Manchester 'launch' for ID cards

Manchester 'launch' for ID cards

news.bbc.co.uk

Manchester will this autumn become the first city where people can sign up for an ID card, Jacqui Smith says.

Anyone over 16 in the city who holds a UK passport will be able to apply for a card at a post office or pharmacy.

The home secretary's speech signals her determination to push ahead with the cards - expected to cost people between £30 and £60 each - despite opposition.

The Tories and Lib Dems want the £5bn scheme scrapped, while some Labour MPs have expressed doubts about its cost.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Can you believe that the Home Secretary is at it again. She just cannot stop chewing the furniture. Despite the economic forecasts she is still insistent on rolling out a pointless "£5bn" scheme - pointless because such ID cards will NOT prevent a single act of terrorism.

It is a fact that such a scheme will be compromised within months as fake IDs are generated. Admittedly, these will have to be of a professional calibre however, those groups that have the political will to enact violence in pursuit of their cause will also have the infrastructure to create forged documents - if indeed they are needed.

Ironically, in the case of individuals that do not care about being caught or who are willing to sacrifice their own life in pursuit of their cause, a "real" ID card is no preventative measure.

This naive view, that "ID cards will deliver real benefits to everyone, including increased protection against criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists" is a nonsense, a complete and utter nonsense.

Even if a benefit can be calculated, does anybody really think that the order of savings will top £5bn? Quite apart from the government's demonstrated lack of ability of keeping secret information safe (the list of data protection failures is mind-boggling).

I would just cite an historical example of how ID cards do not protect against "criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists". For this, cast your minds back to WWII and Nazi Germany. The German state had the most effective secret police in world, as many as 1 in 100 members of society worked for the Gestapo. In this environment, resistance movements flourished, black-market and criminal activity abounded and "illegal immigrants" infiltrated the highest levels of the German state machinery.

£5bn... Surely that amount of money could do some good if used to protect our nation at the borders, in increasing our indigenous student population rather than filling our universities and colleges with "Student Visa Terrorists", in maintaining the infrastructure that is already supposed to be policing our island nation.

During the "terrorist" years of the 1970's, the security services had infiltrated the IRA to the extent that many active members were known and already identified. Their movements were checked and catalogued, their associations were logged and listed. Did that prevent the 1970's campaign? Of course not, intelligence of that calibre cannot be "wasted" on picking up an individual - as with the dragon that guarded the Golden Fleece, cutting off one head of the beast simply makes another grow in its place.

The key to preventing terrorism is not to squander £5bn on "cutting off the heads", the key is to prevent the likely terrorist elements from setting foot in your country and confronting radicalism as a political agenda from within. ID cards play no role in either case.

Rant over.



news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

the cow smith is a globalist puppet..a slave..she IS evil..

look at her on the bbc site preaching to those kids...get em young..

she makes me angry..and ive written to her in the past telling her how i feel...

here:

www.jacquismithmp.co.uk...

its 'voluntary'..but will probably soon be needed to get jobs or your unemployment money etc..


[edit on 6-5-2009 by alienesque]

It is only a matter of time until these become mandatory. I wonder if this will cause riots.

Oh yeah, and:

# OFF, SMITH!

Originally posted by SugarCube
The key to preventing terrorism is not to squander £5bn on "cutting off the heads", the key is to prevent the likely terrorist elements from setting foot in your country

another dragon head right there, you can't stop terrorists getting into the country either unfortunately, drugs are inanimate objects and they can't stop them so how are they going to figure out which immigrant is which.

i've said it many times before, in the 70's they didn't think it was worthwhile asking people coming from ireland for their passports, even though there was a clear threat from the IRA. why on earth do they think ID cards would be useful now? what purpose could they possibly serve?

I love the idea that only people who already have proof of ID can buy an ID card

It would make a million times more sense if they were offered to people who do not have a passport, as a cheaper, alternative, for proof of ID. There might even be a smidgin of public support for such a move?

