ID Cards Compulsory in UK by 2010 - Official

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Time to vote conservative people. They would scrap the ID nonsense!

I know where my vote will be going.

Vote anything but labour! It also looks like Gordon Brown will be prime minister when Blair steps down. I would far prefer a general election be called then have Brown in office. I am sorry but that man is a greasy little fraud, has anyone else noticed his smile? It goes up and then down in an instant like a flash from a camera. It's so utterly fake it's untrue, he is a fool who should not run this country.

Role on general election, someone call it early.

[edit on 6-4-2006 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Time to vote conservative people. They would scrap the ID nonsense!

I know where my vote will be going.

Let's be honest here, it won't change a thing. They'll already have gone through before the next election - furthermore, 10 Conservative MPs:

John Bercow (Buckingham)
Angela Browning (Tiverton & Honiton)
William Cash (Stone)
David Curry (Skipton & Ripon)
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis & Littlehampton)
Damien Green (Ashford)
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden)
Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

All voted for it.

They won't go through before the nbext election if they call one early. It can be done and i don't know why tony blair doesn't, we all know he is gong to be kicked out of office eventually. He could make one final good decision and allow the people to choose their leader a fresh.

Ten conservative MP's isn't many remember. There will always be a dissenting minority in anything. Even if they did eventually allow it (which i think they would) at least it would be put off a little while, maybe coming in in 2020. By then we might have another party against it and so we could get them in and so on.

Originally posted by MacDonagh
My view on I.D cards is that everyone is very quick to mention all the 1984 refereces, though I do share concerns that they could be an invasion of privacy. I've heard rumours you have to put in 50 bits of information about yourself, your work, even the folk you hang about with. That's a little weird I think. To settle this, I'd rather have a referendum called to see the public's view on I.D cards.
Does the British Public want I.D cards?
But it's a little undemocratic to ask for a referendum isn't it? I mean, the government can ask the question in anyway they please, for example:
Do you want I.D cards that will make society safer overall? or something along those lines.
I dunno. Something has to be decided, and an informed debate in parliament will be more then welcome.

well despite the 1984 reference in my username (the reason it's there is because i tried loads of usernames before i got a confirmation email and i couldn't think of anything else), a referendum would be very good. Afterall in such a referendum only the people who care and are informed usually vote. If people don't care then it doesn't matter if the vote or not because they won't mind what happens. I say hold a referendum on such an important issue.

But it's a little undemocratic to ask for a referendum isn't it?

Maybe i have missed something here but a referendum is the most democratic thing you could do!

[edit on 6-4-2006 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
They won't go through before the nbext election if they call one early. It can be done and i don't know why tony blair doesn't, we all know he is gong to be kicked out of office eventually. He could make one final good decision and allow the people to choose their leader a fresh.

If gambling was legal on ATS, I'd place large sums of money on an ID Card happening before a next general election. Along with Blair not being kicked out of office - he'll leave when he desires. Look at the scandals, the lies, the deaths on his hands already and he's not been forced out of Office. There is a reason for that - the Labour Party won't run the risk of another split like they had in the 1970/80's. [Nuclear Crisis.]

Odds on Blair leaving from Betfair

Apr - Jun 2006 £100 returns = £950

Jul - Sep 2006 £100 returns = £600

Oct - Dec 2006 £100 returns = £650

Jan - Mar 2007 £100 returns = £900

Apr - Jun 2007 £100 returns = £900

Jul - Sep 2007 £100 returns = £900

Oct - Dec 2007 £100 returns = £950

Jan 2008 Onwards £100 returns = £260

If gambling was legal on ATS, I'd place large sums of money on an ID Card happening before a next general election. Along with Blair not being kicked out of office - he'll leave when he desires. Look at the scandals, the lies, the deaths on his hands already and he's not been forced out of Office. There is a reason for that - the Labour Party won't run the risk of another split like they had in the 1970/80's. [Nuclear Crisis.]

