Manchester 'launch' for ID cards

Is it just coincidence that the Home Secretary announces this on the same day the media report that the PM is about to sack her?

www.metro.co.uk...

Couldn't happen to a nicer person - she's almost as popular as swine flu at a pig breeder's convention

Originally posted by SugarCube
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.

I agree but only in as much that it's the 'Political Way' and not just the 'Labour Way'. It's not as if cronyism and back-slapping and scratching are specific or unique to 'Labour'. These have traditionally been the grease that's eased the wheels of politics since the very beginnings of modern politics in the early 17th C. Labour, never mind New Labour, are relative new comers compared to the parties that have their roots in the Tories and the Whigs.

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.

Well, having politics that are more in keeping with Old Labour than New, the money trail is always the first thing I look for. However, I realised many years ago that it makes more sense to see where the future lies, rather than the unravel the financial comings-and-goings of the recent past. Look where politicians go post-office and that as good as shows which firms they were 'in bed' with during office. I posted herea good example of this regarding a recent NHS-PFI initiative that is remarkably blatant in its demonstrating how 'back-scratching' works.

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.

I agree, but would point out, in fairness, this isn't Labour per se, this is actually New Labour. After all, Blair went out of his way to point this out many, many times and show how they'd positioned themselves more into the centre rather than to the left. Cameron has tried to do something similar with the 'new, caring Conservatives' and moved slightly left into the centre. The trouble is, this centre-ground is now beginning to look like the most-played upon parts of a football pitch: a bloody mess and not really fit for anything.

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

What? The unpopular Churchill who lost the 1945 election to Clement Attlee's government (introduction of NHS, nationalisation &c.)? Surely you should be saying men of the calibre of Attlee would weep?

reply to post by SugarCube


I assure you some of the people I know will be most public in their resistance to any enforced enducements etc.

Some others, for various reasons, may have to be a bit more discreet, however, either way I am certain I would be informed.

As for the next government, I have as little faith in Cameron and his cronies as I do in Brown, Smith and their bunch.

I truly despair for the future of our country.

[edit on 6/5/09 by Freeborn]

Originally posted by stooge247

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.

I'm not convinced this will be the case; I think once it's in place then that's it. There's a lot of money tied-up in this and some private firms will do very nicely indeed from the various Big Brother-schemes that have been outlined over the last few years. They'll not be too eager to let £billions slip away too easily and the Conservatives generally being aligned with business-owners and more inclined towards privatisation rather than nationalisation are unlikely to want to see this change either.

I have a feeling the Conservatives, as with all modern politicians, will make this problem 'go away' by simply redefining or renaming it rather than making it genuinely go away. They're in the position where, as unpopular as this is, they can always blame New Labour for introducing the scheme in the first place and point out the New Labour has placed them in between a 'rock and a hard place'. Do they simply write-off the £billions that's already been invested in this when they've rode-in to office on a 'no more waste!' platform, or make a half-hearted attempt to make the scheme work but suggesting that it's going to be different than the way Nasty New Labour were going to use it.

I was under the impression that this "voluntary" scheme enables you to register with a GP Dentist, be treated in A&E etc more easily. Wasn't there something in the news a few months back about the Police being given powers to ask anyone whos ever been outside the country for id? So isn't that basically compulsory through the back door, by leaving it as voluntary they can charge more money!!

well a "nation" without recognized populus is not a nation but a pice of land up for grabs.

besides ,

passports are only valid at airports as a mean of identification but most other facilities do recognise them even as they are not valid as identification means eleswhere.

driverslicens "works" as a means to identify yourself outs side of roads and your car even as they are not a valid means of identification elsewhere.

socialsecuritycards "work" as a mean to validate yourself but its not either a valid identification method just an accepted.

as you can see all of the three above are means to vertify your self(identity) in difrent situvations as they are accepted by the general public but that dosent make em VALID means by LAW on how to identify yourself in every situvation.

here where i live the most common means of identification is a drivers licens , funnie thing is thou that you dont have to accept it as a means of identification.... its just common rutine and acceptance that has made it "a valid" form and means of identification ,


if you have nothing to hide then what are you afraid of.

reply to post by fasrind


I have a passport, I have a valid driving license, why do I require more ID, even if a police officer asks for ID? (for which he must have reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in some sort of criminal activity, always ask before answering ANY questions!).