My guess is that the number of people who voluntarily buy an ID card under this proposed scheme will be counted on the fingers of one hand. Or, more likely, the thumbs of one hand ....

Of course, when it's not your money you don't care about wasting it, do you. And we all know the Home Secretary will be unemployed come next spring.

I would like to clarify the difference between the proposed National ID card and simple function-related ID cards so that the problem of the scheme can be recognised.

The National ID card scheme is seen as a panacea, a method of ensuring that at any time a member of the population can be (uniquely) identified and their history checked. This relies on a check-point methodology, by the police and by the departments and agents (e.g. Post Office) of the government.

Scenario #1
A street-check of an individual by police may indicate that they are wanted for an offence. In this instance they can be arrested if identified correctly or taken into custody for failing to produce ID. The key is the 2nd point. Unless the government introduces the custodial restraint if no ID can be produced on the spot the whole enterprise is exactly as it is now and the "£5bn" would be a waste of money. Remember this point.

Scenario #2
It could also be useful in reducing benefit fraud since one of the big problems is the method of iterating claims at multiple benefit offices using false identities. Clearly, using an identity card that is "difficult" to forge would reduce this - as long as the back-end systems exists to x-check the claims. These systems do not exist per se, otherwise they could be used right now, without the need for a specific National ID card. Remember this point.

Scenario #3
A street-check of an individual by police may indicate that they are under surveillance for suspected terrorist offences. The officer may arrest them or be advised to let them continue on their way as part of an ongoing investigation. The same rules of custodial action would apply as Scenario #1. In this instance, the police have been able to isolate and hold an individual based on their crime or suspicion thereof. However, in general, such information is on a "need to know" basis and the average "beat cop" would not be privy to information that identified a "suspected terrorist" - action by "PC Plod" could compromise the ongoing investigation and so would be counter productive. So, we have scenarios where "suspected terrorists" are encountered "cold" in the street, just by accident. The security services already know about "suspects" - that is why they are suspects, so... How about a house raid. The "suspects" are detained but there are some unknown associates in the house. Great, we can identify them from the National ID cards. Oh no... They came here on foreign passports as "holiday makers" and do not need a card. Damn. Remember this point.

There are a number of scenarios whereby the card could be seen to work and a myriad of others where it does nothing. Besides which, I haven't touched on forgeries yet. Once the card becomes the primary focus of identification a successful forgery "proves" that the holder is who they say they are even if they are not. So... £5bn for something that would actually work in the majority of relevant cases. Remember our law system... we don't need to prove that innocent people are innocent, we show that guilty people are guilty. The argument that in these "modern times" people need to prove that they are not criminals, illegal immigrants or terrorists is a nonsense - the dream of dictators everywhere.

Ms Smith promotes these cards out of naivety. Fair enough, "Home Secretary" is an important role and one that requires an understanding of the dynamics of reality. It isn't her fault that she has the brains of a barnacle and isn't fit for the post. However, the costly and ineffective schemes of such a person should not be allowed to continue.

Pieman (love the moniker...), you said "you can't stop terrorists getting into the country either unfortunately". I agree completely - if you knew they were terrorists then clearly you wouldn't let them in (unless you are Ms. Smith in which case you WILL let radicals and suspected terrorists in but not Dutch MPs who's views you disagree with).

However, an increased budget (just a portion of the £5bn) directed to improve border security checks would go a long way. An improvement across the EU of background checks for individuals from "risk" countries and especially for students has to be an improvement.

I quote the "TimesOnline", "Manchester College of Professional Studies acted as a gateway to Britain for foreigners willing to pay £50 for the letter of admission that earned them a student visa."
(See: www.timesonline.co.uk...)

It appears that "Manchester College of Professional Studies" was a "a bogus college that sold places on fake courses to hundreds of Pakistanis seeking entry to Britain".

