Ordinary Gweilo

This story has been widely reported in the UK. It’s about a journalist who got a job in a prison and took some photographs. He was charged under the 1952 Prison Act, with conveying a digital camera into the jail and conveying the camera and “digital information” – the photographs – out again.

The trial has since collapsed, but what I find puzzling is the assertion that the prison authorities should have known that this character was a journalist because that was what it said in his passport. Makes them look a bit stupid, you might think. The Guardian reported the original story thus:

Called to an interview in November, Mr McGee was told to present his passport at the gate as proof of identity. It gave his occupation as journalist.

In fact, British passports haven’t shown the holder’s occupation for many years. I have a red British passport that was issued about 8 years ago, and there is nothing there to indicate my occupation. I also have a black British passport that was issued about 18 years ago, and that has no space for occupation

Nevertheless it’s a widely believed myth, and it is sometimes used as a (lazy) question when journalists are interviewing someone who has been known to act and sing, or walk and chew gum, or whatever – “so what does it say in your passport?” The answer is -nothing at all.

So, what’s the explanation? According to The Guardian (free registration required for this page):

The passport contained an Indian visa dating from February 2000 with the word “journalist” written next to it, but nobody spotted it.

Which makes it much more understandable that no-one noticed. If a passport is used as proof of identity all you would look at would be the page with the name and the photograph. So, not quite as stupid as it might have seemed.