On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:48:02 +0100, Jenny M Benson <nemonews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >On 25/08/2013 18:18, Charles Ellson wrote: >> if a person's medical records >> are complete from birth to the present day then that (in conjunction >> with your GP endorsing your photograph) is possibly the least likely >> chain of information to be defeated by impersonation > >Don't know how widespread it is, but certainly my local (Welsh) >surgery's GPs won't endorse photographs for passports now. > AFAIAA it isn't part of their NHS/GIG responsibilities and IMU not something that a GP has ever had any duty to do rather than being one of several classes of person likely to have relevant knowledge of a passport applicant and who could be regarded as trustworthy. There would certainly be areas where a GP might often never have the opportunity to gain relevant knowledge of patients to truthfully verify their identity if either or both of the patients or doctors tend not to be permanently established in the area; they must have "personally known the applicant for at least two years" to be able to sign which should automatically disqualify many new/younger doctors.

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:15:01 +0100, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> wrote: >[...] a GP might often never have the >opportunity to gain relevant knowledge of patients to truthfully >verify their identity if either or both of the patients or doctors >tend not to be permanently established in the area; they must have >"personally known the applicant for at least two years" to be able to >sign which should automatically disqualify many new/younger doctors. And very healthy patients, as a friend of mine discovered after 5 years as a person who had not visited the GP in that time.