You have a very good point there, but i believe that Brown is such an ambitious man that he will try for it regardless. I mean you still have the media referring to the Brown and Blair camps inside one party. Ok i admit the views of the media have to be viewed skeptically but the media often decides the fate of voting in this sort of system. Brown is very ambitious from what i have seen (as i suppose most politicians are) and he has that damn flash bulb smile. I don't know why it gets to me so much. I think it's because he is almost like the cat in Alice in wonderland, he spreads problems and leaves behind his smile.

Ok ok i will get back to the point, sorry for going off on a rant. Brown really likes the Id card system, i honestly believe he backs it because maybe it would make a dent in the massive debt he has incurred as a chancellor. Our government is on credit, the NHS is failing, education is on it's arse, and varies other systems are in trouble.

The other night i was watching a show on channel 4. It was called That'll Teach 'em. The kids involved were A grade students and had “gone back” to the 1950’s as an experiment in schooling. The crowning moment for our education system was when they were asked to identify the systems and organs of the digestive system and used the term "food pipe" instead of esophagus. I could not believe this, thinking back I didn’t learn that at my school either. I taught myself thing’s like that.

The money from ID cards and the systems involved to implement it could make a decent impact on these problems. They say the cards will protect against illegal immigration and terrorism, but the governments own ministers now doubt this. So why not invest that money in out countries education and defense systems. Surely this would be a far better way to spend it.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
Time to vote conservative people. They would scrap the ID nonsense!

- You're kidding yourself if you imagine the tories are going to call for the repeal of this legislation.

It was in large part their people in the HOL who finally backed down and passed the legislation bringing in a compulsory card with passports in 2010.

The 'deal' was reached days ago and there has been absolutely no sign of any tory comment let alone a 'pledge' on reversing this.

The fact remains that this was a major part of the Labour government's program for government in the manifesto they stood for reelection on in May 2005 and was also a well publicised and much talked about part of the program in the last government before the general election in May 2005.

If the idea was so abhorrent to the British public they would have voted for someone else already by now.

The fact remains that you (or I) have no absolute 'right' to a passport or a driving licence, they are under our system a 'privilege.
One that comes with certain requirements, which have just been added to a little.
Get over it.

(......and btw, Gordon Brown's handling of the economy - almost 10 straight years of growth and not a single recession in sight, never mind a tory double - will be all the 'qualifications' he'll need to beat the dreadfully inexperienced Cameron and his - by 2009/10 - rather 'old' claims about being 'new' and 'the future'. )

The fact remains that this was a major part of the Labour government's program for government in the manifesto they stood for reelection on in May 2005 and was also a well publicised and much talked about part of the program in the last government before the general election in May 2005.

If the idea was so abhorrent to the British public they would have voted for someone else already by now.

Well sadly this is wrong. Labour had no real competition in thse years in my opinion. The choice was well it wasn't really a choice. The british public voted for labour yes which included the id card policy, that in no way means they support that policy. Don't lump the voting for a party together with that. Personally i think i would vote conservative now but that doesn't mean i agree with everything they say.

The fact remains that you (or I) have no absolute 'right' to a passport or a driving licence, they are under our system a 'privilege.
One that comes with certain requirements, which have just been added to a little.

You missed the point here, yes you need a passport to travel and a license to drive. No one is disputing or against these things here unless i missed something. The difference is i don't have to have those things, i can opt out. ID will be compulsory and invasive.

Get over it

If everyone did that then we wouldn't have a vote we would just go along with whatever we were told.

(......and btw, Gordon Brown's handling of the economy - almost 10 straight years of growth and not a single recession in sight, never mind a tory double - will be all the 'qualifications' he'll need to beat the dreadfully inexperienced Cameron and his - by 2009/10 - rather 'old' claims about being 'new' and 'the future'.

)

I would say you are a labour supporter by nature. When they came in i didn't know what they were going to do but they messed varies things up. Gordon Brown has grown our country mostly through loans.

Now let's get back to the cards.