Of course they are trying to get this in through the backdoor but it will also be wrapped up, packaged and presented in such a way that they will make it out that they are doing US a favour by taking away our civil liberties.

reply to post by Freeborn


Completely agree with you! The majority of people will moan a bit, but end up accepting it! I'm one of those nasty people who doesn't have a driving licence, or passport, consequently no proof of id, and am quite happy that way!

reply to post by Freeborn


what civil liberies are being taken away , that my question ,

a passport is only valid at airports and travleing out side of europe
and a drivers licens is only a drivers licens

both can be accpted by thouse who want to know you identity but they dont have to accept them.

but why look at the ID in a negative way ,
in away when you sign up for the ID you your self are being recognized as a citizet of the nation you live in and are there after eligble for the civil liberies your nation has to offer ? or am i wrong

i mean i can take my drivers licens in any country inside europe , but that doesnt make me a citizent of its nation. its just a licent that i can opperate vehicles inside europe without any additional documentation, for driving in other continents you have to apply for a drivers licens for that region or that region accepts your form of drivers licens.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
it's the 'Political Way' and not just the 'Labour Way'

A damn good post Merriman and one that forces me off my soap box and my appeals to Halcyon Days. Unfortunately, the incumbent government at our next election has been responsible for an acceleration of the decline of our country, overseen since 1997 (God, did it only take 12 years to get to this?)

I admit that my dissatisfaction with Labour, or more accurately, our "Government", is a distillation of my dissatisfaction with politics in general. The move from forward looking social policies to ones of short term financial boom and bust inevitably spells disaster. I was an adult throughout the Thatcher years and can appreciate the various tricks and economic effects of Tory rule too.

The key question here is, "What have we learnt?"

All governments inherit a simple triadic form of interdependent governance roles: protection of the state and populace (foreign and domestic, military, diplomatic and criminal), economic stability and future assurance (accounting for growth), and lastly, social policy.

Yet, time after time we see massive failures in each of these roles, these fundamental roles of governance. Largely, these explosive failures turn out to be ignited by Ego.

Still, I can claim to have no answers apart from firing squads

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

What? The unpopular Churchill who lost the 1945 election to Clement Attlee's government (introduction of NHS, nationalisation &c.)? Surely you should be saying men of the calibre of Attlee would weep?

Haha, you got me there, although I was referring to the forward looking aspect of Church who was willing to sacrifice peace in the face of the perception of the world under Nazi rule.

Even in 1937 when relations with Germany were cordial (evidenced by the exchange of military information, especially to Erhard Milch), Churchill knew that the time would come for war and the need to destroy the Nazi regime. Churchill did everything he could to ensure that war happened, because he knew it was inevitable anyway and as much control over its development needed to be retained.

In this sense and in this context, he stood for a belief of "doing the right thing" even though his experience left him in no doubt of the effects it would have. He took hard decisions to do the right thing, as a power broker and as PM.

We need that same vision of the future, enabling policies TODAY that ensure freedom from tyranny in the protection of our state, freedom from economic rollercoasters and freedom from the partisan social policies.

The ills of our nation are no different to those experienced by the Roman empire all those centuries ago, why would a Home Secretary believe that the introduction of an ID card would solve problems that have beleaguered mankind since the dawn of civilisation? Clearly, Ms Smith is an idiot OR she has an alternative agenda, based on ego, greed or any other personal benefit (free "adult cable for her husband?)

ID Cards did not make our country "safe" at the height of WWII, why should they work now? The simple fact is, they won't.