Would it really costs that much to prevent this type of scam. In fact, it isn't so much the cost as the administrative chaos of the government that allows this to happen. The government cannot even ensure that a "college" is real so how the hell are they going to be able to support an ID card scheme with 60 million + participants?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by SugarCube]

I am so sick of them pushing for ID cards. Whatever idiot thinks that a chip in a peice of plastic with make them safer deserves to be a slave. I hope to god the good people of manchester refuse to be treated like lab-rats, hell, even protest over it.
When the MP's themselves protect there privacy of exactly what they get up to like its a matter of life and death, why the hell should we, the people, carry a fricking chip that tell's you what we get up to?

Pointless.

And so it begins...
Guess when the scheme will be fully up and running?

2012, according to Sky News!


Roy.

Doesnt surprise me, frame 11 Men to look like Terrorists in the Muslim community and then introduce this scheme just a few weeks later in the hope to prove that Innocent people will fork out 60 pounds to show they are innocent of any wrongdoing. Also co-incidence this comes out a day after Muslims introduced a "not in my name" scheme in Manchester, aiming to reduce the prejudice set upon them by this government.
Reeks of conspiracy all over it and the Easter "false flag" event was what I believe all leading up to this card scheme being introduced to fund yet more money to the NWO.

This seriously enrages me

Maybe we'll get a vote on it. After all this is a democra....oh wait no it isn't.
Ok my apologies, now let us all roll over and submit to the government.

The issue of a "trial" run enrages me from the point of view of the directives that will be put in place to validate it. Consider, an optional trial run of the ID cards - unless the cards are seen to be used then the whole thing is pointless. So, they may be aimed at youngsters who know no better for proof of age in bars and clubs. This will push a agenda of social acceptance to help curb underage drinking.

The Manchester police will be persuaded to diligently check people and advise that it would have been so much easier if they had of joined the voluntary scheme.

Ms Smith will probably use financial leverage on the Manchester police budget to coerce them, just as the same method was used during the "regional police force amalgamation" attempt a few years back.

The political use of the police by the government will then be used as evidence for fruitful expansion of the exercise. Does the Home Office really think that we are all such dopes as to be taken in by this? Does anybody think that this scheme will expand because "it works"?

Unless this scheme is still born in Manchester then IT WILL be forced onto the rest of us.

I'd be very interested as to when Manchester was chosen as the testing-ground for Smith's compound of totalitarianism and idiocy.

People here, particularly British posters, might remember that last year there was a public vote regarding a massive transport overhaul in Manchester. The basis of this was that a long-proposed* extension to the tram network suddenly had a price tag attached; the scheme would be part-financed by a congestion charge, similar to the one in London.

Whilst it was similar in several aspects - divisive, expensive &c. - one massive, and woefully under-reported aspect that set it apart from London's scheme was that Manchester's scheme would involved 'black-box' tracking. Each car in Manchester was to have a black box fitted to the vehicle which would track the vehicle's movements regarding place, speed and distances travelled. This was so under-reported, I knew quite a lot of a anti-congestion charge car owners who voted against the scheme who didn't know about the 'black box' element to the plan.

I'm no lover of cars and, as someone who either walks or buses everywhere, it was very much in my interests to see public transport revitalised in this area. However, I couldn't live with myself if I was in anyway responsible for allowing 'Big Brother' creep to gain purchase and so I eventually went against the proposal.

I wasn't alone in this, the public voted against the decision which meant that a lot of the funding for the scheme was withdrawn. One outcome is that the government weren't best-pleased. On a rare occasion they're prepared to hear what the people have to say, they didn't actually like what's being said. I remember reading some political blogs at the time which detailed some of the government's responses; it wasn't good.

From where I'm sat, if Manchester's selection in this 'voluntary' ID-scheme is a recent one (say in the last 8 months or so) it's hard for me to not see the Mobb's raising of its fist to the government and this roll-out as being connected: a punishment. If the two schemes aren't connected then why was Manchester selected to be the first adoption-ground for both a 'black box' tracking scheme as well as a 'voluntary' ID-scheme? Why Manchester for both these things?