I shouldn't have a card to live in this country, my family grew up here and raised me here. It is actually our country not the governments, democracy for the people and all that. Therefore i shouldn't as i said have a card to let me live here and be criminalised if i don't have one!

My iris, dna, retina, fingerprint and anything else belongs to me. If they pass a law saying they can just take those things then i believe that is against my civil liberties. What's next, they can come into my house and take the tv?

It's a joke in my opinion.

Tory or Labour are both two sides of the same coin

Whoever is behind this errosion of our freedoms will push for their secret agenda of a national DNA database of every human in the UK by 2020 - the compulsory ID card is merely a stepping stone to this end and the average person is blind to this agenda

That is why it is so important to resist the introduction of ID cards.

Again, these points are raised -

The Lords rejected this bill 5 times

The Labour government stated before the last general election that the ID card scheme would not be complusory

Public opinion is NOT behind this scheme

It is estimated to cost £20 billion over 10 years

The perceived benefits (preventing 'attacks', identity theft and benefit fraud) do NOT outweigh the costs and the ID card will have little effect

And yet the law has been passed.

WTF?
Why?
What does 'democracy' mean to these people?

[edit on 7/4/2006 by alienanderson]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Well sadly this is wrong. Labour had no real competition in thse years in my opinion. The choice was well it wasn't really a choice. The british public voted for labour yes which included the id card policy, that in no way means they support that policy. Don't lump the voting for a party together with that.

- You seem to have missed the idea of how representitive democracy works.
Of course the public vote on an entire program.
If they find something so repellent they refuse to vote for it.
That is how it works.

......and claims about not voting to approve bits of it is simply standard tactics opposing what they do.
However on such well known and very major parts of that program that kind of claim is frankly rather silly.

You missed the point here, yes you need a passport to travel and a license to drive. No one is disputing or against these things here unless i missed something. The difference is i don't have to have those things, i can opt out. ID will be compulsory and invasive.

- I think you have missed something here.

What the HOL agreed was that from 2010 an ID card will be compulsory with a new passport application.
Nothing more.

If everyone did that then we wouldn't have a vote we would just go along with whatever we were told.

- OK, it was a flippant comment, what I meant was that this is a completely legitimate and legal course of action by the duly elected government of the UK.
By all means oppose them and it but let's not pretend the sky is falling in with this either.

It's similar to what happened with the tories and their 'poll tax'.

Personally I opposed that one but I paid it, protested it and eventually saw the government change course and replace it.
But it was part of the well known, legitimate and lawful program of government the people elected the tory party in on in 1987.

Back then we too had people leaping to every extreme imaginable. Plenty of people claimed that the electoral databases then being compiled were the dawning of a fascist intent (if you tried to 'hide' from the tax you lost your vote......and it was people most unlikely to vote tory doing the hiding).

I would say you are a labour supporter by nature.

- Actually I was brought up quite tory (so I know the truth about so many of the real underlying attitudes come around 11.30pm at the local tory club when enough beer and GnT's have been swilled down).

But yes, having suffered almost 20yrs of tory rule as an adult I am indeed a Labour supporter today.

When they came in i didn't know what they were going to do but they messed varies things up.

- We'll get warned if we 'hijack' the thread but feel free to begin a new one detailing these things you believe have been 'messed up'.
I'd love to hear what you think, really.

Gordon Brown has grown our country mostly through loans.

- Not true.
Firstly UK debt is, contrary to certain press reports, actually quite low (current account borrowing - the current approx £36billion figure certain of tory press fans love to point to - compares very well with our competitors and is historically low as a % of GDP......as is the whole 'national debt' at the moment).

In todays money Major left government with debt at record levels and accelerating at a record rate (in todays money his current account borrowing would have been £90billions+ )

I shouldn't have a card to live in this country, my family grew up here and raised me here. It is actually our country not the governments, democracy for the people and all that. Therefore i shouldn't as i said have a card to let me live here and be criminalised if i don't have one!