Originally posted by zerbot565
but why look at the ID in a negative way ,
in away when you sign up for the ID you your self are being recognized as a citizet of the nation you live in and are there after eligble for the civil liberies your nation has to offer ? or am i wrong

The obverse is true also, that's the problem. Whilst you may appear to be eligible for any 'liberties' offered, you're also eligible for anything negative too. In this case, this could mean anything from a chronic mismanagement of personal data to a needless gathering and tracking of personal data.

Barely a week goes by without some news story about some idiot civil servant losing sensitive information. Similarly, we regularly hear as to how badly run this schemes are. Seriously, look at the large scale government IT projects that have appeared over the last decade and see how many actually work and how many £billions have been wasted because of this.

Also, this is all being pitched to us under false pretences. The government are offering up this scheme as a 'cure-all' for many modern problems; you name it and the government are quick to try and claim that this particular ID-scheme will solve it.

Unfortunately, some of the problems that the government claim exist, don't actually exist in the form the government actually claims in the first place. My view of terrorism and the governments don't quite match-up, for example. Whilst I genuinely believe that there are terrorist factions, I genuinely doubt that they are on the scale the government claim and therefore, ID-schemes like this are ludicrously heavy-handed way of dealing with the issue. It's like punishing the whole school because of a single pupil broke the rules. Also, as has already been pointed out, only an idiot would think that a domestic ID-scheme would prevent terrorism anyway.

We're being sold a very expensive lie.

If you're happy with your own ID-scheme with regards to your own country and that country's relationship to Europe as a whole, then fine, I'm pleased that you have no problems with it. However, the UK has a strange relationship to Europe and the rest of the world at the best of times (we're either hated by many countries, we once owned many countries, or we are tied to spurious 'special relationships' with another) so our respective countries view will be different anyway. Also, any notion of 'liberty' aside, much of what the opponents to ID-schemes in the UK are saying are fairly specific to the UK.

"If you have nothing to hide then what are you afraid of?"

This is the most common riposte in the face of criticism of intrusive policies and actions. However, it denies the basic principle of "presumption of innocence", coming from the Latin legal principle that "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies".

It has a direct relationship to the assumption of "prohibition" rather than "allowance". For example, assuming that walking on the grass is prohibited unless specifically allowed as opposed to assuming that you can walk on the grass unless explicitly prohibited.

When people talk of occasionally producing an ID card to be checked then this smug statement of asinine belief in the ridiculous notion of "big brother" has some merit. Why would we bother about a simple request from a police officer to show who we are?

However, it misses the whole point that in the hands of our government, such cards will not be used for this simple purpose. Simply using the cards as a form of ID "upon request" is a pointless exercise in the pre-emption of crime. The cards are designed not to be used "after the fact" but as a preventative measure, therefore, once cards are rolled out whole-scale then appropriate measures can be taken to ensure that they can be used track holders.

Want to shop? First you have to scan your ID card at the checkout. Want to go to a nightclub? First you have to scan your card on the way in. Want to drive from one end of the country to the other? First you have to scan yourself in at toll booths. Buying a train ticket? ID Card.

How about this? If you can connect political orientation to the cards then you can stop people visiting specific areas. Think how much better it will be for democracy not to have to put up with civil protests! The ID card as envisioned by Ms. Smith can give you all of this and more!

Hell, why not roll it out to build localised borders? Block off the city of Westminster and scan everybody in and out. Paranoid? Yes, I definitely am paranoid. Without being paranoid I wouldn't know what to expect.

Just because I have nothing to hide, it doesn't mean that I should have to report my movements to the Government at their behest, the "superiority inferiority relationship".