*I know people that had compulsory purchase orders placed on their homes in 1999 - which were knocked down in 2000 - to make room for this network extension. Only for it to be abandoned more or less straight after. They lost their homes and money (compulsory purchase orders rarely match market prices), for nothing. Dozens of people lost their homes in this way in just one small area. It would be interesting to know how often this occurred in other network extension areas around that time.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by Merriman Weir]

It doesn't matter if we want these cards or not, the majority of people here in the UK don't want them but the Government will bring them in regardless.
It's all for our safety isn't it?
The fact that the MP's get armed guards at the offices and sometimes homes, I bet they don't get cards.
Where-as the average Joe on the street , you and me , will be forced to get one to ensure that our social freddoms are not impugned by evil terrorists, or so that our information can be readily accessed by the Policy Farce when they stop us on the streets 'to make sure we're not terrorists ( make that terrorists ANA those that dissent against against the Government).
These cards if they're THAT important should be supplied by the Government , paid for by them and not by us handing out 40, 50 or even 60 pounds for it, I know we'll pay in our taxes so we don't win either way, but if they ever say to me " you MUST and WILL have one in order to buy groceries or fuel oh and it costs £60 " I'll be saying " stuff it up your A**e".

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Excellent point Merriman, once again we see financial leverage being used as coercion to further political agenda's. Ok, we're all adults, we know this happens "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", however, this has now become endemic to the "Labour Way" since all of its policies are so reviled.

Whenever one of these schemes comes along we have to ask, who has financially prospered? These are the real turncoats of democracy. The politics of of the "noughties" is one of filthy lucre over hard-won liberties and freedoms, all so that government can introduce the infrastructure of control and submission to an all-powerful state.

God damn, our forefathers fought and died for this? Gurkhas who gave their lives in service and in blood treated like sh*t by Labour, hard working citizens robbed of their future to support a corrupt banking system, decent men and women of Britain insidiously deprived of their freedoms to make up for the failure of Labour to protect its citizens.

What has this country become? Men of the calibre of Churchill would weep!

L is for Labour... L is for Lice...


[edit on 6-5-2009 by SugarCube]

We will not see another generation like that. We have become the fallen Roman empire, weak, divided and without purpose. The barbarians have overrun all, and now we live on false economy and are victim to the machinations of greater nations on all sides.

Woe to Britain.

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
We have become the fallen Roman empire, weak, divided and without purpose.

Well said Last Man on Earth, and in that spirit, "Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium", which loosely translated means, "Better to have Liberty with Danger than Peace with Slavery".

I, for once, am with the government on this one. Lets hope the terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants are among the first to sign up for their cards.

On a non sarcastic, serious note its looking more and more likely that labour will be gone by this time next year, at which point hopefully whichever party gets in will scrap the scheme.

Smith is an evil women, on a par with Thatcher.
That she is a Labour MP is a disgrace.

This is all about control.

I can't imagine many of the people I know in Manchester willingly signing up for this...in fact I know they would actively resist any efforts to force them to sign up for it!

[edit on 6/5/09 by Freeborn]

Originally posted by Freeborn
I can't imagine many of the people I know in Manchester willingly signing up for this...
[edit on 6/5/09 by Freeborn]

On this point, Freeborn, we should all be vigilant in ensuring that evidence of coercion to accept the card (even though it is "voluntary" at the moment) is made public. Simply being asked for the card is clear evidence of the agenda in place right now!

Any intimation by Government bodies that people "should get a card" is clearly proof of the the agenda to switch from voluntary to mandatory as soon as possible. We need to be made aware of these incidents as they happen.

Ms Smith initially announced that the card would be made available for voluntary sign-up from 2010 (news.bbc.co.uk...), clearly, these project timescale has been accelerated in light of the Labour ratings for the next election.

If the scheme has enough momentum behind it now then the next alternative government will have no choice but to continue the implementation. Ms Smith's plans are cynical in the extreme.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by SugarCube]