- Er, you don't and you won't.

But besides all that, ID cards in themselves are not anti-democratic.

Germany and Italy have compulsory schemes and are free and democratic countries.
France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain have a voluntary systems (with 'perks' and incentives which guarantee a very large take up) and are free and democratic countries.

One can look at this in isolation if one wishes but I find that unrealistic and far too simplistic.
I (and for that matter my family) have a right to a life free from terror and crime.
It's not a perfect world and if these cards will reduce the risks that me and mine face from criminal behaviour or terrorism then I am prepared to listen to what is said in their favour - and I don't expect them to be a perfect and total solution either.

When it comes to balancing conflicting 'rights' taking absolute black and white views on one alone rarely helps, IMO, wouldn't you say?

My iris, dna, retina, fingerprint and anything else belongs to me. If they pass a law saying they can just take those things then i believe that is against my civil liberties.

- Well 'they' haven't (not in relation to ID cards anyway).

You are complaining about something that has not happened and, given the protracted fuss over what has just been agreed, is very unlikely to happen.

But you do realise 'they' can just take those things in relation to a criminal investigation?

(But you'll have to remember to blame your tory mates for that one, it was the tories that set up the national DNA database in 1995.
I wonder if that has you reconsidering who you'd vote for, hmmmm? )

What's next, they can come into my house and take the tv?

It's a joke in my opinion.

- Jayzuss wept man, if the example you come up with to illustrate the height of your concerns when it comes down to it is 'the state' coming in to take your tv then yes that is a very depressing and sad joke.

(Joking)



[edit on 7-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Here is another example of them pushing.
They want RFID scanning in credit cards

Autopay tracking chips in you credit card.

Which is being laucnhed now.
News

There are different versions but essentialy the same thing. Credit cards themselves are indoctrination into the electronic money system, getting you used to having you card for credit.

The chip is not too far off from this point. A bit of clevel marketing is required. remember 2020
News

visit my blog to keep up to date

[edit on 7-4-2006 by AdamJ]

But it's a little undemocratic to ask for a referendum isn't it?

Maybe i have missed something here but a referendum is the most democratic thing you could do!

[edit on 6-4-2006 by ImaginaryReality1984]

The way I see it, is that you can't have a completely neutral question, if that question is made by the government, for example "Do you support the idea of I.D cards that will increase security and stop the naughty Al Quadia?"
Therefore I think that referendums are not a very good democratic tool. I slightly recall Charles De Gaulle did referendums all the time, and he was in power for years and years. He finally resigned when he got defeated on some referendum or so. I just hope that the other parties realise that this needs serious debate.

I think you are right we should maybe leave any other argument out of this otherwise the mods will slap us.

But besides all that, ID cards in themselves are not anti-democratic.

I know this i would have no problem with an id card that contains no biometric data and doesn't have RFID. This wouldn't bother me, presenting it to a police officer when required maybe even for benefits but that is it. Please remember the link i posted about the WWII cards though. They hindered the police and even though we have computers now i still believe it will hinder things.

Germany and Italy have compulsory schemes and are free and democratic countries.
France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain have a voluntary systems (with 'perks' and incentives which guarantee a very large take up) and are free and democratic countries.

Yes and from the stats i have seen so far they haven’t done any good.

One can look at this in isolation if one wishes but I find that unrealistic and far too simplistic.
I (and for that matter my family) have a right to a life free from terror and crime.
It's not a perfect world and if these cards will reduce the risks that me and mine face from criminal behaviour or terrorism then I am prepared to listen to what is said in their favour - and I don't expect them to be a perfect and total solution either.

You are 100% correct your family does have an absolute right to live free from terror and crime. This again is my point, the cards will not help terrorism. A person enters the country and commits an act of terror, the cards won't stop them. Legal residents in this country who may be second generation brits are still able and willing to commit terror. Please note that i am not saying everyone is like this, it's a very small minority but still the id cards won't stop them.

Crime will not be helped, especially violent crime. An id card will not stop someone walking down the street and stabbing you or beating you to a pulp. As for finacial crime the cards won't help, there will always be ways around the system even if you think you close every hole.

It's not a perfect world and if these cards will reduce the risks that me and mine face from criminal behaviour or terrorism then I am prepared to listen to what is said in their favour - and I don't expect them to be a perfect and total solution either.

Ok i quoted this part twice so sorry for that but it is important. I fully agree with you on this point, if the cards did something against terrorism and crime then i would support them. I have looked at the arguments, i have listened to what has been said but i still dislike the things and think they are pointless.

But you do realise 'they' can just take those things in relation to a criminal investigation?

(But you'll have to remember to blame your tory mates for that one, it was the tories that set up the national DNA database in 1995.
I wonder if that has you reconsidering who you'd vote for, hmmmm? )

Ok the tories aren't my mates. I just dislike labour now and the liberals are a joke. I actually voted for an alternate party last time but this time it will more than likely be the conservatives.

When i say 'they' i mean the government, i don't mean some worldwide conspiracy. That's what i mean by 'they'.

Yes they can take those things in a criminal investigation, i think that is necessary. Taking actual criminals DNA is also a very good idea because they have shown they are more likely to commit a crime. This is the point, i am not a criminal! That is why i shouldn't have mine taken, i have done nothing wrong.

Oh and about my joke, yeah ok it was pretty poor, i was drunk what do you expect lol.

The way I see it, is that you can't have a completely neutral question, if that question is made by the government, for example "Do you support the idea of I.D cards that will increase security and stop the naughty Al Quadia?"
Therefore I think that referendums are not a very good democratic tool. I slightly recall Charles De Gaulle did referendums all the time, and he was in power for years and years. He finally resigned when he got defeated on some referendum or so. I just hope that the other parties realise that this needs serious debate.

Agreed, but surely it is better than just having them? At least having a chance to get them gone would be better than nothing right? If a referendum was called then people could be informed of the facts (hopefully) and then vote. At least that way even if they pose the question in a biased way we could get informed people voting and hopefully get the result most wanted by the public, whichever way that goes.


[edit on 7-4-2006 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I know this i would have no problem with an id card that contains no biometric data and doesn't have RFID.

- Actually I like the biometric side to this, now that I actually know 2 people that have had their ID stolen.

It was months of total nightmare for them and this is a side to this debate being overlooked IMO.

This is what is going to 'drive' this issue commercially.
IMO it will be business that requires us to carry this type of ID long before any government tries to.
(we already do carry umteen bits of ID thanks to commerce anyway.)

Yes and from the stats i have seen so far they haven’t done any good.

- Well I suppose that boils down to what you mean by "any good".

I would point out that crime on the continent is lower than in the UK.

But as I have said all along these cards will help, not provide a total solution in every case.

the cards will not help terrorism. A person enters the country and commits an act of terror, the cards won't stop them.

- This is what I mean by a simplistic approach.

It is quite right to say that in the circumstances you have just described the card would not stop the 'event'; it may however help Police in their subsequent investigations trace the movements and conspirators so as to catch a gang or group.
Just as has happened with phone records.

That is not 'nothing' or "no help".

Legal residents in this country who may be second generation brits are still able and willing to commit terror. Please note that i am not saying everyone is like this, it's a very small minority but still the id cards won't stop them.

- The point is the cards (even faked ones) will lay 'trails' as and when they are required to be shown (this is bound to develop over time, hiring a car for instance or booking rail or air travel or even being asked to show it by the Police and a note taken of that event and card number etc etc).

Crime will not be helped, especially violent crime. An id card will not stop someone walking down the street and stabbing you or beating you to a pulp.

- Like I said it is not a 'cure-all'; although having the people at the scene of a crime properly identify themselves is not always going to be completely unproductive in catching 'who done it' either, right?

As for finacial crime the cards won't help, there will always be ways around the system even if you think you close every hole.

- Not all financial crime in this country is of the most sophisticated kind.

The cards can and probably will stop a lot of the less sophisticated type.

I have looked at the arguments, i have listened to what has been said but i still dislike the things and think they are pointless.

- Well this is the part where I have real problems with the 'anti' side.

I can understand the arguements for liberties and the worry about a too powerful government/state.
I even have sympathy for some of those arguements.

What I cannot understand is the total and utter refusal of those opposing ID cards to admit or acknowledge any merit in them whatsoever.
That attitude strikes me as totally nuts.

Why on earth (if they have no merit whatsoever and are supposedly such a grossly expensive waste) does anyone bother to have them anywhere?

I'd also say that if the debate was one of considering the issue in terms of the inherent 'conflicting rights' it embodies that would be one thing but so far all I can see are people talking in sterile 'absolutes' and refusing to acknowledge there even is a point about conflicting rights.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I would point out that crime on the continent is lower than in the UK.

The problem is, linking this to the cards themselves. The fact there are different crimes in different parts of Europe, means you have different criminals and less criminals if there are less crimes. You also have the economic factors to bring into account, the ability to commit crime, the avilability of social services so crime isn't their only alternative and the punishments and reoffender rates for crimes. To make out as though the cards have any involvement in that, is something I've yet to see linked.

Originally posted by Odium
The problem is, linking this to the cards themselves......

......To make out as though the cards have any involvement in that, is something I've yet to see linked.

- If I was trying to claim this was all down to their ID cards you would be right to question it.

It would be about as wrong and silly as trying to claim that their ID card system has had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their lower crime rate(s), wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
It would be about as wrong and silly as trying to claim that their ID card system has had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their lower crime rate(s), wouldn't you say?

Show me a crime which it can stop then?

Originally posted by Odium
Show me a crime which it can stop then?

- That's a silly comment Odium.

They can stop fraud for a start, they may well stop some criminal conspiracies and may help lead to the arrest of wanted criminals.

It is absurd to suggest that they can never have any use at all in the fight against crime (or terrorism for that matter).

......do I take it that you are one of those who would claim those European countries with an ID card system are just thoughtlessly and pointlessly wasting their money and are just totally deluded to believe them in any way worthwhile?

Are you really saying that you believe their ID cards have at all times nothing whatsoever to do with their low crime rates?

Like I keep saying this black and white attitude to the cards is ridiculous.

How will they stop fraud? Chip and Pin, Signatures on Credit Cards, Passports, National Insurance Numbers, Birth Certificates, etc, etc, are all able to be copied and all were meant to stop a level of fraud.

Belgium has had ID cards from 1919, yet fraud is still common place:

Source
Fraud and related acts of dishonesty continue to pose significant threats to business in Belgium in direct financial and intangible terms, and their incidence is far from on the wane:
this is the clear conclusion from the 2005 PricewaterhouseCoopers Economic Crime Survey.

Source
Fraud offenses - total 876,032 in 2003, up 11.1% in Germany.

How are the cards in Germany stopping fraud?

Originally posted by Odium
How will they stop fraud? Chip and Pin, Signatures on Credit Cards, Passports, National Insurance Numbers, Birth Certificates, etc, etc, are all able to be copied and all were meant to stop a level of fraud.

- The 'biometric' element will be very difficult for all but the most sophisticated of fraudisters to get around.

That goes far beyond the security of any previous system.
(none of which are perfect, nor will they ever be......that hardly renders them all useless and not worth bothering with - almost all locks can be broken into and gotten around but I'm willing to bet you still make full use of all of yours, hmmmm?).

Belgium has had ID cards from 1919, yet fraud is still common place.....
......How are the cards in Germany stopping fraud?

- Oh come on Odium; is that really the 'standard' you wish to try to apply in this?

'If it isn't perfection itself it's of no value whatsoever'?!

That's just silly.

Besides, neither Belgium nor Germany use biometric cards - yet.