ID cards are a waste of time UNLESS a government implements the tracking capabilities that go with them. I only fear the former as a prelude to the latter.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by SugarCube]

reply to post by SugarCube

i can but only ponder ,
but i get what your saying :

a police officer can ask you about your identity if needed
but
if you have no legal means of vertifying your identity then we have a paradox.


a passport is only legal as a means at airports and when traveling outside the boarders of EU/Europe
and thouse that accept within it do it by thier own recognition and will that the document is provided by your
govermet or recognized goverment but it dosent make it a legal means of vertifying your self if you are
buying cigarets , alcohol getting in to a pub or postal office or where ever you may need to vertify your age or nationality.

same goes for drivers licens , its just a drivers licens thouse that do accept it do it by their own will and
recognition that the document is a document printed by the goverment.
there is no law that sais they have to recognize it as a legal means because it isnt.

dont know about socialsecurity cards with a photo if they are a legal means of vertifying who you are but i guess they are
about the same as a drivers licens if not even more accepted by law.


point is just because someone accepts the above cards/documents dosent make it a legal means of identyfing yourself.

and then we have the paradox:
how can you be eligble to the "liberies" of a citizent of a nation if you cannot provide that you are a citizent of a nation
in question ?


ive had an ID card for 30 years and im still gonna carry one.
and i understand that in some countries the legal age of drinking alcohol or getting in to a pub or buying cigarets is 16 but that aint the case all over the world.

so one question would be how do you vertify your self of legal drinking age when abrod where the legal age is 18 and above if you have no driverslicens and passports dont work as ID.

just because its sounds looks and acts like a britt can you acturly vertify that it is one ?

I live in manchester, i read that this mourning.
Personally i think that if anyone thinks that im getting one of those cards they can lick my bum crack. And pretty much everyone i talk too thinks the same. My MP is going to be getting a very upset letter soon enough

The funny thing is it doesnt cost 60 pounds for the card, the card only costs 30 pounds. Its the 30 pounds ON-TOP of that to collect it which is taking the p1ss Like they'll expect any right-minded person to fork that amount of money out their pocket to fund the governments agenda

this is the start of the gradual step towards having the whole population chipped and controlled. ID cards may sound fairly harmless but its to get us used to the idea of having to be tracked to maintain "national security"

reply to post by zerbot565


Zerbot565, I fully appreciate what you are saying and if we consider a range of document, some of which you mention, then there is no apparent "conspiracy" or ill intent associated with them.

* Driver's Licence - Used to identify the holder as qualified to drive specific vehicles. It may be periodically updated by the issuing authority and even rescinded/revoked.
* Passport - Used to identify a holder as subject to the diplomatic protection of the issuing authority/country during travel to a foreign destination.
* Age ID Card - Used to identify the holder as of an age to participate in activities that by law may be subject to age restrictions.

These three examples are functional, in that they identify the holder as eligible to undertake very specific actions governed by a set of rules.

An "Identity Card", however, is something very different. In the case of a mandatory identity card it becomes the legal basis for citizenship of the issuing country. No card, no identity, no basis for citizenship. In effect, the card becomes a tokenised version of citizenship itself. It becomes more than just a legal document, it becomes the licence not just for the right to perform a specific function, but for the right of citizenship itself. If this is not the case, then the identity card becomes a nonsense in itself and so cannot be mandatory. if it is not mandatory then it is pointless.

No government body has the right to take away my citizenship - that is surely part of natural law? I don't belong to a government, citizenship was not granted by the government so they cannot take it away. I have citizenship by virtue of being born here, however that ugly that may seem to some.

Using a "reference" number as a convenient method of identification is not intrusive - given - however, that is not the simple purpose envisaged by the government. The card will be used to define the person, not the other way around.

In no way can the card prevent terrorism. In no way can the card prevent criminal activity apart from making fraudulent identity a slightly harder task to pull off. However, fraudulent identity could be solved by much cheaper and more effective means.

It might be argued that the successful forgery of the ID Card actually provides a basis for "better" fraud since the document would be definitive proof of who was committing the crime - whether or not they actually were.

This is not an argument against identifying oneself in a legal context, it is the invocation of a method of tracking and controlling the populace behind the the introduction of such identity that I fear.

I have cited examples of how such technology can be used in a previous post and believe me, they are not that outlandish. In the context of the whims of our current government and the history of application of politics to policing our nation, such a weapon in the hands of a political party would be a terrible blow to civil liberties.

Anything that can be used to prevent people from being treated as human beings, making them "valid" only via biometric data indexed against databases that are classified, categorised and cross-reference to produce a judgement must be a big step toward an even Bigger Brother.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by SugarCube]

Originally posted by SugarCube

A damn good post Merriman and one that forces me off my soap box and my appeals to Halcyon Days. Unfortunately, the incumbent government at our next election has been responsible for an acceleration of the decline of our country, overseen since 1997 (God, did it only take 12 years to get to this?)

I think that's completely understandable. I've no love for the incumbent government either. That said, 12 years isn't that short a time in this sense, I'm sure, if they'd have tried harder, they could have completely knee-capped the country in a single term.

I admit that my dissatisfaction with Labour, or more accurately, our "Government", is a distillation of my dissatisfaction with politics in general. The move from forward looking social policies to ones of short term financial boom and bust inevitably spells disaster. I was an adult throughout the Thatcher years and can appreciate the various tricks and economic effects of Tory rule too.

Politics is based on this, or at least the politics of any country yoked to a generally two party system as are the British and the Americans. The opposition rarely have to do that much to curry favour and can play a waiting game as, eventually, they'll get back in again. It's just a case of how long it takes for the people to become dissatisfied with party presently in power.

The key question here is, "What have we learnt?"

I don't think people generally do learn as such. I think by the time that most people have learnt from a situation - and this may take one or two terms of office by a particular party - then we, as individuals, have changed in that time and the person that could have potentially learnt from the situation (the person cursing themselves for helping a party into power) is no longer there. In those 4 or 8 years &c., our personal lives and concerns can change fantastically, which ties into the general understanding that most people's politics steadily drift towards the right as they get older.

By the time we do learn, it's too late and we're in the process of learning from something else.

All governments inherit a simple triadic form of interdependent governance roles: protection of the state and populace (foreign and domestic, military, diplomatic and criminal), economic stability and future assurance (accounting for growth), and lastly, social policy.

Yet, time after time we see massive failures in each of these roles, these fundamental roles of governance. Largely, these explosive failures turn out to be ignited by Ego.

Yes, I think gunning for short-term gain has reaped genuine problems. This has been a serious problem for New Labour who appear to become more enamoured with the lure of Private Finance Iniatives (back door privatisation) than the Conservatives. In turn, the private sector seem more concerned with short-term gain by chasing the quick money rather than playing a long-term game at home: outsourcing abroad &c.

Politics and business seems to be nothing more than a frightening mix of 'pass-the-parcel' and 'musical chairs' staged at break-neck speed.

Haha, you got me there, although I was referring to the forward looking aspect of Church who was willing to sacrifice peace in the face of the perception of the world under Nazi rule.

I knew what you meant. It was a pitiful attempt at humour and good-humoured reminder that Churchill wasn't quite the figure that many people portray: whether it's gassing Kurds or losing elections.

The ills of our nation are no different to those experienced by the Roman empire all those centuries ago, why would a Home Secretary believe that the introduction of an ID card would solve problems that have beleaguered mankind since the dawn of civilisation? Clearly, Ms Smith is an idiot OR she has an alternative agenda, based on ego, greed or any other personal benefit (free "adult cable for her husband?)

It doesn't need an example from ancient history, the fallacy of Madame Smith can be found in more recent and germane examples. In 2004, Spain endured some fairly well-known terrorist bombings and yet, unfortunately for Smith's pro-ID arguments, Spain already had a national ID-scheme already in place. Not much of preventative for domestic terror there, unfortunately.

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by SugarCube

 

i can but only ponder ,
but i get what your saying :

a police officer can ask you about your identity if needed
but
if you have no legal means of vertifying your identity then we have a paradox.

I think you're missing one of the subtleties of this. As you say yourself, with your passport example, this is more about domestic identification: proving who you are within the United Kingdom.

If, to use your sadly not too hypothetical scenario, a police officer asks to provide legal means of verifying one's identity then, at present, there's already various ways for one to do so. I do not need a new or different ID-card to demonstrate that I am who I say I am.

Yes, someone who may appear to be suspicious regarding their age - which is a problem with buying alcohol and cigarettes, for example - but for someone my age, in their 40s, this is ridiculous: I'm more than twice the age restriction for either of those activities. It's obvious to even someone with the most meagre of common-sense that I'm of a legal age, so why should I personally need an ID-card? Yes, there are a lot of people where this might be necessary or at least useful, but compared to the rest of us, they are in a minority. Why should the majority of us suffer the consequences because of a problem that affects a relative minority? To make matters worse, I don't actually smoke and rarely drink anyway. Why should I be forced to have a proof of identity to facilitate something that I don't actually do in the first place?

Similarly, I've no plans to go abroad again - if only because, due to the greed of politicians and bankers everywhere, I can't actually afford to! So why should I need to carry a domestic ID card that is recognisable, accepted and necessary to travel abroad? Much of this is based on 'just in case' scenarios that aren't applicable to me or to everyone. What's worse is that this could potentially criminalise me or at least render me a 'non-person' by not having identification for scenarios that aren't actually applicable to me.

Isn't it bizarre how a person not engaged in a criminal activity can potentially become a criminal by refusing to take part in a scheme that won't affect or stop real criminals and terrorists?

Another serious issue is that much of this data collation and use is very much a 'one-way' affair. They get to gather and use our data, but we can't actually use it in the way that they get to themselves. For example, you seem to be in favour of ID-cards as being proof of identification abroad - now, again to use a not too hypothetical scenario - say I wanted to go to America and actually got on a plane and went there. Now when I reach America with my smart, new shiny ID-card and hand it over to the gentleman at the other end, it's unlikely that he'll actually allow me to enter his country.

Luckily for me, I actually know in advance that will be the case, but what if I didn't? I know several people who've tried to get into America and have been turned around and sent home on the next available aeroplane to Blighty. Why is it that the information gleaned by this data gathering isn't actually available to the person it concerns? Mr Intimidating Sunglasses at the airport can see at a glance that I'm not to be allowed into the country as it's all there on the screen: who I am, what I am, what I've done and reasons as to why I'm not allowed in.

But where do I get to swipe my ID-card and findout beforehand if I'm eligible to gain access in America or some other country? It seems a nonsense to me that I'm meant to allow all this data-gathering and information processing if I'm the only body or agency that's not actually privy to the results.

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

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
But where do I get to swipe my ID-card and findout beforehand if I'm eligible to gain access in America or some other country? It seems a nonsense to me that I'm meant to allow all this data-gathering and information processing if I'm the only body or agency that's not actually privy to the results.

This is another thing that bugs me! (There are in fact, thousands more...)

I'm a reasonably intelligent person, my IQ spiked at 140+ during my heyday, but even with the few grey cells I have left I can work out that pushing an ID Card on the agenda of preventing crime, illegal immigration and terrorism is a complete and utter nonsense. So, why have the people who are in power, who are getting paid to do this, come up with this approach?

OK, I'm trying to be completely objective in this and taking the side of the enemy, but I just cannot fathom it! If I were the PM I would have called in both Blunkett and Smith and basically given them the "WTF" dressing down.

I mean, come on... at least show a bit of nouse and sell it as a simplified form of official documentation - look folks, no need to carry a driver's license, passport, social security ID AND an ID card, we can provide it all in one. Simple to use and you get bonus points for use at your local health spa or DIY shop! Hooray! Huzzah! God bless the introduction of the ID card!

The card is a nonsense, let us be clear about that, but the point that Merriman raises is a good one. Why shouldn't we have access to the non-prejudicial data that is kept on us? (No point letting terrorists know they are being investigated...) This could have been a a selling point, open government, let the people free, rah rah rah.

I mean, come on... This just makes me realise what complete and utter tw*ts (that is an "A" rather than an "I") are running government. They can't even get that right! If you're trying to sell sh*t sandwiches you don't spit on them first! This should be propaganda 101! What the hell is wrong with these people? They can't even get their act together to be "evil" so what the hell chance do we have for them being "good"?

Sorry, rant over.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by SugarCube]