been taking the piss.

And the IPS has entirely fuck all fuck all discretion in the matter.

Or. rather, the IPS should have fuck all discretion in the matter.

For there\’s a very great difference between being ruled by the law and being ruled by the whims of bureaucrats. It\’s the difference between being free and being a helot.

The law allows you to change your name by deed poll. The woman has done this. Her name is now "Pudsey Bear". She is entitled, as a matter of right, on the payment of the applicable fees, to a passport in that name.

What the bureaucrats want, what they desire, is as buggery to the desire of a free person in a free country to use the democratically agreed legislation of the land to do as she wishes.

Me? I would hang the pencil weevils in the IPS for their impertinence. We pay them, they work for us, we are not here to conform to their desires.

No, seriously, fuck \’em.

Then hang them.

17 thoughts on “Changing your name”

  1. So basically, the IPS can arbitrarily deny citizens the right to leave the country? Crikey.

    I’m starting to regret changing my name to Ian Bollockstobrown.

  2. Hold on a mo. The Identity and Passport Service? When did they get this Orwellian title? My identity is now the property of the State?!

  3. Tempts you to copy Michael Howard’s example when he had a run-in with Yorkshire Bank, and change your name to
    Identity and Passport Service are Fascist Bastards.

    The only drawback I can see is you might have a problem containing your new signature entirely within the box.

  4. I’m sure someone will correct me , but I always thought a British passport was a priviledge and not a right, granted by the Crown and could be withdrawn at any time. Up until 300 years ago all Pass Ports were signed by the monarch.

    “Rather proclaim it presently through my host
    That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
    Let him depart. His passport shall be made
    And crowns for convoy put into his purse.”
    Henry V

    As we are still subjects of the Crown and the passport office is a Crown office, they can deny or remove the right to a passport to anyone.

    ‘Her Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.’

  5. Quite right Pavlov’s Cat.

    So get with the program Tim – either accept your lot that you are a subject of the Crown and not a citizen of a representative state or fight back

    And no, the UKIP is fully committed to keeping you a subject and making sure you stay a subject – don’t you even read your own policy statements on the monarchy?

  6. One of the most enduring myths in the area of nationality is that British people are ‘subjects’ rather than ‘citizens’. It is not true, and hasn’t been true since 1948.
    Prior to 1 January 1949, British people were ‘British subjects’. As were people in Australia, Canada, India, South Africa and all across the British Empire and Commonwealth. Although the Dominions like Australia and Canada had become independent nations by the late 1940s, they shared a common nationality with the United Kingdom and British colonies.
    In the late 1940s it was decided that the Dominions should be able to create their own citizenships for people connected with their territory. Canada had been the first to do so in 1947. The status of British subject would remain, but would generally be held by virtue of citizenship of a Commonwealth country.
    In the UK the British Nationality Act 1948 created the status of ‘Citizen of the UK and Colonies’ for people connected with the UK and its colonies as they were on 1 January 1949. Citizens of the UK and Colonies were also British subjects, as were citizens of other Commonwealth nations. The British also allowed some people from former British India and Southern Ireland to hold the status of British subject independently of holding the citizenshipof any Commonwealth nation.
    Under UK law, from 1949 to 1982 the terms ‘British subject’ and ‘Commonwealth citizen’ were interchangeable. People from the UK were not just British subjects, but citizens of the UK and Colonies as well.
    The British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1 January 1983, ended the use of the term ‘British subject’ to refer to Commonwealth citizens. People from the UK became British citizens, and there is no reference made to British citizens being also British subjects.

  7. What if she has a son and registers him as ‘Paddington Bear’? Would and could the IPS refuse him a passport too?

  8. Englishman, I think you are mistaken in assuming that monarchophobes will listen to facts and reason. But perhaps I do you wrong, and you don’t assume it.

  9. You are completely bonkers.

    Utterly mad.

    If you think I am going to fuck them you have another think coming.

  10. I thought passports as we know them today were an early 20th century invention? Henry V’s passports were a means of proving you were an Englishman in foreign lands, a bit like the Roman “hands off, I’m a Roman citizen” thing.

    Also, IIRC Magna Carta specifies open borders. I know it’s all been repealed, but that sets a precedent in 12-thingummybob.

  11. Little Black Sambo

    For me “citizen” is one of those speciously friendly terms, like “service”. It also reminds me of the French Revolution. (And cf “comrade”.) I had rather be called a subject. And the ruddy Identity & Passport “Service” people are also subjects, and should be made to remember it. Are the Conservatives going to change any of this, by the way? I bet they aren’t.

  12. Its fascinating to watch monarchists twist reality and history in order to defend the utterly indefensible. “The Englishman”s argument is pure sophistry of the most empty-headed, craven kind.

    A citizen does not achieve such a status because the Absolute State decides to rename “Subjects” as “citizens”. Slavery does not become freedom when the slaveholders redesignate the slaves as “long term employees”

    A citizen of a representative republic has rights accorded to him or her which the State is bound to defend and may not abridge under any circumstance. The State is limited by the Rule of Law and by a Written Constitution whose final arbiter is the democratic consent of the People.

    A subject has no rights other than that which is “loaned” by a supposedly”benevolent” Absolute State. They can be withdrawn at any time. They can be abridged by a simple majority in Parliament. The laws so passed can be challenged by courts but ultimately the State can ignore any and all judgments. The State is above the Law.

    What Tim has actually advocated is an act of Treason and insurrection against the State in threatening (or advocating) to hang an official of the State in the execution of an unjust law. This puts him shoulder-to-shoulder with the revolutionaries of 18th Century America against the Absolute British State that still exists largely unchanged today. Its difficult to reconcile those arguments with membership of the UKIP which strongly advocates maintaining such a system.

    Its amazing to watch people defend the right to Absolute Power, but having known nothing else but sophisticated cant from their elders and betters, its no particular surprise that they repeat those lies with the minimum of thought.

    But that’s how slaves behave when they’ve never known freedom – they rename slavery as “benevolent liberty”

    Truly sad.

  13. What happens when Mr and Mrs Tickle name their daughter Tess? A real name but an atrociously bad news one. What would the IPS say then?

    Orson Carte. Eva Brick. Tiger Woods. Rufus T Firefly III etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *