microchipped passports [Archive]

Stuart

27-08-2003, 21:30

Originally posted by Graham
Warning: Graham has just seen someone push another "hot button" and is about to start ranting...!

So, several people think that they don't have a problem with ID cards because "they have nothing to hide".

Every time I hear someone spout that nonsense I see once of the most precious rights we have being eroded just a little bit more.

That is the right to be PRESUMED INNOCENT *UNTIL* PROVEN GUILTY!

And how do ID cards prevent that? Sorry, but carrying a card that says who you are does NOT prove that you are innocent or guilty. Admittedly it can prove you were at a certain place at a certain time. So can the use of Credit/Debit/ATM cards, and witnesses amongst other things.

Pardon me for shouting, but it is something that *needs* to be shouted about, loudly and often, before we *lose* that right and suddenly find our civil liberties disappearing up the Swanee.

Let's look at the argument from the other side: If "I don't object to carrying an ID because I have nothing to hide" the corollory is that anyone who *does* object "has something to hide".

This is a large pile of bovine excrement.

I have nothing to hide and if someone thinks I do then, as the law and our human rights stand at the moment, it is up to *THEM* to prove otherwise. The implication from the "nothing to hide" brigade, however, is that I *must* have "something to hide" and should therefore be obliged to prove otherwise!

If you are at the scene of a crime, and the police taje your ID card, they would still have to prove you had something to do with the crime.

The fact is that, as the French example has demonstrated and the "Sus" laws of the 1980's also showed, people could be stopped and have their ID checked for nothing more than "being suspiciously black" or "appearing to be lower class in an upper class area".

And this doesn't happen now? I know many people who have been stopped for no apparent reason.

<snip>
I am quite capable of identifying myself *if I need to*. However I have the right to "go about my lawful business without let or hinderance". A "let" is a permission and a hinderance would be someone asking for my ID card.

Do you work somewhere where you have to show ID? Do you travel to work on Public Transport and use a pass? If you do, and have to show your pass, is this not a hinderance? How would presenting a national ID card be any more of a hinderance?

The fact is, though, ID cards have been shown time and again to fail to do what is promised, they don't cut crime, they don't prevent fraud because the criminals and the fraudsters just create fakes or find other ways of bypassing the system, so all it does is cause more problems for those of use who *are* law abiding citizens.

"Those who would give up freedoms for temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security" - Benjamin Franklin.

Now, let's be honest here. I do NOT believe that ID cards will increase security IN ANY WAY. I do believe that they could replace the multitude of forms of ID we all seem to have.

There is talk of hospitals using them to verify the identity of patients. Is this not better than the hospitals treating every one (even those who have flown in from another country specially)?

Ramrod

27-08-2003, 22:03

The flipside of the authorities easily being able to check who you are and where you live is the situation that we have with pikeys (gypsies) in my neck of the woods. They assault and steal and are rarely caught or prosecuted because they have no id, no fixed abode and just disappear when things get too 'hot' for them. They are effectively above the law.

Shaun

27-08-2003, 22:15

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
dellwear, I must say I admire the extremely blinkered outlook you seem to have....

I think you'll find my views are anything but blinkered, I just don't see the problem.

You don't mind people spying on everything you do while behind the wheel of a car,

No

you don't mind the police being given the ability to stop you at a whim in the street and ask you for your ID,

No one mentioned a change in the stop and search laws, but no, as far as I am concerned I have no issue with the police stopping me. I'd have pleasant words to say offer my ID and then get om my way. What is the issue, do you honestly think the police have enough time on their hands to stop you and everyone else on the street, thats paranoia! :rolleyes:

in fact I don't think you would mind a society where you are constantly told what to do and think....

No, and I really don't think you can make that judgement from reading a couple of posts of mine on an Internet forum.

What I do want however is a safe country, where I don't have to worry about walking down the street at night, like I do now here in Leicester. The police closed one of the roads just down from me the other day because there has been a gum fired at two pedestrians. I'm not saying that ID cards and chips wouldn't have stopped this happening but the police would have something to go on.

I would suggest you go and read a book called "1984", it was written by George Orwell and should be available at your local library.

It may open your eyes a little....

Maybe I should :)

The fact is that for centuries we have had the ability to do as we please within the realm of the law, to go where we please and enjoy some privacy in what we do.

No ones said that will change. You commit a crime you get punished (in an ideal world), it has been like that for thousands of years, ID cards and chips would just help.:)

If identity cards and "black boxes" in cars are introduced then we lose some of those rights and abilities. This is NOT on. We are individuals, adults most of us and should be treated as such, constant monitoring of our locations by whatever means is tantamount to treating us like children, oh, hang on... We allow our children privacy.

People need to act like adults then, if people didn't commit crimes there would be no need for these sort of measures.

The other point is if we grant the government these concessions where does it end? Sensors in the car which sense the id cards we carry and report who else is in the vehicle as you drive?

Suppose you take a detour one day which takes you through an area with a high percentage of drug dealers, you stop for directions as you are lost. Do you want the police to then intercept you and search your car on the suspicion you MAY have bought drugs because you got lost one time? Especially if you had no idea of the area you were in.

I think this is taking the fantasy a little far. (as an aside, wont the chip tell them you didn't stop :p)

I see a GREAT problem with being asked for my ID card while walking down the street. Why was I stopped and asked for my ID? If I had committed no crime, and none had happened in the vicinity, and I wasn't acting suspiciously, why was I stopped?[/quote]

You haven't, no ones stopped you, why would they, you haven't done anything wrong (have you?).

It all boils down to the concept of innocent until proveen guilty, by "tagging" us which is effectively what the car system and the ID card would do we are ALL being treated like criminals, with no hope of a claim to innocence...

You are innocent until your caught, yer your right. All that ID cards and chips will do is enable you to get caught easier.

Remember..... Soylent Green Is People. [/B]

I really don't see myself or anyone else on this board getting themselves tied up in another's murder.:D

Ramrod

27-08-2003, 22:22

Originally posted by Graham
[B]Warning: Graham has just seen someone push another "hot button" and is about to start ranting...!

So, several people think that they don't have a problem with ID cards because "they have nothing to hide".

Every time I hear someone spout that nonsense I see once of the most precious rights we have being eroded just a little bit more.

That is the right to be PRESUMED INNOCENT *UNTIL* PROVEN GUILTY!

Pardon me for shouting, but it is something that *needs* to be shouted about, loudly and often, before we *lose* that right and suddenly find our civil liberties disappearing up the Swanee. True, but if we make it easy for them to disappear back into the woodwork for the want of proper id our civil liberties will be being eroded because they are still free to prey on us.

Let's look at the argument from the other side: If "I don't object to carrying an ID because I have nothing to hide" the corollory is that anyone who *does* object "has something to hide". Not at all. You are jumping to conclusions. It's just a personal statement.

This is a large pile of bovine excrement. It would be if it were true.

I have nothing to hide and if someone thinks I do then, as the law and our human rights stand at the moment, it is up to *THEM* to prove otherwise. The implication from the "nothing to hide" brigade, however, is that I *must* have "something to hide" and should therefore be obliged to prove otherwise!Why? As I have already stated that is not the case. At least not in my case. I don't think that people who don't want id cards are automatically hiding something.

The fact is that, as the French example has demonstrated and the "Sus" laws of the 1980's also showed, people could be stopped and have their ID checked for nothing more than "being suspiciously black" or "appearing to be lower class in an upper class area". Proactive policing, just needs to be prevented from getting heavy handed. Same thing that the 'bobby on the beat' used to do. He knew his patch and knew if someone didn't belong there. I wonder if he nipped a lot of crimes in the bud?

Yes, our government assures us that this won't happen and that the ID Cards, sorry, Entitlement Cards (oh, sorry, they're not calling them that either, now, are they), whatever the present subterfuge David Blunkett is using to try to foist them on us, won't be compulsory to carry, but this is the government that also swore blind that it wouldn't raise our taxes! We agree at last!

The fact is, though, ID cards have been shown time and again to fail to do what is promised, they don't cut crime, they don't prevent fraud Could you provide us with the facts and figures please? because the criminals and the fraudsters just create fakes or find other ways of bypassing the system, so all it does is cause more problems for those of use who *are* law abiding citizens. The id would need to be secure, thats the authorities job to work out how. As a law abiding citizen I personally would not mind being stopped if I looked out of place or suspicious, if I could easily provide my id and then carry on about my business.

btw, how exactly is having decent id cards giving up our :'freedoms for temporary security'?

I can see how this could be seen as being the 'thin end of the wedge' but it could equally be seen as being an easy way to prove id, cut out fraud and improve security. It does however need careful implementation and robust laws detailing it's use to prevent it's misuse.

Bifta

27-08-2003, 22:33

(compulsory) ID cards my arse! I have no objection to carrying and supplying ID for necessary events like flying somewhere etc but I refuse to be told I HAVE to identify myself to anyone I don't wish to.

Lord Nikon

27-08-2003, 22:34

Dellwear, you don't need to tell me about crime, I live in Oldham...

In the last week or so...
24 yr old beaten and stabbed (he died) outside his own house by 20 people
Someone else killed last night in a club

in neither case would ID cards help.
In neither case would Chips on board cars help

Chips in cars wouldn't prevent crimes or stop them happening, neither will ID cards, what the chips WOULD do is allow the police to automate the continued persecution of motorists.

Motorists are an easy target, speeders get tagged as "Criminals" and the crime prosecution figures go up...

btw - the Soylent Green is people line is a quote from 1984, not a reference to someone being killed :D

Incidentally Ramrod, look how often supposedly "secure" systems are breached?

NTL Analog - supposedly secure, yet the boxes were regularly "hacked" to give extra channels
Sky Analog - same thing
Sky Digital and NTL Digital have gone the same way
Mobile phones have been given new identities,

When technology is used, it can be altered and bypassed, this is something which IS fact. Passports are forged, Driving licenses duplicated, cars cloned, Currency duplicated, credit cards cloned.
Nothing is foolproof. Why should the ID card be any different?

Ramrod

27-08-2003, 22:39

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Dellwear, you don't need to tell me about crime, I live in Oldham...

In the last week or so...
24 yr old beaten and stabbed (he died) outside his own house by 20 people
Someone else killed last night in a club

in neither case would ID cards help.
In neither case would Chips on board cars help

Chips in cars wouldn't prevent crimes or stop them happening, neither will ID cards, what the chips WOULD do is allow the police to automate the continued persecution of motorists.

Motorists are an easy target, speeders get tagged as "Criminals" and the crime prosecution figures go up...

btw - the Soylent Green is people line is a quote from 1984, not a reference to someone being killed :D Lets not drag the chips in cars into this argument.
Of course id cards wouldn't help in a lot of crimes, thats not the issue here. We could drag cctv into this as well but it wouldn't be relevant to this argument.

Shaun

27-08-2003, 22:46

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
btw - the Soylent Green is people line is a quote from 1984, not a reference to someone being killed :D

My mistake, it was also a dodgy 1970's (?) film. (so my other half says anyway);)

Stuart

27-08-2003, 22:50

Originally posted by Lord Nikon

When technology is used, it can be altered and bypassed, this is something which IS fact. Passports are forged, Driving licenses duplicated, cars cloned, Currency duplicated, credit cards cloned.
Nothing is foolproof. Why should the ID card be any different?

So, the gist of that is that if sombody wants to take your id, they can already (without the ID card)?

Stuart

27-08-2003, 22:55

Originally posted by dellwear
My mistake, it was also a dodgy 1970's (?) film. (so my other half says anyway);)

It was. See http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0070723

Lord Nikon

27-08-2003, 22:57

Originally posted by scastle
So, the gist of that is that if sombody wants to take your id, they can already (without the ID card)?

Within reason.... False details can be given to the police.... The Credit card duplicates are so good that when a ban put a "hold and return" on a card they suspected had been cloned they got 2 back, and the only difference between them was the signature.

Etc Etc Etc....

Ramrod

28-08-2003, 11:11

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
Within reason.... False details can be given to the police.... The Credit card duplicates are so good that when a ban put a "hold and return" on a card they suspected had been cloned they got 2 back, and the only difference between them was the signature.

Etc Etc Etc.... mmm.....thats why any new super duper id card thingy would have to be tamper proof and not forgable. Difficult to manufacture? or maby impossible.....

Graham

28-08-2003, 19:30

Originally posted by dellwear
[B]I still don't see the issue here, your walking down the street, your asked for your ID card, the policeman looks at it then its give back and you are on your way.

And *WHY* has the policeman stopped me? What grounds does he have? Under the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 a policeman may stop me and search me only if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles, or an article to which section 1(8A) of PACE applies (that is to say bladed or pointed articles held in a public place).

Have you been stooped in the street in the last 5 years?

No, but that's possibly because I'm not "suspiciously black"

Again I point out the abuse of the "Sus" laws in the 1980's

No, well it isn't likely its going to happen in the next 5 either

Ah, so because "I'm all right, Jack", I shouldn't worry about *other* people's Civil Liberties?!

the number of stop and searches are not going to increase just because you are given a card that proves who you are.

Pardon me if I say that I think you show a charming naiivety here!

Graham

28-08-2003, 19:41

Originally posted by scastle

[Re: Presumed innocent until proven guilty]

And how do ID cards prevent that? Sorry, but carrying a card that says who you are does NOT prove that you are innocent or guilty.

As I pointed out before, the presumption is that if you *don't* carry an ID card you have "something to hide". Therefore people who say that *assume* you to be guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

If you are at the scene of a crime, and the police taje your ID card, they would still have to prove you had something to do with the crime.

If I am at the scene of a crime I can decline to give my identity and unless the Police have reasonable grounds for believing I am guilty of something they *cannot* detain me.

And this doesn't happen now? I know many people who have been stopped for no apparent reason.

So giving people *another* excuse to stop you for no reason is a *good* thing???

Do you work somewhere where you have to show ID?

No, because I work in the room next to this one (this one being my bedroom!)

Do you travel to work on Public Transport and use a pass? If you do, and have to show your pass, is this not a hinderance? How would presenting a national ID card be any more of a hinderance?

If I want to use public transport etc I don't have to use a pass. If I want to get a discount I may have to in order to show I am entitled to get that discount.

I do *NOT* have to have a card to show that I am entitled to walk down the street!!

Now, let's be honest here. I do NOT believe that ID cards will increase security IN ANY WAY.

I think you're entirely right.

I do believe that they could replace the multitude of forms of ID we all seem to have.

Unfortunately this is what is known as the "Thin end of the wedge".

What happens when shops "to prevent credit card fraud" start requesting you produce that National Identity card? What about if you have to provide it to get money out of your bank?

What happens if you forget it one day? No purchases, no money? But why? You're not doing anything illegal, are you?!

There is talk of hospitals using them to verify the identity of patients. Is this not better than the hospitals treating every one (even those who have flown in from another country specially)?

Hospitals already *have* systems to identify patients. Should we spend *more* valuable NHS resources on National ID card verification systems instead of on *patient care*??

Graham

28-08-2003, 19:44

Originally posted by Ramrod
The flipside of the authorities easily being able to check who you are and where you live is the situation that we have with pikeys (gypsies) in my neck of the woods. They assault and steal and are rarely caught or prosecuted because they have no id, no fixed abode and just disappear when things get too 'hot' for them. They are effectively above the law.

Sorry, but *how* will having an ID card stop this happening?

Unless you have to provide an ID card for *everything* and all those details are centrally monitored (Aha! Mr Ramrod is now in Barc-West bank on the High Street) how are you going to find these people?

And the fact is that the "criminal fraternity" will always find ways of avoiding or evading or bypassing such systems by registering fake names or addresses or getting multiple identities etc etc, so the law abiding majority of us will lose our rights for no real gain.

Graham

28-08-2003, 20:09

Originally posted by Ramrod
if we make it easy for them to disappear back into the woodwork for the want of proper id our civil liberties will be being eroded because they are still free to prey on us.

See my other reply above.

If "I don't object to carrying an ID because I have nothing to hide" the corollory is that anyone who *does* object "has something to hide".

Not at all. You are jumping to conclusions. It's just a personal statement.

It's a personal statement that has a logical conclusion that is exactly what I have said.

that, as the French example has demonstrated and the "Sus" laws of the 1980's also showed, people could be stopped and have their ID checked for nothing more than "being suspiciously black" or "appearing to be lower class in an upper class area".

Proactive policing, just needs to be prevented from getting heavy handed.

There have been too many examples of black people being harassed by the Police for simply being in the wrong place or having a flash car etc for me to have much confidence in this "prevention".

Same thing that the 'bobby on the beat' used to do. He knew his patch and knew if someone didn't belong there. I wonder if he nipped a lot of crimes in the bud?

And having a "suspicious looking darkie" on his patch was enough for him to take an interest.

ID cards have been shown time and again to fail to do what is promised, they don't cut crime, they don't prevent fraud

Could you provide us with the facts and figures please?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/25400.html "Biometric sensors beaten senseless in tests".

All biometric data does is prove that you are the person on the card. But it doesn't prove that all the *rest* of the data is right.

Or quoting from http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/comment/0,11026,748942,00.html

"Social security fraud is a perennial problem, but a cabinet office report also published yesterday suggests ID cards would only save 1% of welfare losses through fraud.

Or how about from:
http://www.edinburghnews.com/opinion.cfm?id=727152002

"Law-abiding readers might say: "What has anyone who is innocent to fear from this?" Let me ask, have you ever had trouble at the cash machine, the supermarket till or the department store with your bank, credit or store card - and it wasnÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€š Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢t your fault? Was it not humiliating and annoying? Have you ever found that records kept on you or your family are not only incorrect but often intentionally so? As an MSP that deals with constituentsÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã …Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ problems, and myself a member of the card-carrying human race, I know these problems not only exist but are commonplace. Do we honestly wish the state to have such powers?"

Search on The Register at http://www.theregister.co.uk or visit Privacy International at http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/ or many other sources for *lots* more information.

The id would need to be secure, thats the authorities job to work out how.

See above!

And don't forget that one of David Blunkett's plans was to add a thirty nine pound *surcharge* to the cost of a passport to get us to *pay* for the privilege of the rights we have already!!

As a law abiding citizen I personally would not mind being stopped if I looked out of place or suspicious, if I could easily provide my id and then carry on about my business.

As a law abiding citizen, I would consider it highly insulting to be stopped. I have the right to travel any street in this land.

btw, how exactly is having decent id cards giving up our :'freedoms for temporary security'?

Because we are told that they will "prevent another September the 11th" or "they will stop bogus asylum seekers" or they will "stop crime" or...

They will do *none* of this. They will, however, remove our freedoms as I have explained before.

idi banashapan

28-08-2003, 20:20

Originally posted by dellwear
I don't see the problem, I have nothing to hide.

Bring it on.:D

agreed

Ramrod

28-08-2003, 20:53

Originally posted by Graham
Sorry, but *how* will having an ID card stop this happening?

Unless you have to provide an ID card for *everything* and all those details are centrally monitored (Aha! Mr Ramrod is now in Barc-West bank on the High Street) how are you going to find these people? At least you would be able to pin an identity on them. Thats a step in the right direction!

And the fact is that the "criminal fraternity" will always find ways of avoiding or evading or bypassing such systems by registering fake names or addresses or getting multiple identities etc etc, They would try, I'm sure. As I have said, it's up to the authorities to provide a foolproof system....if such a thing can be done. If it can't, I don't see the point of it so the law abiding majority of us will lose our rights for no real gain. I don't think I would and I think that it would make the UK a better place for me to live.

Shaun

28-08-2003, 21:31

Graham no insult intended but do you read the Daily Mail? Or the Mirror?

Ramrod

28-08-2003, 21:32

Originally posted by Graham
Not at all. You are jumping to conclusions. It's just a personal statement.

It's a personal statement that has a logical conclusion that is exactly what I have said. No, it dosn't have that conclusion, at least not in my mind. I understand your concerns as a law abiding citizen. Regecting the card/chip dosn't automatically make you a person with something to hide (imo).

Proactive policing, just needs to be prevented from getting heavy handed.

There have been too many examples of black people being harassed by the Police for simply being in the wrong place or having a flash car etc for me to have much confidence in this "prevention".As I already said, the laws for this kind of thing need to be clear and abuse proof, so that minorities are not abused.
Could you provide us with the facts and figures please?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/25400.html "Biometric sensors beaten senseless in tests".

All biometric data does is prove that you are the person on the card. But it doesn't prove that all the *rest* of the data is right.Well having proof of your id is a start......

Or quoting from http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/comment/0,11026,748942,00.html

"Social security fraud is a perennial problem, but a cabinet office report also published yesterday suggests ID cards would only save 1% of welfare losses through fraud. Ok, so it's no good for social security fraud, big deal! Probably no good for vandalism either....

Or how about from:
http://www.edinburghnews.com/opinion.cfm?id=727152002

"Law-abiding readers might say: "What has anyone who is innocent to fear from this?" Let me ask, have you ever had trouble at the cash machine, the supermarket till or the department store with your bank, credit or store card - and it wasnÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€š Ã‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢t your fault? Was it not humiliating and annoying? Have you ever found that records kept on you or your family are not only incorrect but often intentionally so? As an MSP that deals with constituentsÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã …Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ problems, and myself a member of the card-carrying human race, I know these problems not only exist but are commonplace. Do we honestly wish the state to have such powers?" So there needs to be a very accurate way of recording the data on the chips. More care needs to be taken, together with total, easy access to the info held on the chip by the individual so that it can be checked and incorrect info. can be exposed.

And don't forget that one of David Blunkett's plans was to add a thirty nine pound *surcharge* to the cost of a passport to get us to *pay* for the privilege of the rights we have already!! That I do not agree with. If they want us to have this system of id, they can pay for it out of our present taxes.

As a law abiding citizen, I would consider it highly insulting to be stopped. I have the right to travel any street in this land. I would find it comforting. It means that criminals are also being stopped and probably deterred/detained.

Because we are told that they will "prevent another September the 11th" or "they will stop bogus asylum seekers" or they will "stop crime" or...I think that it would stop a lot of bogus assylum seekers who have disappeared into the woodwork and the black economy.

They will do *none* of this. They will, however, remove our freedoms as I have explained before. As far as I can see, properly implemented id cards would merely require me to occasionally show one to a PC (big deal) but they would also make my life easier when providing proof of id (which is always a pain at the moment-3 different forms of id, one with an address on it, preferably a utility bill....etc....)
The extra bonus is that id cards would help police identify people without doubt and eliminate them from/include them in their enquiries. Thereby saving time and increasing productivity. Thats just with id proof. If some foolproof way of including an address was devised then the benefits would be even greater.

Graham

29-08-2003, 14:39

Originally posted by Ramrod
Unless you have to provide an ID card for *everything* and all those details are centrally monitored (Aha! Mr Ramrod is now in Barc-West bank on the High Street) how are you going to find these people?

At least you would be able to pin an identity on them. Thats a step in the right direction!

*HOW* would you be able to pin an identity on someone unless they're like the people you see on those "Dumb Criminal" programmes where people write "This is a stick up" notes on the back of their credit card bills?

the "criminal fraternity" will always find ways of avoiding or evading or bypassing such systems

They would try, I'm sure. As I have said, it's up to the authorities to provide a foolproof system....if such a thing can be done.

Given the failures of every government so far to create *any* such system that is foolproof, be it benefit fraud, air traffic control or even congestion charging, what odds would you like to put on such a scheme being foolproof?!

I think that it would make the UK a better place for me to live.

And I think it would make it a worse place for *all* of us to live. It would not cut crime, it would not prevent credit card fraud, it would not stop bogus asylum seekers, it would not stop false benefit claims, it would not stop... etc etc etc.

All it *would* do is to give The Powers That Be greater ability to monitor and control us and to infringe our civil liberties as they *keep* wanting to do, see, for example, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, or the proposals for a National DNA database which would hold *everyone's* DNA, not just that of criminals for more details.

Graham

29-08-2003, 15:03

Originally posted by dellwear
Graham no insult intended but do you read the Daily Mail? Or the Mirror?

No, I don't.

I'm quite capable of making up my own mind on a subject

:D

Graham

29-08-2003, 15:28

Originally posted by Ramrod
No, it dosn't have that conclusion, at least not in my mind.

IF "someone has nothing to hide" THEN "they don't need to worry"

IF NOT "Someone has nothing to hide" THEN NOT "they don't need to worry"

Simplifying gives: IF "they have something to hide" THEN "They should worry"

QED.

Regecting the card/chip dosn't automatically make you a person with something to hide (imo).

Unfortunately there are too many people who don't seem to hold your opinion.

All biometric data does is prove that you are the person on the card. But it doesn't prove that all the *rest* of the data is right.

Well having proof of your id is a start......

So in order to get proof of your ID you have to, err, have proof of your ID...?!?!

Ok, so it's no good for social security fraud, big deal!

The cost of benefit fraud to the UK tax payer is around two *billion* pounds every year. I think that's a big deal. Unfortunately politicians trying to sell us an ID card to cut down on it is a joke.

Probably no good for vandalism either....

Or preventing another September 11th, which was another excuse used by politicians to convince us it was a good idea.

So there needs to be a very accurate way of recording the data on the chips. More care needs to be taken, together with total, easy access to the info held on the chip by the individual so that it can be checked and incorrect info. can be exposed.

The point of all that was the last sentence which was "Do we honestly wish the state to have such powers?" Not how accurate it should be, but whether they should have the power *at all*.

That I do not agree with. If they want us to have this system of id, they can pay for it out of our present taxes.

If they want us to have this system, they can put their hands into their *own* pockets!

As a law abiding citizen, I would consider it highly insulting to be stopped. I have the right to travel any street in this land.

I would find it comforting. It means that criminals are also being stopped and probably deterred/detained.

But *HOW* would a policeman, just from looking at your ID *KNOW* that Person X *IS* a criminal??

The only way this would work is for them to get in touch with their central database and say "Hello Control, I've just stopped a Mr Ramrod, do we have anything on record I can arrest him for?"

Presumption of Innocence? Not in this country anymore!!

I think that it would stop a lot of bogus assylum seekers who have disappeared into the woodwork and the black economy.

Again *how*? There are plenty of people working in the black economy already, picking fruit or potatoes or working in illegal sweat shops etc. How is having an ID card or not going to stop this?

As far as I can see, properly implemented id cards would merely require me to occasionally show one to a PC (big deal)

You consider the loss of the fundamental human right to be Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty to not be a "big deal"?!?!

they would also make my life easier when providing proof of id (which is always a pain at the moment-3 different forms of id, one with an address on it, preferably a utility bill....etc....)

And if I steal your ID card and sell it to someone who looks enough like you (if there's a photograph on it) to fool a casual glance, you've just made it *much* easier to steal your identity unless *every* bank, building society, shop that offers instant credit and so on has a way of verifiying your fingerprint or retina scan (and the ID thief doesn't have a way of spoofing or faking this information)!

"Sorry Mr Ramrod, but it was *your* ID that was used to purchase ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£10,000 worth of goods and services and since we *know* the system is secure, you're going to have to pay for them."

The extra bonus is that id cards would help police identify people without doubt and eliminate them from/include them in their enquiries.

Of course, the flip side of this is that if there *is* a failure in the system then you're going to have one *hell* of a job trying to *prove* your innocence because the ID scheme is "infallible"...!

And if you think that that's an unlikely scenario, I suggest you do some research into some of the most famous (or should that be "infamous") examples of miscarriages of justice where people have spent long terms in prison for crimes which they didn't commit.

Shaun

29-08-2003, 15:29

Originally posted by Graham
National DNA database which would hold *everyone's* DNA, not just that of criminals for more details.

Bring, it on, I think a national DNA database would be one of the best crime fighting tools we could ever have.

Ramrod

29-08-2003, 16:05

Originally posted by Graham
IF "someone has nothing to hide" THEN "they don't need to worry"

IF NOT "Someone has nothing to hide" THEN NOT "they don't need to worry"

Simplifying gives: IF "they have something to hide" THEN "They should worry"

QED.So you are saying that if someone has something to hide then they do need to worry? Sounds good to me!

So in order to get proof of your ID you have to, err, have proof of your ID...?!?! Naturally, how else would it work? Thats how the passport system works, dosn't it? We just need some secure system (probably multi layered) to establish id.

But *HOW* would a policeman, just from looking at your ID *KNOW* that Person X *IS* a criminal?? Because they are looking for people all the time. I get a lot of cops in who say that they have got someone in custody but they are not sure who he is. The id card would help immensly.

The only way this would work is for them to get in touch with their central database and say "Hello Control, I've just stopped a Mr Ramrod, do we have anything on record I can arrest him for?" Sounds good to me. It would pick up a lot of wanted criminals that way.

Presumption of Innocence? Not in this country anymore!! Dosn't bother me.

Again *how*? There are plenty of people working in the black economy already, picking fruit or potatoes or working in illegal sweat shops etc. How is having an ID card or not going to stop this? If an illegal was stopped and didn't have a card showing citizenship that would go a long way towards removing him/her from this country.

You consider the loss of the fundamental human right to be Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty to not be a "big deal"?!?! When it comes to showing a id card to a police officer for 10seconds, no, it isn't a big deal!

And if I steal your ID card and sell it to someone who looks enough like you (if there's a photograph on it) to fool a casual glance, you've just made it *much* easier to steal your identity unless *every* bank, building society, shop that offers instant credit and so on has a way of verifiying your fingerprint or retina scan (and the ID thief doesn't have a way of spoofing or faking this information)

"Sorry Mr Ramrod, but it was *your* ID that was used to purchase ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£10,000 worth of goods and services and since we *know* the system is secure, you're going to have to pay for them." But stuff like that already occurs with credit cards. An id card would add another level of security, which can only be a good thing.

Of course, the flip side of this is that if there *is* a failure in the system then you're going to have one *hell* of a job trying to *prove* your innocence because the ID scheme is "infallible"...!As I said, the info on the card needs to be easily verifiable by the cardcarrier so that he/she can highlite any errors.

f you think that that's an unlikely scenario, I suggest you do some research into some of the most famous (or should that be "infamous") examples of miscarriages of justice where people have spent long terms in prison for crimes which they didn't commit. But that comes down to legal system errors. Judges, juries, things like that.

Lets take your argument to it's extreme. Let's do away with all forms of id then. Society would fall apart. Lets have complete innocence untill proven guilty. No-one would be arrested on suspicion of a crime because police would not be allowed to suspect anyone in the first place. Because that would then be assuming someones guilt! Society would fall apart!

Graham

29-08-2003, 22:20

Originally posted by dellwear I think a national DNA database would be one of the best crime fighting tools we could ever have.

And so would tattooing an ID number on everyone's forehead and making hats or even fringes illegal!

You know, I find it astonishing that because we live in a reasonably tolerant (yes, honestly!) society which *does* have protections, that people seem not to understand just how important and valuable that tolerance and those protections *are*.

Just imagine, however, what abuses could be committed in the name of "security" or "freedom" or "crime prevention" by a government not very much further to the Right (if at all!) than Margaret Thatcher's.

Remember the Miners' Strike or the Poll Tax Riots or any one of many other examples of people standing up for their rights? Think for a moment what power a National DNA database and an ID card scheme would give to a government that decided to monitor all of us "for our own good".

Of course "only those with something to hide would have anything to fear", wouldn't they?

Well, wouldn't they??

Shaun

29-08-2003, 22:32

Originally posted by Graham
And so would tattooing an ID number on everyone's forehead and making hats or even fringes illegal!

I think thats a good Idea for crims, and then you could note the number down and put it into an on-line database and see just what they have been up to.

You could be sure that your kids were not playing with a paedophile then!:)

Graham, I'm sure you would think differently if a member of your family had been murdered (god forbid), but just if, and all the police had to go on was one small sample of DNA. Just enough to give a positive ID but alas the police database of known crims didn't come up with anything. The prospect of a national DNA database would look very different.

I think people are being over paranoid about these proposals.:spin: :spin: :eek:

Graham

29-08-2003, 22:40

Originally posted by Ramrod
So you are saying that if someone has something to hide then they do need to worry? Sounds good to me!

No, because this is a classic example of Spurious Logic whereby if you start from a faulty assumption you can "prove" anything you want (see the example someone posted elsewhere recently of apparently demonstrating that 2=1 because of a false assumption that division by zero gives a meaningful result).

In this case the false assumption is that by objecting to ID cards etc you *do* have "something to hide".

But *HOW* would a policeman, just from looking at your ID *KNOW* that Person X *IS* a criminal?

Because they are looking for people all the time. I get a lot of cops in who say that they have got someone in custody but they are not sure who he is. The id card would help immensly.

You've just dodged the question. Please try again.

If a policeman stops someone on the street and looks at their ID card, *how* would they know that person is a criminal?

The only way this would work is for them to get in touch with their central database and say "Hello Control, I've just stopped a Mr Ramrod, do we have anything on record I can arrest him for?"

Sounds good to me. It would pick up a lot of wanted criminals that way.

And how do they tell that "wanted criminal" from an innocent person? Or do you think the police have nothing better to do with their time than stop random people on the street?

How many "wanted criminals" do you actually think there are at large on our streets that such a tactic would "pick up a lot" of them?

Presumption of Innocence? Not in this country anymore!!

Dosn't bother me.

Only because I don't think you've really thought about that right and just how precious and important it is!

If an illegal was stopped and didn't have a card showing citizenship that would go a long way towards removing him/her from this country.

"I'm sorry, officer, I seem to have lost my ID card".

"A likely story, Mr Ramrod, you're going to be locked up and deported".

[Re: ID Theft]

But stuff like that already occurs with credit cards. An id card would add another level of security, which can only be a good thing.

So even though not *everybody* has a credit card, they should, none the less have, and pay for, a system to protect those who *do* have credit cards?!

the info on the card needs to be easily verifiable by the cardcarrier so that he/she can highlite any errors.

[Re: Miscarriages of Justice]

But that comes down to legal system errors. Judges, juries, things like that.

And yet, despite all the protections the system is supposed to offer, mis-carriages of justice still occur.

If an ID card system *proved* you were at location X when crime Y was committed, it matters little that you claim that you were actually at location Z and someone must have stolen your ID, because, of course, the system is perfect and infalla... infally... infalle... doesn't make mistakes!

Lets take your argument to it's extreme. Let's do away with all forms of id then. Society would fall apart.

Why? Prove it.

Lets have complete innocence untill proven guilty. No-one would be arrested on suspicion of a crime because police would not be allowed to suspect anyone in the first place. Because that would then be assuming someones guilt!

Nonsense. The police are not allowed to arrest anyone unless they have *reasonable grounds* for believing the person is guilty.

We have protections such as "presumption of innocence" because of the way the system has been abused in the past.

You might like to look up the expression "Lettre de Cachet" where the monarch or ruler would issue a warrant for someone's arrest with the stipulation that they could be arrested and *then* their property be searched and their affairs be investigated *until* evidence of a crime was found!

Society would fall apart!

Rubbish.

Graham

29-08-2003, 22:50

Originally posted by dellwear I think thats a good Idea for crims, and then you could note the number down and put it into an on-line database and see just what they have been up to.

What a great idea and, do you know what? There's even a historical precedent for it!

You know that business about when you swear an oath eg in court and "Raise your right hand"? Do you know why?

Because if you were a thief you would be branded with the letter "T" on your right hand so the Judge could see if you've been a naughty boy before!!

Of course if you'd done something like that when you were a foolish teenager, but had lived a life of utter moral rectitude ever since, or, even worse, that it was a case of mistaken identity and you were later acquitted you'd *still* be branded a thief!

Graham, I'm sure you would think differently if a member of your family had been murdered (god forbid), but just if, and all the police had to go on was one small sample of DNA. Just enough to give a positive ID but alas the police database of known crims didn't come up with anything. The prospect of a national DNA database would look very different.

How dare you make such an arrogant assumption about what my views would be if such a thing happened???

*I* have no idea how I would feel, so for you to glibly say "ah, but if this happend you'd think differently!" is a piece of monumental hubris!

And, for your information, the "clean up" rate for murders exceeds 90%, ie more than 90 in every 100 murders results in a conviction, so to try to "sell" a national DNA database on those grounds is another example of flawed logic.

I think people are being over paranoid about these proposals.

I think some people haven't thought far enough about the consequences of what such proposals could be.

Shaun

30-08-2003, 01:45

Graham, myabe if you dont read the Mail, maybe you write for them!:D

Ramrod

30-08-2003, 11:13

Originally posted by Graham
And so would tattooing an ID number on everyone's forehead and making hats or even fringes illegal!

So what?!? Thats not under debate:rolleyes:

Ramrod

30-08-2003, 11:40

Originally posted by Graham
[B]No, because this is a classic example of Spurious Logic whereby if you start from a faulty assumption you can "prove" anything you want. In this case the false assumption is that by objecting to ID cards etc you *do* have "something to hide". Well I don't hold that assumption either. So we agree on this?

Because they are looking for people all the time. I get a lot of cops in who say that they have got someone in custody but they are not sure who he is. The id card would help immensly.

You've just dodged the question. Please try again. Ok then, see below.

If a policeman stops someone on the street and looks at their ID card, *how* would they know that person is a criminal? The police know the names of people they need to find, if they stop someone that they have reasonable grounds to suspect is that person, they can then id him easily. Bleedin obvious really!

And how do they tell that "wanted criminal" from an innocent person? Or do you think the police have nothing better to do with their time than stop random people on the street? erm....they have names, descriptions etc....this is obvious, why do you need to ask? And why would they stop random people. I already said that the law would have to be explicit on when/how/why someone can be stopped. You keep ignoring this.

How many "wanted criminals" do you actually think there are at large on our streets that such a tactic would "pick up a lot" of them? Quite a few, I'd have thought.

Only because I don't think you've really thought about that right and just how precious and important it is! My right to not have to say to a policeman: 'why certainly officer, here's my card, all fine? Cheerio then'

"I'm sorry, officer, I seem to have lost my ID card".

"A likely story, Mr Ramrod, you're going to be locked up and deported". Like I said, this needs to be thought out and implemented really well so that this does not happen.

So even though not *everybody* has a credit card, they should, none the less have, and pay for, a system to protect those who *do* have credit cards?!This is a different argument, stick to the point.

And yet, despite all the protections the system is supposed to offer, mis-carriages of justice still occur.

If an ID card system *proved* you were at location X when crime Y was committed, it matters little that you claim that you were actually at location Z and someone must have stolen your ID, because, of course, the system is perfect and infalla... infally... infalle... doesn't make mistakes! But this happens already with the multiple systems that we have in place now. Maby the cards should hold some of our dna, making them even harder to forge.

Why? Prove it. Well...lets see....you wouldn't be able to get money out of the bank ('cos you couldn't prove that you are entitled to it), use a credit card (because you wouldn't be able to apply for one), buy/run a car (no driving licence), fly (no passport)......the list goes on

Nonsense. The police are not allowed to arrest anyone unless they have *reasonable grounds* for believing the person is guilty.

We have protections such as "presumption of innocence" because of the way the system has been abused in the past. then we/ the law/ the police need to learn from the mistakes of the past and implement safeguards against that, as I already said.

You might like to look up the expression "Lettre de Cachet" where the monarch or ruler would issue a warrant for someone's arrest with the stipulation that they could be arrested and *then* their property be searched and their affairs be investigated *until* evidence of a crime was found! But I am not suggesting that this is the way we should go about law enforcement.
:confused:
You are merely assuming the worst about our police, why?

Ramrod

30-08-2003, 11:43

Originally posted by Graham
And, for your information, the "clean up" rate for murders exceeds 90%, ie more than 90 in every 100 murders results in a conviction, so to try to "sell" a national DNA database on those grounds is another example of flawed logic.
I'm sure that that's a great comfort for the families of the other 10%:rolleyes:

Graham

30-08-2003, 21:27

Originally posted by dellwear
Graham, myabe if you dont read the Mail, maybe you write for them!:D

I think any Daily Mail reader would have a fit if I wrote for their newspaper and they found out what I do for a living!!

Hmm, on the other hand, that might not be such a bad thing... :)

Graham

30-08-2003, 21:57

Originally posted by Ramrod I don't hold that assumption either. So we agree on this?

We may do. Unfortunately there are an awful lot of people out there who don't seem to.

If a policeman stops someone on the street and looks at their ID card, *how* would they know that person is a criminal?

The police know the names of people they need to find, if they stop someone that they have reasonable grounds to suspect is that person, they can then id him easily. Bleedin obvious really!

Err, yes, but...

And how do they tell that "wanted criminal" from an innocent person? Or do you think the police have nothing better to do with their time than stop random people on the street?

erm....they have names, descriptions etc....this is obvious, why do you need to ask? And why would they stop random people. I already said that the law would have to be explicit on when/how/why someone can be stopped. You keep ignoring this.

No, but your arguments seem to be contradictory.

You say that "if they stop someone that they have reasonable grounds to suspect is that person, they can then id him easily" and you also say "the law would have to be explicit on when/how/why someone can be stopped".

But previously, when I said "The only way this would work is for them to get in touch with their central database and say "Hello Control, I've just stopped a Mr Ramrod, do we have anything on record I can arrest him for?", your response was "Sounds good to me. It would pick up a lot of wanted criminals that way."

Now how do you equate "the law would have to be explicit on when/how/why someone can be stopped" with it "sounding good" that a Policeman can stop someone at random and ask "do we have anything I can arrest them for?"

How many "wanted criminals" do you actually think there are at large on our streets that such a tactic would "pick up a lot" of them?

Quite a few, I'd have thought.

Care to back that "thought" up with any figures?

Only because I don't think you've really thought about that right and just how precious and important it is!

My right to not have to say to a policeman: 'why certainly officer, here's my card, all fine? Cheerio then'

I think you'd have to be astonishingly naiive if you *really* believe that such a thing would end there.

Like I said, this needs to be thought out and implemented really well so that this does not happen.

And the fact that even now, miscarriages of justice happen, rather demonstrates that such a thing, whilst eminently desirable, is practically impossible.

So even though not *everybody* has a credit card, they should, none the less have, and pay for, a system to protect those who *do* have credit cards?!

This is a different argument, stick to the point.

The point is that this is another reason (read: excuse) being given for why we should have ID cards.

We have protections such as "presumption of innocence" because of the way the system has been abused in the past.We have protections such as "presumption of innocence" because of the way the system has been abused in the past.
then we/ the law/ the police need to learn from the mistakes of the past and implement safeguards against that, as I already said.

Such as *not* giving up that right to presumption of innocence!!!

You are merely assuming the worst about our police, why?

Sorry, does the expression "Institutionally Racist" from the Stephen Lawrence enquiry not ring any bells with you?

From http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/04/week_3/22_race.html "Ten years after the failed investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the head of the Metropolitan Police's anti-racism unit says she believes the force remains institutionally racist."

Graham

30-08-2003, 22:05

the "clean up" rate for murders exceeds 90%

Originally posted by Ramrod
I'm sure that that's a great comfort for the families of the other 10%:rolleyes:

Ah, now here we have the "guilt trip" argument.

If you don't support a national DNA database, you could be helping someone get away with murder and it will be all your fault!

Pardon me if I say that's complete nonsense.

By that argument, we should also fingerprint everyone in the country at birth (and at regular intervals during their life) so that if a fingerprint is found at the scene of a crime there's none of that tedious looking for suspects, all we need to do is check the records and, bob's your uncle! we've got the crook.

And once again the presumption of innocence goes straight out the window.

Shaun

30-08-2003, 22:48

Originally posted by Graham
And once again the presumption of innocence goes straight out the window.

Thats not the case and you know it, its just convenient to put it in your argument. If my fingerprints were at the scene of a murder that murder was committed at 9.00am but I was in a meeting with 5 people between 6.00 am and 1.00pm then I'm proved Innocent.

The courts do not just take one piece of evidence and bang you up, its just not like that, and you know it.

If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then the police would not be able to stop anyone in the street for anything as they would be presuming them guilty.

I'm afraid that we do not live in an ideal world and things must be done to protect the law abiding in this country. There are criminals committing crimes right left and centre at the moment and it needs to stop, if this means introducing chipped passports, ID cards and increasing the punishments for crimes (not just longer sentences) then so be it, at least I and the rest of the country will feel better.

I'm afraid I have read some of your comments with disbelief, things like not believing society would fall into anarchy if we withdrew all types of ID altogether, come on.

Ramrod

31-08-2003, 21:09

Originally posted by dellwear
I'm afraid I have read some of your comments with disbelief, things like not believing society would fall into anarchy if we withdrew all types of ID altogether, come on. Yes, I note with interest that Graham chose not to reply to my points on that:D

Ramrod

31-08-2003, 21:33

No, but your arguments seem to be contradictory.

You say that "if they stop someone that they have reasonable grounds to suspect is that person, they can then id him easily" and you also say "the law would have to be explicit on when/how/why someone can be stopped". Thats right, the pc is walking his beat when he sees a person answering to the description of a wanted criminal, he consults his 'central database' or cerebrum (one or the other), and having reasonable suspision, stops the person and compares his id card to details held on 'puter. Whats wrong with that?

But previously, when I said "The only way this would work is for them to get in touch with their central database and say "Hello Control, I've just stopped a Mr Ramrod, do we have anything on record I can arrest him for?", your response was "Sounds good to me. It would pick up a lot of wanted criminals that way." I does sound good to me.

Now how do you equate "the law would have to be explicit on when/how/why someone can be stopped" with it "sounding good" that a Policeman can stop someone at random and ask "do we have anything I can arrest them for?" Because I don't care, but recognising that a lot of people would, I propose that the law be tightened to avoid this.

Care to back that "thought" up with any figures? Nope, that why I said 'I'd have thought'
but this (http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/search/display.var.406605.0.tax_dodgers_crackdown.php) is interesting. Just goes to show what you find if you just look, not a bad catch for 2 hours work was it?

I think you'd have to be astonishingly naiive if you *really* believe that such a thing would end there. I did say that I don't care but also recognise that the law would probably have to be tightened to prevent that, since a lot of people do care.

And the fact that even now, miscarriages of justice happen, rather demonstrates that such a thing, whilst eminently desirable, is practically impossible. I don't see how having very good proof of id means that we will get more miscarriages of justice. We always have had miscarriages and always will, id cards don't really have a lot to do with it either way (imo)

The point is that this is another reason (read: excuse) being given for why we should have ID cards.but you brought up the point!

Sorry, does the expression "Institutionally Racist" from the Stephen Lawrence enquiry not ring any bells with you? So you are saying that because the metropolitan police are institutionally racist, all other police forces should be denied a quick, easy way of verifying a persons id and people should be denied a easy way of providing proof of id in the many situations in modern life that demand it?

Stuart

31-08-2003, 21:49

Originally posted by Graham

By that argument, we should also fingerprint everyone in the country at birth (and at regular intervals during their life) so that if a fingerprint is found at the scene of a crime there's none of that tedious looking for suspects, all we need to do is check the records and, bob's your uncle! we've got the crook.

And once again the presumption of innocence goes straight out the window.

If used correctly, what is wrong with storing that kind of information?

Lord Nikon

31-08-2003, 21:57

Originally posted by scastle
If used correctly, what is wrong with storing that kind of information?

You answered that yourself.... IF used correctly....

Ramrod

31-08-2003, 22:03

Buy you haven't answered the question and are assuming that it wouldn't be used correctly.

Stuart

31-08-2003, 22:15

Originally posted by Lord Nikon
You answered that yourself.... IF used correctly....

True, I did say If used correctly. There would need to be systems in place to stop abuse.

So, assuming those systems would be in place, what is wrong with storing fingerprint information?

Shaun

31-08-2003, 23:35

If there was a voluntary national DNA/Fingerprint database that you could go and leave a sample with to help eliminate myself from crimes I'd have no problem going down the cop shop tomorrow morning and giving my samples.

Think how useful it would be, a woman gets raped, and a sample of DNA is found, the sample is cross matched with the samples in the database and there you have it, Mr blogs id picked up and the police can start to check his story and alibi.

There would be none of this ****ing about trying to identify, find and catch criminals that commit that sort of crime, it would make the polices life so much easer and they could then free up resources to get bobby's back walking the beat.

I really don't see how anyone who is law abiding and hasn't (and doesn't plan to) committed a crime can say with their hands on the hearts that a system LIKE the ones propose cant help fight crime. The police need all the help they can get with the **** that are out there committing crime.:mad: :mad: :mad:

Graham

01-09-2003, 00:06

Originally posted by dellwear

And once again the presumption of innocence goes straight out the window.
Thats not the case and you know it

Gosh, thanks for telling me what I know and don't know.

I don't know what I'd do if I didn't know what I know...!!!

its just convenient to put it in your argument. If my fingerprints were at the scene of a murder that murder was committed at 9.00am but I was in a meeting with 5 people between 6.00 am and 1.00pm then I'm proved Innocent. The courts do not just take one piece of evidence and bang you up, its just not like that, and you know it.

I suggest you read this transcript from a Panorama programme broadcast on the BBC a couple of years ago featuring people wrongly convicted on the basis of a *SINGLE* piece of evidence, ie a finger print.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_08_07_01.txt

So, please, spare me the arrogant assertions of what I may or may not know.

If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then the police would not be able to stop anyone in the street for anything as they would be presuming them guilty.

No, because that's not what I'm saying.

The facts are this:

The Police investigate a crime and gather evidence.

The Police arrest people on *suspicion* of crime.

The Police *cannot* arrest someone and *then* search for evidence of crimes they may have committed.

The Police *may* (subject to the stipulations of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act) stop and search someone if they have reasonable grounds that the person may be going to commit an offence (eg going equipped for a burglary).

The Police can *charge* a person with a crime if they feel there is reasonable grounds to believe that they did it.

The Police do *not* determine innocence or guilt.

However the implication of all the comments about "if you have nothing to hide" is that it is down to the person, not the Police, to *prove* that they have nothing to hide, rather than the Police having reasonable grounds to stop them.

I'm afraid that we do not live in an ideal world and things must be done to protect the law abiding in this country.

And I have no problems with that, *PROVIDED* it does not violate anyone's human rights.

And, yes, I *do* also support people's right to enjoy their lives free from crime, but violating *one* right to support another *does not* work.

There are criminals committing crimes right left and centre at the moment and it needs to stop, if this means introducing chipped passports, ID cards and increasing the punishments for crimes (not just longer sentences) then so be it, at least I and the rest of the country will feel better.

Now who's writing for the Daily Mail?!

However can you supply any *proof* that all the measure you mention actually *will* reduce the number of crimes committed?

(And don't argue that I have to prove that they *wouldn't*! You want them, you prove they will do the job)

I'm afraid I have read some of your comments with disbelief, things like not believing society would fall into anarchy if we withdrew all types of ID altogether, come on.

Sorry, where did *I* say anything about "withdrawing all types of ID altogether"? Please quote my exact words...

Graham

01-09-2003, 00:07

Originally posted by Ramrod
Yes, I note with interest that Graham chose not to reply to my points on that:D

Sorry, you want me to come up with quibbling arguments about a rather silly and unrealistic scenario which I never argued for in the first place?

Stuart

01-09-2003, 00:32

Originally posted by Graham

I suggest you read this transcript from a Panorama programme broadcast on the BBC a couple of years ago featuring people wrongly convicted on the basis of a *SINGLE* piece of evidence, ie a finger print.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_08_07_01.txt

Posted from the link above
NB: THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND
NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT: BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-
HEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL
SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY.

Having quoted that, reading through that it would seem to be dodgy basing any arrest on a single piece of evidence.

Graham

01-09-2003, 00:48

Originally posted by Ramrod

Now how do you equate "the law would have to be explicit on when/how/why someone can be stopped" with it "sounding good" that a Policeman can stop someone at random and ask "do we have anything I can arrest them for?"

Because I don't care,

Possibly because *you're* not one of the people who are liable to be stopped at random because of it??

Why is it that there seems to be such a habit for people to say "please pass this law to prevent *that person* from doing something which *I* know they shouldn't be doing?

Why doesn't anyone ever say "please pass this law to stop *me* from doing something I know I shouldn't be doing"???

but recognising that a lot of people would, I propose that the law be tightened to avoid this.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Care to back that "thought" up with any figures?
Nope, that why I said 'I'd have thought'

Didn't think so.

this (link) is interesting. Just goes to show what you find if you just look, not a bad catch for 2 hours work was it?

And your point is what, exactly?

It is an offence to drive a car on British streets without tax or insurance.

It is *not* an offence to walk, drive a car or even ride a pogo stick on British streets without any form of identity. However introducing an ID card scheme *would* make this an offence.

Oh and I would give good odds that they guy who was arrested was only arrested *after* they noticed the car had no insurance and *as such* had reasonable grounds to investigate further.

I don't see how having very good proof of id means that we will get more miscarriages of justice. We always have had miscarriages and always will, id cards don't really have a lot to do with it either way (imo)

See the link I posted a couple of messages ago to that transcript of a Panorama programme where people were convicted because fingerprint evidence is seen as "infallible".

If it's that difficult to argue against faulty fingerprint evidence, how much harder will it be to argue against an failure in the ID card system? And we've had around a century to get the fingerprint system right!

but you brought up the point!

Yes, I brought up the point that it's another phony argument for why ID cards are a "good thing"!

So you are saying that because the metropolitan police are institutionally racist, all other police forces should be denied a quick, easy way of verifying a persons id

Oh good grief! Are *you* seriously saying that because this only said that the *Metropolitan* Police are institutionally racist that *NO* other UK Policeforces suffer similar problems??

and people should be denied a easy way of providing proof of id in the many situations in modern life that demand it?

The vast majority of people have plenty of methods of identifying themselves *when* they need it.

The rest probably do too, but it's down to laziness on the part of banks etc that they don't know it.

For instance when I wanted to open a new business bank account, I had problems because I have no "photographic ID" ie driving licence or passport to "prove" who I am, despite the fact that there were half a dozen people in the bank who could identify me by sight!!

Eventually the bank dug out the officially acceptable forms of ID and discovered there were a whole bunch of *other* forms of documentation that could be accepted instead, but because they'd got lazy and most people had provided "passport or driving licence", they hadn't bothered to *think* about any of the others.

Unfortunately this is all too common and people have difficulties when they shouldn't have.

However even if there *was* an ID card system, I re-iterate that the criminal fraternity will, as they have with any other system, found a way to sidestep or falsify it so that, once again, it's the law abiding people who get the hassle (all in the name of "preventing crime"!) whilst the criminals laugh up their sleeves and go ahead with their activities anyway.

Graham

01-09-2003, 00:52

Originally posted by dellwear
[B]If there was a voluntary national DNA/Fingerprint database that you could go and leave a sample with to help eliminate myself from crimes I'd have no problem going down the cop shop tomorrow morning and giving my samples.

And what a wonderful idea that would be.

Unfortunately this, like the "mass DNA screenings" that have taken place in other rape cases mean that anyone who *doesn't* "voluntarily" provide a sample instantly becomes a suspect because, (oh look, here's that old expression again!) "they must have something to hide"!

I really don't see how anyone who is law abiding and hasn't (and doesn't plan to) committed a crime can say with their hands on the hearts that a system LIKE the ones propose cant help fight crime.

I suggest you pay a visit to sites like Amnesty International's and do a little reading on what happens when people's human rights are ignored or abused and then think again about just how *precious* the rights we have are.

Maybe then you'll be less inclined to want to throw them away.

Shaun

01-09-2003, 01:30

Lets do this one by one then.

Graham said And once again the presumption of innocence goes straight out the window

In response I saidThats not the case and you know it

Originally posted by Graham
Gosh, thanks for telling me what I know and don't know.

I don't know what I'd do if I didn't know what I know...!!!

Its really is clear that you don't know what you know. You prove me right later on in your own reply by saying
The Police do *not* determine innocence or guilt.
So what has your original comment about the presumption of innocence got to do with the argument in hand. Are you just saying these things for arguments sake or have you forgotten what you believe?

NEXT

I suggest you read this transcript from a Panorama programme broadcast on the BBC a couple of years ago featuring people wrongly convicted on the basis of a *SINGLE* piece of evidence, ie a finger print.

This is now about the failings of fingerprint ID, this is not relevant to the argument at hand.

NEXT

I said If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then the police would not be able to stop anyone in the street for anything as they would be presuming them guilty.

And you replied No, because that's not what I'm saying.

The facts are this:

The Police investigate a crime and gather evidence.

The Police arrest people on *suspicion* of crime.

The Police *cannot* arrest someone and *then* search for evidence of crimes they may have committed.

The Police *may* (subject to the stipulations of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act) stop and search someone if they have reasonable grounds that the person may be going to commit an offence (eg going equipped for a burglary).

The Police can *charge* a person with a crime if they feel there is reasonable grounds to believe that they did it.

But this is not the issue at hand, I was talking about your idea that we lose the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
You consider the loss of the fundamental human right to be Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty to not be a "big deal"?!?!

No one has said that this will change, just because you have an ID card in your pocket doesn't mean you will be stopped any more frequently than you do now. I really don't know where you get the idea from that this will change because of a little bit of plastic. As said earlier in the thread, you would not get stopped if the police do not have a valid reason to stop you.

NEXT

I said I'm afraid that we do not live in an ideal world and things must be done to protect the law abiding in this country.
And There are criminals committing crimes right left and centre at the moment and it needs to stop, if this means introducing chipped passports, ID cards and increasing the punishments for crimes (not just longer sentences) then so be it, at least I and the rest of the country will feel better.

You replied And I have no problems with that, *PROVIDED* it does not violate anyone's human rights.
And, yes, I *do* also support people's right to enjoy their lives free from crime, but violating *one* right to support another *does not* work.

I'm afraid there has been no human rights violated here, you will be stopped if the police have a valid reason to do so, this will be no different to now. WHATS CHANGED?

NEXT

You said However can you supply any *proof* that all the measure you mention actually *will* reduce the number of crimes committed?

Please notice the IF in my comment There are criminals committing crimes right left and centre at the moment and it needs to stop, if this means introducing chipped passports, ID cards and increasing the punishments for crimes (not just longer sentences) then so be it, at least I and the rest of the country will feel better.

I haven't said that it will, there is a big if, and the government will I'm sure carry out studies as to whether it will, however you are the one that has saidThe fact is, though, ID cards have been shown time and again to fail to do what is promised, they don't cut crime

So you prove it.

NEXT

your final comment was Sorry, where did *I* say anything about "withdrawing all types of ID altogether"? Please quote my exact words...

Im afraid I do not have time to go rummaging through the thread right now I'm off to bed.

On another note, please don't think I am being arrogant through all this I'm not the one who explained what 90% meant! :rolleyes:
I'm just putting my point across, it may not be the same as yours but it is an equally valid one, if not more so because I haven't contradicted myself through out the thread.

Ramrod

01-09-2003, 11:51

Originally posted by Graham
Sorry, you want me to come up with quibbling arguments about a rather silly and unrealistic scenario which I never argued for in the first place? I merely said that society as we know it couldn't function without id. You asked me to elaborate on that (twice). I elaborated, you ignored it. I'm not expecting anything more than an answer to that.

Ramrod

01-09-2003, 12:04

Originally posted by Graham
And what a wonderful idea that would be.

Unfortunately this, like the "mass DNA screenings" that have taken place in other rape cases mean that anyone who *doesn't* "voluntarily" provide a sample instantly becomes a suspect because, (oh look, here's that old expression again!) "they must have something to hide"!

Erm....yes, In a case like that they are either hiding something or they have a callous disregard for what the poor rape victim went through and helping bring his/her rapist to justice. In the first case they need to be under suspicion, in the second case they are demonstrating antisocial traits that (imo) are deplorable and so I don't care if they feel aggreived at being forced to give a dna sample.
...but we digress:D

Ramrod

01-09-2003, 13:01

Originally posted by Graham
[B]

Possibly because *you're* not one of the people who are liable to be stopped at random because of it?? That may be but I don't care if I am stopped at random. A chance to meet my local bobby.....

Why doesn't anyone ever say "please pass this law to stop *me* from doing something I know I shouldn't be doing"??? Theres a stupid question.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches them at the moment?

[/QUOTE]

Didn't think so. Like I said, my opinion.

And your point is what, exactly? My point is that if so many are caught in two hours for just car paperwork irregularities, just think how many people are walking about with drugs/knives on them.

However introducing an ID card scheme *would* make this an offence. Not necessarily, why?

Oh and I would give good odds that they guy who was arrested was only arrested *after* they noticed the car had no insurance and *as such* had reasonable grounds to investigate further. but they had no grounds to stop him in the first place, they set up a roadblock and stopped everyone.

See the link I posted a couple of messages ago to that transcript of a Panorama programme where people were convicted because fingerprint evidence is seen as "infallible".

If it's that difficult to argue against faulty fingerprint evidence, how much harder will it be to argue against an failure in the ID card system? And we've had around a century to get the fingerprint system right!someone else answered this point already.

Oops....gotta go to work now....answer the rest later:)

Chris

01-09-2003, 13:42

Originally posted by Ramrod
I merely said that society as we know it couldn't function without id. <snip>

True, but all forms of id currently in use are voluntary. Even passports - and I have no objection to biometric information in my passport per se. I do object, however, to the notion of a compulsory id card.

Passports, driving licences, credit cards and even company head office swipe cards are all ultimately voluntary. I have the choice to withdraw myself from the activity or situation which requires their use. A compulsory id card, which it is alleged will follow hard on the heels of a biometric passport, is quite different. Even if I choose to live a subsistence lifestyle on a croft somewhere in northern Scotland, with no bank account, no vehicle and never leaving the UK (i.e. no passport) I would still be required to hold an id card in case I am ever requested to prove who I am, and as a previously law-abiding citizen be criminalised merely for not having the card.

Innuendo that whispers 'must have something to hide' does nothing to advance a reasoned debate on the issue. Is it so difficult to believe that someone might value the right they currently hold to go about their lawful business in a private and anonymous manner? On the related issue of car tracking, for example, if I wish to drive from London to Glasgow, why should I have my every move along the way recorded, without my explicit permission?

Graham

01-09-2003, 19:17

Originally posted by dellwear

Its really is clear that you don't know what you know. You prove me right later on in your own reply by saying

The Police do *not* determine innocence or guilt.

So what has your original comment about the presumption of innocence got to do with the argument in hand. Are you just saying these things for arguments sake or have you forgotten what you believe?

Neither, and making ridiculous assertions like this out of context really does nothing to improve the credibility of your own arguments.

Let me put this back into context, quoted below is the remark that preceded my comment "And once again the presumption of innocence goes straight out the window" to which you responded "Thats not the case and you know it"

* * * * *

If you don't support a national DNA database, you could be helping someone get away with murder and it will be all your fault!

By that argument, we should also fingerprint everyone in the country at birth (and at regular intervals during their life) so that if a fingerprint is found at the scene of a crime there's none of that tedious looking for suspects, all we need to do is check the records and, bob's your uncle! we've got the crook.

* * * * *

You then followed this by saying "The courts do not just take one piece of evidence and bang you up, its just not like that, and you know it."

However I proved *you* wrong by producing evidence of cases were people *were* "banged up" because of "one piece of evidence".

You then followed this with a ridiculous assertion that "If we follow your argument to its logical conclusion then the police would not be able to stop anyone in the street for anything as they would be presuming them guilty."

Which prompted me to point out that the Police do not determine innocence or guilt, however as I have pointed out several times they are *expected* and *required* by our laws to presume people to *be* innocent *unless* they have reasonable grounds for suspecting otherwise.

Hence they *cannot* simply stop and search people at random *looking* for evidence of wrongdoing.

As you said: "NEXT"

This is now about the failings of fingerprint ID, this is not relevant to the argument at hand.

Wrong, as explained above.

Again, as you said: "NEXT"

You then said:

But this is not the issue at hand, I was talking about your idea that we lose the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty

Wrong, again as explained above.

You consider the loss of the fundamental human right to be Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty to not be a "big deal"?!?!

No one has said that this will change, just because you have an ID card in your pocket doesn't mean you will be stopped any more frequently than you do now. I really don't know where you get the idea from that this will change because of a little bit of plastic. As said earlier in the thread, you would not get stopped if the police do not have a valid reason to stop you.

If the ID card is compulsory, it will be an offence to *not* carry an ID card.

It therefore simply becomes a matter of the Polieman saying "I saw Mr Dellwear acting in a manner which I considered to be suspicious." I therefore requested him to show me his ID card. When he could not I arrested him."

Now, for instance, try substituting for "Mr Dellwear", "young black man with too much gold jewelery"...

This also answers your next point ie "What's changed", so I won't bother quoting that too.

Yet again: "NEXT"

can you supply any *proof* that all the measure you mention actually *will* reduce the number of crimes committed?

Please notice the IF in my comment

Yes, I noticed that.

I haven't said that it will, there is a big if, and the government will I'm sure carry out studies as to whether it will, however you are the one that has said
The fact is, though, ID cards have been shown time and again to fail to do what is promised, they don't cut crime
So you prove it.

Unfortunately you seem to have forgotten to quote my words "(And don't argue that I have to prove that they *wouldn't*! You want them, you prove they will do the job)"

Unfortunately the government has already *tried* this, but all the arguments they have put forward about how they would "cut crime" or "prevent illegal immigration" or "stop another September the 11th" have been less than convicing reasons for why we should surrender a basic right and they even failed to sneak them in with their infamous "stealth consultation" exercise because the public have come out *against* them.

your final comment was

Sorry, where did *I* say anything about "withdrawing all types of ID altogether"? Please quote my exact words...

Im afraid I do not have time to go rummaging through the thread right now I'm off to bed.

Well I'm sorry if it would keep you up past your bedtime, but *YOU* have made an accusation, so, since I *still* have the right to be presumed innocent at the moment, either *YOU* prove it or *WITHDRAW* it.

I'm just putting my point across, it may not be the same as yours but it is an equally valid one, if not more so because I haven't contradicted myself through out the thread.

If you had actually *managed* to prove I had contradicted myself you *might* have had a valid point.

Unfortunately you have singularly failed to do so as I have repeatedly demonstrated above, and, as such, you have done more damage to your own credibility than to mine.

As someone once said "NEXT"

Graham

01-09-2003, 19:21

Originally posted by Ramrod
I merely said that society as we know it couldn't function without id. You asked me to elaborate on that (twice). I elaborated, you ignored it. I'm not expecting anything more than an answer to that.

So I said "prove it", you proved it reasonably well enough that I saw nothing to argue against.

What do you want? A gold star? A signed piece of paper saying "Graham admits that Ramrod was right for once"??

Graham

01-09-2003, 19:28

Originally posted by Ramrod
this, like the "mass DNA screenings" that have taken place in other rape cases mean that anyone who *doesn't* "voluntarily" provide a sample instantly becomes a suspect because, (oh look, here's that old expression again!) "they must have something to hide"!

[B]Erm....yes, In a case like that they are either hiding something or they have a callous disregard for what the poor rape victim went through and helping bring his/her rapist to justice.

Ah, now perhaps you're not aware, but there's a logical fallacy known as the "false dilemma".

It happens when someone provides two options as if they were the *only* options available, and then tries to trap someone else into deciding between the two, hoping that they won't realise that there may also be options C, D, E and so on available or even just "none of the above".

I undestand there's a very good website out there that explains these things.

In the first case they need to be under suspicion,

"The rape was, of course, committed by a man, therefore we should suspect *all* men!"

(FX: Insert the sound of cheering Dworkinite Feminists here...)

in the second case they are demonstrating antisocial traits that (imo) are deplorable and so I don't care if they feel aggreived at being forced to give a dna sample.

No, they are demonstrating entirely *social* traits that they believe the right to be presumed innocent is too important to surrender, no matter what guilt trips or whispering campaigns other people may indulge in.

...but we digress:D

On the contrary, this is, once again, about the value of the right of presumption of innocence and that it is too precious to give up.

Graham

01-09-2003, 19:39

Originally posted by Ramrod I don't care if I am stopped at random. A chance to meet my local bobby.....

Let me guess, you're not young and black?

After all, everyone knows that most robberies and muggings are committed by young black men, therefore every young black man is a potential mugger or robber...

Why doesn't anyone ever say "please pass this law to stop *me* from doing something I know I shouldn't be doing"???

Theres a stupid question.

*WHY* is it stupid? Are you such a paragon of moral virtue that you have never done anything wrong or even slightly dubious?

Or don't you think the the laws and morals should apply to you?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who watches them at the moment?

Err, and your point is *what* exactly?

You "propose that the law be tightened to avoid this" (ie stopping and checking ID at random, especially in a racist manner), yet who is going to *enforce* that law?

Why, could it be the same Police Forces who are *already* deemed to be "institutionally racist"?

My point is that if so many are caught in two hours for just car paperwork irregularities, just think how many people are walking about with drugs/knives on them.

I'm sorry? Could you please supply something to demonstrate a logical correlation between these two??

Not necessarily, why?

they had no grounds to stop him in the first place, they set up a roadblock and stopped everyone.

Err, excuse me? So are you saying that, because they had "no grounds" for stopping these people, they shouldn't have? ie they should have presumed them innocent? I could have sworn that that was *my* argument!!

Graham

01-09-2003, 19:40

Originally posted by towny
Innuendo that whispers 'must have something to hide' does nothing to advance a reasoned debate on the issue. Is it so difficult to believe that someone might value the right they currently hold to go about their lawful business in a private and anonymous manner?

Hear hear!!

Ramrod

01-09-2003, 20:08

Originally posted by towny
True, but all forms of id currently in use are voluntary. Even passports - and I have no objection to biometric information in my passport per se. I do object, however, to the notion of a compulsory id card.

Passports, driving licences, credit cards and even company head office swipe cards are all ultimately voluntary. I have the choice to withdraw myself from the activity or situation which requires their use. A compulsory id card, which it is alleged will follow hard on the heels of a biometric passport, is quite different. Even if I choose to live a subsistence lifestyle on a croft somewhere in northern Scotland, with no bank account, no vehicle and never leaving the UK (i.e. no passport) I would still be required to hold an id card in case I am ever requested to prove who I am, and as a previously law-abiding citizen be criminalised merely for not having the card.

mmm.....I am also concerned as to how an id card could be introduced in such a way that it is not a criminal offence to not carry one. But I still think that if it is feasable to produce a secure card it's implementation should be thoroughly examined and not be dismissed out of hand in a knee jerk reaction.

Ramrod

01-09-2003, 20:13

Originally posted by Graham
So I said "prove it", you proved it reasonably well enough that I saw nothing to argue against.

What do you want? A gold star? A signed piece of paper saying "Graham admits that Ramrod was right for once"?? That would be nice occasionally, thats the way discussions normally go. A bit of give and take :)
.... and it would break up the the monotony of your normal overbearingly belligerent style:D

Ramrod

01-09-2003, 20:24

Erm....yes, In a case like that they are either hiding something or they have a callous disregard for what the poor rape victim went through and helping bring his/her rapist to justice.

Ah, now perhaps you're not aware, but there's a logical fallacy known as the "false dilemma".

It happens when someone provides two options as if they were the *only* options available, and then tries to trap someone else into deciding between the two, hoping that they won't realise that there may also be options C, D, E and so on available or even just "none of the above".Ok then, please supply me with another reason for such a persons reluctance to give his dna willingly ( a reason which does not put that person into either of those two categories)

No, they are demonstrating entirely *social* traits that they believe the right to be presumed innocent is too important to surrender, no matter what guilt trips or whispering campaigns other people may indulge in. In that scenario that reason is not good enough. Those actions could leave a rapist free to rape/traumatise/kill more women. But hell, as long as their presumed innocence is inviolate thats ok then........

Ramrod

01-09-2003, 20:44

Originally posted by Graham
Let me guess, you're not young and black? Why should age and colour make a difference?

After all, everyone knows that most robberies and muggings are committed by young black men, therefore every young black man is a potential mugger or robber...You said that, not me.

Theres a stupid question.

*WHY* is it stupid? Are you such a paragon of moral virtue that you have never done anything wrong or even slightly dubious?[/quote] Done a couple of stupid things in my teenage years. I wouldn't have done them if I knew there was a good chance of being caught. So that would have stopped me...and cut crime.

Err, and your point is *what* exactly? That the same people who watch them at the moment watch them in the future, with increased powers if neccesary.
You "propose that the law be tightened to avoid this" (ie stopping and checking ID at random, especially in a racist manner), yet who is going to *enforce* that law? Why, could it be the same Police Forces who are *already* deemed to be "institutionally racist"? Who else? And while they're at it they can clean up their house as well. You seem to have a very low opinion of the police. I know a lot of them and of those they are without exeption an really nice bunch of men and women doing a cr*ppy job in the face of much public enmity and outright hostility.

I'm sorry? Could you please supply something to demonstrate a logical correlation between these two??It shows that there is a lot of illegal sh*t going on out there that needs to be stopped.

Not necessarily, why? Now you are demonstrating 'a charming naivety'

Err, excuse me? So are you saying that, because they had "no grounds" for stopping these people, they shouldn't have? ie they should have presumed them innocent? I could have sworn that that was *my* argument!! No, I'm not saying they shouldn't have. It's ok by me that they did. I was making the point that they were doing what you think is wrong (stopping people without reasonable suspicion) and they stopped a lot of miscreants.

Shaun

01-09-2003, 21:37

Firstly Graham, please stop using the race card, it is rather inappropriate and unnecessary, the majority of people in this country are not racist, there may be issues with racism (I have never seen any) in the police but this is not the thread to discuss it.

Secondly, I really do not see the issue with having to carry an ID card in your pocket with you, at the end of the day IF (do you want me to put that in bold??) this sort of approach is going to cut crime then fine, bring it in as quickly as possible.

Thirdly, I don't ask for laws to come in to stop me from doing things for the simple reason I don't go out and : steal cars / bash old women / take or deal drugs / burgle people houses / assault people / rape people / or otherwise violate THEIR human rights. I have a brain and use it, I do not need to be protected from myself.

And FYI no I have NEVER committed a crime (to my knowledge) in my life.

You can try and tie me and others up in knots with words, and muddy the water bringing in superfluous arguments but the simple fact remains, I and others like me will rejoice the day they bring in new initiatives to help cut crimes in this country.:)

Nemesis

02-09-2003, 09:52

hear hear

Chris

02-09-2003, 10:14

Originally posted by dellwear
Secondly, I really do not see the issue with having to carry an ID card in your pocket with you

It would violate my right to choose to wear trousers with no pockets. It violates my right to lie on the beach with nothing with or on me other than a pair of swimming trunks.

Sorry if that seems flippant but it isn't meant to be. Why should I change some of the most fundamental, basic choices about my lifestyle? Demanding people carry an id card is an imposition on the life of every citizen of this country that is well out of proportion to the alleged 'threat'.

And in the population as a whole, fewer people than you seem to think will support an id card scheme.

Ramrod

02-09-2003, 10:41

Originally posted by towny
It violates my right to lie on the beach with nothing with or on me other than a pair of swimming trunks.

I suspect we wouldn't have to carry it in that situation:D

Ramrod

02-09-2003, 10:46

An anecdote:
Just talked to a probation officer. He was right behind the id card idea. It would make his job easier (and the job of the police police)
He also said that some of his 'boys' are now beginning to be arrested for crimes they commited a few years ago because the dna database is getting into full swing, this means that victims of those crimes are getting 'closure' and can start to effectively deal with what was done to them.

nighthawk

02-09-2003, 10:58

Don't know if this was brought up earlier (6 pages its to muc to read).

The card wont necesarly be compulsary, you could recieve a HORTY style request from the police (same idea as when you get stopped in your car) you would then have 72hrs to report to a police station with your ID. If you do not a warrant is raised for your arrest.

Chris

02-09-2003, 10:58

Originally posted by Ramrod
Just talked to a probation officer. He was right behind the id card idea. It would make his job easier (and the job of the police police)
He also said that some of his 'boys' are now beginning to be arrested for crimes they commited a few years ago because the dna database is getting into full swing, this means that victims of those crimes are getting 'closure' and can start to effectively deal with what was done to them.

The DNA database is a little different. You only get on it if you're convicted of something, exactly like fingerprints. When the database was established DNA was described as the 'fingerprint of the 21st century'. I'm happy to accept it as that.

id cards, on the other hand, would not be handed only to criminals but to law-abiding people who have given no reason to the authorities to suggest they need 'tagging'.

I'm sure the probation service would find it easier if everyone had id. But in an open, liberal society we have to accept there are limits to what you can impose upon people.

Ramrod

02-09-2003, 11:15

Originally posted by towny
I'm sure the probation service would find it easier if everyone had id. But in an open, liberal society we have to accept there are limits to what you can impose upon people. But the problem is that the very openness allows law abiding citizens to be preyed on more easily by criminals, what about my rights?

How many other countries have id cards? Anyone know?

Ramrod

02-09-2003, 11:16

Originally posted by nighthawk
Don't know if this was brought up earlier (6 pages its to muc to read).

The card wont necesarly be compulsary, you could recieve a HORTY style request from the police (same idea as when you get stopped in your car) you would then have 72hrs to report to a police station with your ID. If you do not a warrant is raised for your arrest. No, it hasn't been mentioned. That's an interesting idea. Sounds good:)

Chris

02-09-2003, 12:06

Originally posted by Ramrod
No, it hasn't been mentioned. That's an interesting idea. Sounds good:)

The police, with good cause, can already require you to satisfy them of your identity. Granted an id card would make this more straightforward, but in the vast majority of cases it's hardly impossible now, with credit cards, driving licences etc etc etc.

And yes, your rights are infringed when a crime is committed against you. But why does that give you the right to insist that the rights of 56 million others, most of whom are law abiding people, should be infringed by forcing them to have in id card? That's what's called using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Bifta

02-09-2003, 12:16

feh. David Blunkett has always been a pr*ck.

Ramrod

02-09-2003, 13:50

Originally posted by towny
The police, with good cause, can already require you to satisfy them of your identity. Granted an id card would make this more straightforward, but in the vast majority of cases it's hardly impossible now, with credit cards, driving licences etc etc etc. Probation officer said that there are too many cra**y forms of id about and that one standard one would help things a lot.[i/]

And yes, your rights are infringed when a crime is committed against you. But why does that give you the right to insist that the rights of 56 million others, most of whom are law abiding people, should be infringed by forcing them to have in id card? That's what's called using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However the nut in question is a very big problem (a coconut even:D) , in this country and id cards are [i]possibly a way to reduce that problem.

Anyway how would 56 million peoples rights be infringed? At the moment we can be stopped on the street anyway, and the issue of having to carry the cards could be resolved by the method suggested by nighthawk.

Graham

03-09-2003, 01:19

Originally posted by Ramrod
Ok then, please supply me with another reason for such a persons reluctance to give his dna willingly ( a reason which does not put that person into either of those two categories)

Umm, well, let me think...

Hmm, ok, here we go...

You have to understand this is just off the top of my head, you know, shoot me down in flames if you want, but how about because they consider it rather important that they are:

PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!!!!

If you have a *REASON* to suspect me of this crime, and *NOT* simply because I am male, then you *may* have grounds for asking for more information, checking alibis and *then* if they don't add up, getting a DNA sample.

Doing a mass screening *before* all the rest of this circumvents a large proportion of the legal requirements for proving a case.

In that scenario that reason is not good enough.

Yes, it is, just because you don't like it doesn't make it "not good enough", that just leads to witch hunts.

Those actions could leave a rapist free to rape/traumatise/kill more women.

Oh dear, here's the "guilt trip by association" argument. Yawn.

But hell, as long as their presumed innocence is inviolate thats ok then........

And what if *your* DNA turns up as matching because you'd been having an illicit relationship with that woman, but Mrs Ramrod didn't know anything about it?

Or if it's not your DNA, that of the local Chief Constable or MP or anyone else who wished to keep the details of their relationship out of the public eye?

Graham

03-09-2003, 01:33

Originally posted by Ramrod
Why should age and colour make a difference?

What was that expression again? Oh yes "institutionally racist".

Once again I point you to the abuse of the "Sus" laws in the 1980s.

*WHY* is it stupid? Are you such a paragon of moral virtue that you have never done anything wrong or even slightly dubious?

Done a couple of stupid things in my teenage years. I wouldn't have done them if I knew there was a good chance of being caught. So that would have stopped me...and cut crime.

Interesting expression there "wouldn't have done them if I knew there was a good chance of being caught.

Not that you *knew* it was wrong so you didn't do it, but you knew you'd probably get away with it, so you did it...!!!

That the same people who watch them at the moment watch them in the future, with increased powers if neccesary.

But if they can't keep control of them at the moment, what is there to say that they'll be able to do so in the future, even *with* "increased powers"?

You seem to have a very low opinion of the police. I know a lot of them and of those they are without exeption an really nice bunch of men and women doing a cr*ppy job in the face of much public enmity and outright hostility.

The police are like MPs. Individually they are, indeed, very nice, ordinary people, doing difficult jobs etc.

However as a group, the dynamic changes. The actions of one reflect on the actions of all and it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the entire barrel.

And when that stems from the top, ie once again, "institutional racism" then, yes, I have a low opinion of The Police.

It shows that there is a lot of illegal sh*t going on out there that needs to be stopped.

However, as I pointed out, statistically most of that "illegal sh*t" is being committed by young black males.

No, I'm not saying they shouldn't have. It's ok by me that they did. I was making the point that they were doing what you think is wrong (stopping people without reasonable suspicion) and they stopped a lot of miscreants. [/B]

You miss the point. They were *ONLY* stopping cars to check for valid tax/ mot/ insurance etc. Failing to have this *is* an offence.

The man who was arrested was *first* found to not have valid tax etc and *then* subsequently, was arrested when they checked and found he had an outstanding warrant.

The Police were *not* stopping people, checking their name and address details (ie their *identity*) and seeing if they were wanted for anything!

Graham

03-09-2003, 01:57

Originally posted by dellwear
Firstly Graham, please stop using the race card, it is rather inappropriate and unnecessary,

Firstly I am *NOT* "using the race card".

"Using the race card" is something done to try to *stop* an argument by presenting it as "not politically correct" to bring the issue of race into an argument.

Secondly it is *entirely* appropriate to this argument as I keep pointing out. If it was *not* then the Metropolitan Police would not have been described as "Institutionally Racist" after the Stephen Lawrence enquiry.

the majority of people in this country are not racist

At this point you may hear the sound of some rather cynical laughter from me:

'Nothing has changed,' says mother of Stephen Lawrence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,656299,00.html et seq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,653116,00.html

"Study reveals jobs plight of Muslims. Cabinet Office report highlights wide ethnic gap in jobs market "

Or http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/world/ukracism.htm

Or http://www.thechronicle.demon.co.uk/archive/voices.htm

Could it be that "the majority of people in this country" actually means "the majority of people that *YOU* know"

there may be issues with racism (I have never seen any) in the police but this is not the thread to discuss it.

Then what *IS* the thread to discuss it?

Let me point out the example of France, which has ID cards and where it is, AIUI, forbidden to stop and check people's ID at random:

From http://www2.newsquest.co.uk/local_london/greenwich/news/OPINION0.html

"I remember being stopped in France once. The police looked at me with suspicion as soon as they heard my English accent.

"But it was ten times worse for anyone Algerian or Moroccan. French police were blatant about singling them out for questioning."

Secondly, I really do not see the issue with having to carry an ID card in your pocket with you, at the end of the day IF (do you want me to put that in bold??) this sort of approach is going to cut crime then fine, bring it in as quickly as possible.

*IF* it is going to cut crime, you or anyone else who wants to assert that is going to have to come up with some *proof* of that assertion.

So far that proof seems to be sadly lacking.

Thirdly, I don't ask for laws to come in to stop me from doing things for the simple reason I don't go out and : steal cars / bash old women / take or deal drugs / burgle people houses / assault people / rape people / or otherwise violate THEIR human rights. I have a brain and use it, I do not need to be protected from myself.

Hooray for such a paragon of moral virtue!

Unfortunately you seem to have mis-understood the whole *purpose* of rights such as the presumption of innocence and things like "due process of law" and the fact that we have an independant judiciary and the fact that cases are tried in front of a jury of 12 people who are completely unconnected with the case.

Because *ALL* of those are designed and intended to protect us from ourselves and our own worst instincts!

Were we to *not* have those laws, then the lynch mob would rule. There would be no accountability. Justice would be delivered at the end of a rope from the nearest lamp post or the issuing of a "good kicking" (or a 12 bore shotgun in the back!)

Because, however, such things are now ingrained into our society, we don't realise how precious and fragile they are and what we risk by giving them up for what seems like security and safety, but isn't.

You can try and tie me and others up in knots with words, and muddy the water bringing in superfluous arguments but the simple fact remains, I and others like me will rejoice the day they bring in new initiatives to help cut crimes in this country.:)

And you can make as many claims as you want about my style of discussion (and I will shoot them down in flames just as I did the last time you tried this).

But the simple fact remains that whilst I, just as most anyone else, wants to see crime brought down, the methods that you propose will a) not have this effect and b) cause grave damage to the rights of those of us who are perfectly law abiding, but don't fit in with someone else's idea of "acceptability".

Graham

03-09-2003, 02:06

Originally posted by nighthawk
The card wont necesarly be compulsary, you could recieve a HORTY style request from the police (same idea as when you get stopped in your car) you would then have 72hrs to report to a police station with your ID. If you do not a warrant is raised for your arrest.

"Ah," says Mr Policeman "but what if I stop Mr Graham, but he says 'I'm Mr Nighthawk of 22 Acacia Avenue? How am I to know if he's telling the truth or not? After all, there's no point in taking his word for it if he's a criminal and there's nothing else I can check up on like a registration number!

"Nope, far better to make it compulsory, so I can nick him and ask questions later! It will make my life much easier and help us acheive the government's targets!"

The fact is this, any "voluntary" scheme will almost certainly be ineffective and the only way to *make* it effective is to make it compulsory.

And the last time we had a compulsory ID card scheme introduced was when we were at war, but despite the grandiose claims of "The War Against Terror" (should I abbreviate that?!) we are *NOT* at war at the moment and ID cards are *not* needed.

Graham

03-09-2003, 02:06

Originally posted by towny And yes, your rights are infringed when a crime is committed against you. But why does that give you the right to insist that the rights of 56 million others, most of whom are law abiding people, should be infringed by forcing them to have in id card? That's what's called using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Well said!

Stuart

03-09-2003, 10:12

Originally posted by Graham
Firstly I am *NOT* "using the race card".

"Using the race card" is something done to try to *stop* an argument by presenting it as "not politically correct" to bring the issue of race into an argument.

Secondly it is *entirely* appropriate to this argument as I keep pointing out. If it was *not* then the Metropolitan Police would not have been described as "Institutionally Racist" after the Stephen Lawrence enquiry.

At this point you may hear the sound of some rather cynical laughter from me:

'Nothing has changed,' says mother of Stephen Lawrence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,656299,00.html et seq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,653116,00.html

"Study reveals jobs plight of Muslims. Cabinet Office report highlights wide ethnic gap in jobs market "

Or http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/world/ukracism.htm

Or http://www.thechronicle.demon.co.uk/archive/voices.htm

Exactly what has Institutional Racism got to do with ID Cards? I believe that is a discussion for another thread.

ID Cards may be used as a reason to stop people, so are other things.

If you are going to use Racism as a reason to ban ID cards, perhaps you could ban any other reason the police could use to arrest someone? Driving Licences perhaps? Car Tax maybe?

Ramrod

03-09-2003, 11:36

Originally posted by Graham
Umm, well, let me think...

Hmm, ok, here we go...

You have to understand this is just off the top of my head, you know, shoot me down in flames if you want, but how about because they consider it rather important that they are:

PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!!!!

If you have a *REASON* to suspect me of this crime, and *NOT* simply because I am male, then you *may* have grounds for asking for more information, checking alibis and *then* if they don't add up, getting a DNA sample. Taking the time to check alibis of the male population of a small town would take too long, allowing the rapist time to destroy another womans life.

Oh dear, here's the "guilt trip by association" argument. Yawn. Absolutely. You should hang your head in shame if, as a community member, you don't do everything you can to apprehend a rapist in that community.

And what if *your* DNA turns up as matching because you'd been having an illicit relationship with that woman, but Mrs Ramrod didn't know anything about it? Thats tough then. Sh*t happens.

Or if it's not your DNA, that of the local Chief Constable or MP or anyone else who wished to keep the details of their relationship out of the public eye? Then they wouldn't be able to keep their relationship secret any longer. Tough for them.

Ramrod

03-09-2003, 12:19

Originally posted by Graham
What was that expression again? Oh yes "institutionally racist". So we should not introduce new measures because of that?

Once again I point you to the abuse of the "Sus" laws in the 1980s. That was 20 yrs ago. Move on.

Interesting expression there "wouldn't have done them if I knew there was a good chance of being caught.

Not that you *knew* it was wrong so you didn't do it, but you knew you'd probably get away with it, so you did it...!!!
Yes. I was young and stupid and wouldn't have done it if I could be id'd if caught. That seems to indicate that id cards would cut crime as I wouldn't have done it if they had been in use then.

But if they can't keep control of them at the moment, what is there to say that they'll be able to do so in the future, even *with* "increased powers"? and what is to say that they wont be able to control them. Don't know till it is tried.

The police are like MPs. Individually they are, indeed, very nice, ordinary people, doing difficult jobs etc.

However as a group, the dynamic changes. The actions of one reflect on the actions of all and it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the entire barrel. I don't think that a few bad police would/do slowly make an entire police force bad (like an unstoppable virus or something)

And when that stems from the top, ie once again, "institutional racism" then, yes, I have a low opinion of The Police.So you are tarring all police with the same brush? Not quite upholding the high ideals that you usually aspire to, are you?....like innocent until proven guilty?

However, as I pointed out, statistically most of that "illegal sh*t" is being committed by young black males. Well if thats true then the police are right in stopping more black males as a group. So whats your problem then?

You miss the point. They were *ONLY* stopping cars to check for valid tax/ mot/ insurance etc. Failing to have this *is* an offence. But they were stopping them before they had established reasonable suspicion. So only stopping people to check for drugs/knives is ok as well then. Since posessing them is illegal.

The man who was arrested was *first* found to not have valid tax etc and *then* subsequently, was arrested when they checked and found he had an outstanding warrant. and the origional reason for stopping him was speculative. They had nothing on him till they actually stopped him.....surely an argument for stop and search?

The Police were *not* stopping people, checking their name and address details (ie their *identity*) and seeing if they were wanted for anything! True, they were stopping people and checking if they were breaking the law, as opposed to checking to see if they had broken the law in the past. Whats the difference?

Graham

03-09-2003, 21:00

Originally posted by scastle
Exactly what has Institutional Racism got to do with ID Cards? I believe that is a discussion for another thread.

Sorry did you *read* those links and the fact that ID cards are being used to harass minorities?

If you are going to use Racism as a reason to ban ID cards,

Excuse me? What is this "Ban" business?? You "ban" something that *already* exists.

I am saying that ID cards are not necessary and should not be introduced. I am saying that they can be and are abused.

I am saying racism is just one reason why they should not be introduced.

perhaps you could ban any other reason the police could use to arrest someone? Driving Licences perhaps? Car Tax maybe?

I think you're trying to make a silly argument here, but since you bring up the subject, perhaps you'd care to read these:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2413979.stm

"Karl Josephs, a Birmingham disc jockey, said that in the past 10 years he had been stopped more than 40 times but had never been charged with an offence."

Or http://www.obv.org.uk/reports/2003/rpt20030811f.html

"Among cases of racism highlighted by the authority were an incident in which two officers on routine patrol stopped a car. While questioning the black driver, one officer told him: "You'd better sort your attitude out or you'll be sitting on your arse, you black *******." In interview, the officer denied using a racist remark. The police recommended no action be taken but the PCA held a hearing. The officer was found guilty of misconduct and fined. The second officer was cautioned for failing to challenge him."

Graham

03-09-2003, 21:12

Originally posted by Ramrod
Taking the time to check alibis of the male population of a small town would take too long, allowing the rapist time to destroy another womans life.

Oh dear, another absurd and irrational argument.

What if it was the "M1 Rapist", the guy who drove to different towns along the M1 to commit his rapes? You're pointing the finger of suspicion against every man in a town when the rapist doesn't even *come* from there!

And then those who prefer to stand by their civil rights and decline to give samples are subject to *more* supicion and then whispering starts "they must have something to hide..."

I'm sure that's a *great* way of building community spirit!!

You should hang your head in shame if, as a community member, you don't do everything you can to apprehend a rapist in that community.

And if the rapist doesn't even *COME* from that community???

Personally I think *YOU* should hang your head in shame if you really think that wholesale violation of people's most basic rights is actually going to *solve* anything.

And what if *your* DNA turns up as matching because you'd been having an illicit relationship with that woman, but Mrs Ramrod didn't know anything about it?

[QUOTE] Thats tough then. Sh*t happens [...]
Then they wouldn't be able to keep their relationship secret any longer. Tough for them.

Two glib answers that show that you *really* haven't thought about or understood the situation.

This sort of thing *destroys* lives and relationships and to dismiss it with such a facile comment is pathetic.

Even though they've broken no laws, they should be exposed to public shame and humiliation and risk their careers being destroyed because of what can best be described as a witch hunt.

Graham

03-09-2003, 21:32

Originally posted by Ramrod

What was that expression again? Oh yes "institutionally racist".
So we should not introduce new measures because of that?

We should not introduce new measures that will *permit* institutionally racist behaviour to continue!

Once again I point you to the abuse of the "Sus" laws in the 1980s.

That was 20 yrs ago. Move on.

And the Stephen Lawrence case was ten years ago, but as his mother points out, and the links I keep on posting also show, *STILL* nothing has changed!

It's all very well for *you* to say "move on", but that's because *you're* not someone who is affected by these problems, and clearly you don't *care* about them either.

Yes. I was young and stupid and wouldn't have done it if I could be id'd if caught. That seems to indicate that id cards would cut crime as I wouldn't have done it if they had been in use then.

Sorry? How would an ID card have stopped you doing it?

Your argument was that you wouldn't have done it (again I quote) "if I knew there was a good chance of being caught."

Not "if you knew you could be identified once caught", but "if there was a good chance of being caught".

This just demonstrates that, as I have pointed out, ID cards won't *stop* a crime being committed.

if they can't keep control of them at the moment, what is there to say that they'll be able to do so in the future, even *with* "increased powers"?

and what is to say that they wont be able to control them. Don't know till it is tried.

So you're arguing for something that would allow racist Police officers to harass and abuse racial minorities and, at the same time *hoping* that you can introduce measures that can "control" the situation?

(sings) "And there'll be pie in the sky, by and by..."

I don't think that a few bad police would/do slowly make an entire police force bad (like an unstoppable virus or something)

So you are tarring all police with the same brush? Not quite upholding the high ideals that you usually aspire to, are you?....like innocent until proven guilty?

Me? I beg your pardon, but did you miss the bit where I was *QUOTING* Commander Cressida Dick, the head of the Metropolitan police's anti-racism unit?

I am not saying this, *SHE* said it, and I think she should have some idea of what she is talking about, don't you??

statistically most of that "illegal sh*t" is being committed by young black males.

Well if thats true then the police are right in stopping more black males as a group. So whats your problem then?

WHOOOOSHHH!! (The sound of a point going *way* over Ramrod's head!)

They were *ONLY* stopping cars to check for valid tax/ mot/ insurance etc. Failing to have this *is* an offence.

But they were stopping them before they had established reasonable suspicion. So only stopping people to check for drugs/knives is ok as well then. Since posessing them is illegal.

This rather ignores the fact that, for instance, having someone conduct a physical search of your body for drugs/ knives is just a *little* more intrusive than checking the tax disc on the front window of your car...!

You *are* required by law to display a valid tax disc on the front of your vehicle. If you aren't, *then* the Police can investigate further.

This does *not* necessarily violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty, despite what you seem to be trying to imply.

and the origional reason for stopping him was speculative. They had nothing on him till they actually stopped him.....surely an argument for stop and search?

See above.

True, they were stopping people and checking if they were breaking the law, as opposed to checking to see if they had broken the law in the past. Whats the difference?

I'll give you a clue. Four words, starts with I.U.P.G...

Stuart

03-09-2003, 22:10

Originally posted by Graham
Sorry did you *read* those links and the fact that ID cards are being used to harass minorities?

You have provided links that say there is a problem with racism in this country and also the police. That I can not, and will not deny. There is racism in this country, I have friends who have experienced it.

What I am saying is that ID cards are just one more excuse for Racist police to stop minorities. Racism needs to be stopped.

Excuse me? What is this "Ban" business?? You "ban" something that *already* exists.
Bad choice of words. I meant to say Stop the introduction of ID cards.

I am saying that ID cards are not necessary and should not be introduced. I am saying that they can be and are abused.

I am saying racism is just one reason why they should not be introduced.

Racism is one reason. Please enlighten me as to the others.

I think you're trying to make a silly argument here, but since you bring up the subject, perhaps you'd care to read these:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2413979.stm

"Karl Josephs, a Birmingham disc jockey, said that in the past 10 years he had been stopped more than 40 times but had never been charged with an offence."

Or http://www.obv.org.uk/reports/2003/rpt20030811f.html

"Among cases of racism highlighted by the authority were an incident in which two officers on routine patrol stopped a car. While questioning the black driver, one officer told him: "You'd better sort your attitude out or you'll be sitting on your arse, you black *******." In interview, the officer denied using a racist remark. The police recommended no action be taken but the PCA held a hearing. The officer was found guilty of misconduct and fined. The second officer was cautioned for failing to challenge him."

Yes, they were silly examples. They are, however, other reasons racist police can use to stop people.

The examples you have given have all happened in this country. A country that does not have national ID cards. Do you have any evidence that ID cards would make things worse in this country? You give the example of the French. That may or may not happen here.

ID cards, like anything, have their good and bad points.

I think we need some sort of small scale trial (say in a couple of towns under different police forces) to assess whether the good points outweigh the bad.

homealone

03-09-2003, 22:36

I'm quite ambivalent about all this - but...

I do use a credit card, which can be tracked & is sometimes asked for as identity/proof of age.

I use a debit card which can be tracked.

I have a "photo" driving licence.

I have a phone card

I have a passport with another photo

I wouldn't mind if the above functions could be built into a single secure card.

- would it be an "identity" card, though?

- at least I don't use a mobile phone, how many of the people that have posted protesting privacy issues use one, I wonder?
As the Hamilton's court case demonstrated a mobile is a very good location tracker;)

Ramrod

03-09-2003, 22:37

Originally posted by Graham
Oh dear, another absurd and irrational argument. Not so...

What if it was the "M1 Rapist", the guy who drove to different towns along the M1 to commit his rapes? You're pointing the finger of suspicion against every man in a town when the rapist doesn't even *come* from there! Spurious argument on your part - the police knew that they had a rapist who moved about, therefore they wouldn't have tried to dna an entire population as they knew that he moved about. Credit them with some intellegence!

And then those who prefer to stand by their civil rights and decline to give samples are subject to *more* supicion and then whispering starts "they must have something to hide..." I say again, in that situation, if they don't want to submit a voluntary sample to help catch a rapist, yes they must be hiding something or deserve not to be part of that community.

And if the rapist doesn't even *COME* from that community??? Then the police can be satisfied that they need to look elsewhere, thus helping them get closer to their quarry.

Personally I think *YOU* should hang your head in shame if you really think that wholesale violation of people's most basic rights is actually going to *solve* anything. What about the rapists next victims rights? Or is the right not to be raped and traumatised less important than your right not to give a poxy dna sample? How do you feel knowing that you put your right to not give a swab of your saliva above a womans right not to be raped.....? I personally would relinquish my rights, in a second, in order to help put a rapist in prison. I guess thats where we differ.....

Two glib answers that show that you *really* haven't thought about or understood the situation. I thought about them carefully. I personally feel that adultery is despicable and beneath contempt. If you want to 'play away', get a divorce first!

This sort of thing *destroys* lives and relationships and to dismiss it with such a facile comment is pathetic. Don't be silly, the adulterer destroys the relationship! The fact that they were caught out is neither here nor there!

You do somewhat appear to be condoning adultery, as long as it's not found out.......

Even though they've broken no laws, they should be exposed to public shame and humiliation and risk their careers being destroyed because of what can best be described as a witch hunt. They have broken religious laws, which they probably profess to observe. I want my politicians to be pretty straight and honest. If they lie to their spouses I can be pretty sure that they will lie to their voters as well!

Ramrod

03-09-2003, 22:42

Originally posted by scastle
I think we need some sort of small scale trial (say in a couple of towns under different police forces) to assess whether the good points outweigh the bad. Now thats a good idea!:)

Ramrod

03-09-2003, 23:20

Originally posted by Graham
So we should not introduce new measures because of that?

We should not introduce new measures that will *permit* institutionally racist behaviour to continue! Wether we have id cards or not, the behaviour will or will not continue regardless! The two are not linked.

And the Stephen Lawrence case was ten years ago, but as his mother points out, and the links I keep on posting also show, *STILL* nothing has changed! The case was a terrible one and the perpetrators were **** ( I think that the police got the correct ones) but that just emphasises the point that the mother of the victim is hardly impartial and is not really a good person to quote about racism.

It's all very well for *you* to say "move on", but that's because *you're* not someone who is affected by these problems, and clearly you don't *care* about them either. As far as I am aware, the SPG was disbanded soon after those events. Therefore, it's in the past! Move on.

Sorry? How would an ID card have stopped you doing it?

Your argument was that you wouldn't have done it (again I quote) "if I knew there was a good chance of being caught."

Not "if you knew you could be identified once caught", but "if there was a good chance of being caught". Caught is one thing. Identified once caught is another. Especially for a minor. Parents can't find out unless your identified, you see.

So you're arguing for something that would allow racist Police officers to harass and abuse racial minorities and, at the same time *hoping* that you can introduce measures that can "control" the situation? No, I am arguing for something that would allow police officers to do their job more effectively, with less paperwork and less time off the streets processing suspects. Do you know how long it takes to process somebody? About 6 hours! Time that could be spent on the streets preventing crime! All for the want of being able to quickly identify that the person in front of the officer is not the person the officer is looking for!

Me? I beg your pardon, but did you miss the bit where I was *QUOTING* Commander Cressida Dick, the head of the Metropolitan police's anti-racism unit?

I am not saying this, *SHE* said it, and I think she should have some idea of what she is talking about, don't you?? Well the met is one of 43 police forces in England and Wales.....I still say that you are tarring them all with the same brush and not upholding the high ideals that you profess to.

WHOOOOSHHH!! (The sound of a point going *way* over Ramrod's head!) Not with you there, please explain.

This rather ignores the fact that, for instance, having someone conduct a physical search of your body for drugs/ knives is just a *little* more intrusive than checking the tax disc on the front window of your car...! Your argument was that people have a right to not be stopped in the first place.
You *are* required by law to display a valid tax disc on the front of your vehicle. If you aren't, *then* the Police can investigate further. Are you so, how did you put it -charmingly naive? that you think a police officer can't spot a suspicious character who when searched will very likely turn up drugs?

This does *not* necessarily violate the principle of innocent until proven guilty, despite what you seem to be trying to imply. Well, I'm glad that you agree with me that being stopped for no reason dosn't necessarily violate the principle of innocent untill proven guilty. Now that wasn't so hard to agree to was it?

I'll give you a clue. Four words, starts with I.U.P.G... Don't mess about, just write it out in full.....:rolleyes:

Chris

04-09-2003, 09:39

Originally posted by homealone
<snip>
- at least I don't use a mobile phone, how many of the people that have posted protesting privacy issues use one, I wonder?
As the Hamilton's court case demonstrated a mobile is a very good location tracker;)

Mobile Phone records are a controversial area ... the system was not designed to allow tracking of individuals, but it wasn't very long before someone realised it could be used that way. The problem is there is no law or regulation controling how these records are used. Generally the phone companies will only give the information to the police, although it is said the police are collecting this information almost as a matter of routine in enquiries now so there is some justification for saying legislation needs to be passed. Another problem is that recent (failed) Government snooping laws tried to give all kinds of people - including fairly low-grade local council officers - the right to get hold of personal information about you, including mobile phone records. This would have been wide open to abuse.

Graham

04-09-2003, 21:07

Originally posted by scastle

I am saying that ID cards are not necessary and should not be introduced. I am saying that they can be and are abused.

I am saying racism is just one reason why they should not be introduced.

Racism is one reason. Please enlighten me as to the others.

May I refer you to the previous messages that I've written through this thread because I don't feel like repeating myself and doing the same arguments over again!

Yes, they were silly examples.

Thank you for admitting it.

The examples you have given have all happened in this country. A country that does not have national ID cards. Do you have any evidence that ID cards would make things worse in this country? You give the example of the French. That may or may not happen here.

It may not. It could. Personally I'd prefer to avoid the possibility even occurring.

ID cards, like anything, have their good and bad points.

Yes, however I believe that the fundamental loss of rights that they represent, such as the right to go about my lawful business without let or hinderance would outweigh any putative short term gain in the reduction of levels of crime before the criminal fraternity find a way to beat the system.

I think we need some sort of small scale trial (say in a couple of towns under different police forces) to assess whether the good points outweigh the bad.

I think that unless someone can *demonstrably* prove that the good points substantially outweigh the bad ones, *before* any such trials, there is no way such a trial should ever even go ahead.

Graham

04-09-2003, 21:21

Originally posted by Ramrod

What if it was the "M1 Rapist", the guy who drove to different towns along the M1 to commit his rapes? You're pointing the finger of suspicion against every man in a town when the rapist doesn't even *come* from there![

QUOTE] Spurious argument on your part - the police knew that they had a rapist who moved about, therefore they wouldn't have tried to dna an entire population as they knew that he moved about. Credit them with some intellegence!

And what if the *rapist* has some intelligence too?

What if he commits a few rapes in once place, then, when it gets too hot there because the Police go for DNA testing, he just moves on to somewhere else. And again. And again?

Eventually DNA testing might catch him, but in the mean time you've just inspired suspicion and witch hunting in all the places where he committed his crimes which is the *last* thing they need!

I say again, in that situation, if they don't want to submit a voluntary sample to help catch a rapist, yes they must be hiding something or deserve not to be part of that community.

And I say this is a load of rubbish!

I would refuse to give a sample. I have nothing to hide, but neither do I *deserve* to be ostracised from the place where I live or the job I do because of it!

Paging Senator Joseph McCarthy...!

What about the rapists next victims rights? Or is the right not to be raped and traumatised less important than your right not to give a poxy dna sample?

This is yet another fallacious argument. You are saying that because your example has such a terrible result, I should change my viewpoint as if it were a reasoned argument. See the definition of "Appeal to Emotion" for more information.

Even though they've broken no laws, they should be exposed to public shame and humiliation and risk their careers being destroyed because of what can best be described as a witch hunt.

They have broken religious laws

Sorry, I don't recognise the court in which those are judged.

which they probably profess to observe.

If they do, they're hypocrites and I have no sympathy for them.

However even if they do not, if they are in a high placed public opinion, the resulting "media backlash" will almost certainly result in the destruction of their career or relationship.

I want my politicians to be pretty straight and honest. If they lie to their spouses I can be pretty sure that they will lie to their voters as well!

How do you tell if a politician is lying?!

Graham

04-09-2003, 21:43

Originally posted by Ramrod

Wether we have id cards or not, the behaviour will or will not continue regardless! The two are not linked.

ID cards will *facilitate* it. Therefore there is a link. QED.

The case was a terrible one and the perpetrators were **** ( I think that the police got the correct ones) but that just emphasises the point that the mother of the victim is hardly impartial and is not really a good person to quote about racism.

Very true, and if that was the *only* example I had quoted, you might have a point. Unfortunately I've posted a lot of *other* examples which demonstrate that the situation has not improved.

Therefore, despite what you assert, we can't "move on" until we have *dealt* with the problem and ID cards are *not* going to help, they are only going to hinder.

Caught is one thing. Identified once caught is another. Especially for a minor. Parents can't find out unless your identified, you see.

And are you *really* telling me that, as a minor, you would actually have *thought* about such things??? Frankly I doubt it.

No, I am arguing for something that would allow police officers to do their job more effectively, with less paperwork and less time off the streets processing suspects. Do you know how long it takes to process somebody? About 6 hours! Time that could be spent on the streets preventing crime! All for the want of being able to quickly identify that the person in front of the officer is not the person the officer is looking for!

You are conflating two entirely separate issues here. Yes, I agree that our Police are being snowed under with excessive and unnecessary, politically inspired, paperwork.

However you are arguing for introducing an ID to allow an officer to check your details *on the street* which does *not* involve the paperwork.

Well the met is one of 43 police forces in England and Wales.....I still say that you are tarring them all with the same brush and not upholding the high ideals that you profess to.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1315657.stm "A report into the murder of Asian waiter Surjit Singh Chhokar is expected to say the Strathclyde Police force is "institutionally racist", it has been claimed."

From: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_815872.html?menu= "An Asian-born policeman was victimised by senior officers because of his race, an employment tribunal has decided.Pc Sadruddin Husain, 43, took Merseyside Police to the tribunal in Liverpool after he was disciplined for failing to explain a parking ticket picked up while on duty"

From: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_754911.html?menu= "A police force has urged the public to report officers they believe are racist. South Wales Police has published posters with a confidential complaints number."

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,527306,00.html "Amnesty International today condemned the government for its "absolutely inadequate" response to allegations of police brutality and deaths in custody. [...] "Amnesty International's research has shown that the police target the black community with particular practices such as stop and search operations. Black people faced more serious charges for the same offences than whites, were less likely to be just cautioned and were more likely to be imprisoned."

Do I need to continue? There's plenty more where those came from.

statistically most of that "illegal sh*t" is being committed by young black males.

Well if thats true then the police are right in stopping more black males as a group. So whats your problem then?

Not with you there,

Clearly!

please explain.

<Sigh>

Just because statistically the number of crimes committed by black males is greater does *NOT* justify stopping more black males "because they're more likely to be criminals"!

It's that innocent until proven guilty thing again, you see.

Are you so, how did you put it -charmingly naive? that you think a police officer can't spot a suspicious character who when searched will very likely turn up drugs?

Oh ye gods! How many times do I have to explain this??

Are *you* so charmingly naive to think that they will have the real world equivalent of a striped shirt, a black mask and a bag with "swag" written on it?

As I've pointed out before, looking "suspicious" could be a matter of simply wearing the wrong clothes or being the wrong colour in the wrong area. Or having even a face that a police officer doesn't like. Or driving a flash car.

Well, I'm glad that you agree with me that being stopped for no reason dosn't necessarily violate the principle of innocent untill proven guilty. Now that wasn't so hard to agree to was it?

Well done! You can paint a gold star on the side of your monitor!

Stuart

04-09-2003, 22:04

Originally posted by Graham
[QUOTE]

I think that unless someone can *demonstrably* prove that the good points substantially outweigh the bad ones, *before* any such trials, there is no way such a trial should ever even go ahead.

The whole point of such a trial would be to see if the good points outweigh the bad. If somebody can demonstrably prove that the good points outweigh the bad (or the other way around), the trial would be pointless.

Ramrod

04-09-2003, 22:07

Yes, however I believe that the fundamental loss of rights that they represent, such as the right to go about my lawful business without let or hinderance would outweigh any putative short term gain in the reduction of levels of crime before the criminal fraternity find a way to beat the system. So you do feel that there would be a decrease in crime?

I think that unless someone can *demonstrably* prove that the good points substantially outweigh the bad ones, *before* any such trials, there is no way such a trial should ever even go ahead. [/B] WTF not? Think of it as a short term experiment. Or are you scared that it might work?

Ramrod

04-09-2003, 22:26

Originally posted by Graham
[B]And what if the *rapist* has some intelligence too?

What if he commits a few rapes in once place, then, when it gets too hot there because the Police go for DNA testing, he just moves on to somewhere else. And again. And again?

Eventually DNA testing might catch him, but in the mean time you've just inspired suspicion and witch hunting in all the places where he committed his crimes which is the *last* thing they need! As I already said, the police would not use widespread dna testing in a case like that. Therefore your argument is not valid!

And I say this is a load of rubbish!

I would refuse to give a sample. I have nothing to hide, but neither do I *deserve* to be ostracised from the place where I live or the job I do because of it!No, you would be ostracised because you didn't want to help protect women and help put a rapist behind bars, just because your sensibility didn't allow you to give a swab of saliva. You deserve it.

This is yet another fallacious argument. You are saying that because your example has such a terrible result, I should change my viewpoint as if it were a reasoned argument. See the definition of "Appeal to Emotion" for more information. You should change your viewpoint precisely because my example has such a terrible result.
Sorry, I don't recognise the court in which those are judged. A good cop-out! What about morally good conduct then? Or don't you recognise that either?

If they do, they're hypocrites and I have no sympathy for them. Good......
However even if they do not, if they are in a high placed public opinion, the resulting "media backlash" will almost certainly result in the destruction of their career or relationship. Well they shouldn't have scr*w*d around then! Their own fault!

How do you tell if a politician is lying?! Is this the first line of a joke?:D
You can't, but if he's lied to his wife then he is not to be trusted with much else either!

Ramrod

04-09-2003, 23:06

Originally posted by Graham
ID cards will *facilitate* it. Therefore there is a link. QED. Only if it is allowed to happen. Forewarned is forearmed....

Very true, and if that was the *only* example I had quoted, you might have a point. Unfortunately I've posted a lot of *other* examples which demonstrate that the situation has not improved.

Therefore, despite what you assert, we can't "move on" until we have *dealt* with the problem and ID cards are *not* going to help, they are only going to hinder. I agree, it would be nice if we could deal with the problem first and also make it a perfect world first, but thats possibly some way off. So we can at least try to improve things in other departments and id cards are a good start. If we wait for conditions to be perfect we will just be paralised by current (and probably future) circumstances.

And are you *really* telling me that, as a minor, you would actually have *thought* about such things??? Frankly I doubt it. ;) :D
You are conflating two entirely separate issues here. Yes, I agree that our Police are being snowed under with excessive and unnecessary, politically inspired, paperwork.

However you are arguing for introducing an ID to allow an officer to check your details *on the street* which does *not* involve the paperwork. Exactly! Therefore cutting down on time wasted on paperwork! You see my point.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1315657.stm "A report into the murder of Asian waiter Surjit Singh Chhokar is expected to say the Strathclyde Police force is "institutionally racist", it has been claimed." Expected to say. Not said it yet then?

From: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_815872.html?menu= "An Asian-born policeman was victimised by senior officers because of his race, an employment tribunal has decided.Pc Sadruddin Husain, 43, took Merseyside Police to the tribunal in Liverpool after he was disciplined for failing to explain a parking ticket picked up while on duty" Thats one officer. In a force of how many? I'd like to see how many white officers took that force to the tribunal as well. Maby he was just very unpopular? Do we know the whole story? No!

From: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_754911.html?menu= "A police force has urged the public to report officers they believe are racist. South Wales Police has published posters with a confidential complaints number."Thats good, the South Wales police are being proactive with regards to the problem. Looks like they have the welfare of racial minorities well in mind. Whats your problem with this then?

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,527306,00.html "Amnesty International today condemned the government for its "absolutely inadequate" response to allegations of police brutality and deaths in custody. [...] "Amnesty International's research has shown that the police target the black community with particular practices such as stop and search operations. Black people faced more serious charges for the same offences than whites, were less likely to be just cautioned and were more likely to be imprisoned." Those are allegations of brutality...innocent untill proven guilty....remember?

Do I need to continue? There's plenty more where those came from. Please do. I've just demolished the above examples.

Just because statistically the number of crimes committed by black males is greater does *NOT* justify stopping more black males "because they're more likely to be criminals"! So If you know that a certain part of the population is commiting more crimes then you would be foolish if you didn't keep a closer eye on that part. Seems more like common sense to me!

It's that innocent until proven guilty thing again, you see. But you've already agreed that stopping people is ok in some circumstances.

Oh ye gods! How many times do I have to explain this??

Are *you* so charmingly naive to think that they will have the real world equivalent of a striped shirt, a black mask and a bag with "swag" written on it? You mean that you are so naive that you can't spot a drug dealer at 100 yards? Well if you can't I bet the police can! It' their job to!:rofl:
Much like some people can easily spot plainclothes police.....
As I've pointed out before, looking "suspicious" could be a matter of simply wearing the wrong clothes or being the wrong colour in the wrong area. Or having even a face that a police officer doesn't like. Or driving a flash car. Credit them with a bit more professionalism please. These are people trying to protect you and me.

Well done! You can paint a gold star on the side of your monitor! I will only do that on the day that you properly acknowledge that I am right on a point. Rather than making a snide remark or just ignoring my point!
:rolleyes: :D

Shaun

05-09-2003, 01:36

Originally posted by Ramrod
I will only do that on the day that you properly acknowledge that I am right on a point. Rather than making a snide remark or just ignoring my point!
:rolleyes: :D

Nice that it's not just me he does it too, should we create a club??:) :D ;)

Graham

05-09-2003, 21:49

Originally posted by Ramrod

I believe that the fundamental loss of rights that they represent, such as the right to go about my lawful business without let or hinderance would outweigh any putative short term gain in the reduction of levels of crime before the criminal fraternity find a way to beat the system.

So you do feel that there would be a decrease in crime?

There *could* be, yes. There exists a possibility, therefore it would be illogical to deny it.

However there *could* also be an increase in Racial Harassment, people being convicted of crimes they didn't commit based on faulty evidence and, after all that, the situation *would* end up with the criminal fraternity finding a way to beat the system whilst the law abiding majority have lost a precious right.

Or are you scared that it might work?

No, I'm scared that our oh-so-trustworthy government would find a way to try to *claim* that it had worked, just like they did with their stealth consultation exercise on ID cards that claimed false figures for the number of people that supported it by insisting that five *thousand* objections were *one* petition, so *one* vote!

Ramrod

05-09-2003, 22:01

Two interesting conversations today:
The first was with a recent ex-junkie/recent jailbird. I asked him wether he thought that id cards were a good idea. Without hesitation, her replied yes. This is a man who has served time for abh, been a drug addict and a burglar. Even he thinks that id cards would be a good thing. (he's 'going straight' now, rehab/counselling etc.)

The second was with a policeman. He too thought that id cards were a good idea, provided that they were backed by solid legislation outlining when/how/why they should be required to be produced. He said that they might actually decrease the number of people being arrested. This is why: If the poice stop a character and are given what they suspect is a false name/address, they then have to arrest the chap and take him back to the station until they can establish that information.
They are meant to spend a minimum of 20 minutes on the street cajoling his name/address from him before arresting him and spending hours on paperwork at the station. If id cards were mandatory then a lot of time would be saved and possibly fewer people arrested than are at the moment.

Ramrod

05-09-2003, 22:04

There *could* be, yes. There exists a possibility, therefore it would be illogical to deny it.

However there *could* also be an increase in Racial Harassment, people being convicted of crimes they didn't commit based on faulty evidence and, after all that, the situation *would* end up with the criminal fraternity finding a way to beat the system whilst the law abiding majority have lost a precious right.

No, I'm scared that our oh-so-trustworthy government would find a way to try to *claim* that it had worked, just like they did with their stealth consultation exercise on ID cards that claimed false figures for the number of people that supported it by insisting that five *thousand* objections were *one* petition, so *one* vote! If it's not tried then we will never know if we could have benefitted from it.:shrug:

Graham

05-09-2003, 22:18

Originally posted by Ramrod
As I already said, the police would not use widespread dna testing in a case like that. Therefore your argument is not valid!

Care to back that *opinion* up with any facts? Cites? Or are you just hoping that I'll take your word for it?

No, you would be ostracised because you didn't want to help protect women and help put a rapist behind bars, just because your sensibility didn't allow you to give a swab of saliva. You deserve it.

So the *real* and *existing* rights of *everyone* should be set aside because of a *hypothetical* argument you put forward?

Again I refer you to the McCarthyite Anti-communist witch hunts!

You should change your viewpoint precisely because my example has such a terrible result.

And again you fail to see how even *more* terrible the loss of presumption of innocence could be. Let me give you an example.

In Japan, their trains, buses, underground etc get so crowded that people are crammed in literally like sardines. Unfortunately there are some people who have taken advantage of this by "groping" women (Japanese women are traditionally brought up to be "meek and mild" and not complain)

However there are now campaigns to stamp out this despicable practice and to get women to make a fuss about it. All very well, however Japanese law does *NOT* necessarily recognise the presumption of innocence.

Read on...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0627/p08s01-woap.html?worldNav

http://www.japantoday.com/gidx/news223069.html

In these cases, based on *nothing* more than the word of the complainant, people get locked up until they confess and pay a fine or have money extorted from them by criminal gangs. No matter that there's no *proof*, no matter that in some cases it may have been physically impossible, the alleged perpetrator is convicted.

Now does that *really* sound like a good thing to you??

A good cop-out!

Not a cop out in the slightest.

What about morally good conduct then? Or don't you recognise that either?

Do I need to remind you what I do for a living?

There are those who think that what I do is "morally corrupting" etc etc and would like to see me out of business, just because *they* don't like what I do!

What are "Morals"? Answer they're little bits of "tribal lore" which say "this is accepted behaviour, that is not".

They are not, despite what some might believe, graven in stone. If they were, everyone in every society would know them and follow them. But other societies have other views on "moral" matters and for someone to say that "my moral code is better than yours" is being arrogant and presumptuous.

You can't, but if he's lied to his wife then he is not to be trusted with much else either!

You mean like "Of course I didn't forget our anniversary, Darling, I've got a special surprise planned!" (Followed by desperate phoning around restaurants to book a table)

homealone

05-09-2003, 22:25

I see being able to "prove" who you are as a benefit.

I need to "prove" who I am to legally drive a car on the public highway, travel abroad, use credit etc.

Just because all of these transactions are potentially traceable - how many actually will be collated?

I would also, like to be able to "prove" who I am, without carrying anything nickable on me, like a card or a phone. - time to be chipped. maybe?:p;)

Graham

05-09-2003, 22:37

Originally posted by Ramrod
Only if it is allowed to happen. Forewarned is forearmed....

And Policemen aren't *allowed* to racially harass minorities. So, of course, it doesn't happen either, does it?!

I agree, it would be nice if we could deal with the problem first and also make it a perfect world first, but thats possibly some way off. So we can at least try to improve things in other departments and id cards are a good start.

There's a wonderful leap of logic!

you are arguing for introducing an ID to allow an officer to check your details *on the street* which does *not* involve the paperwork.

Exactly! Therefore cutting down on time wasted on paperwork! You see my point.

No, you just totally *miss* mine!

Expected to say. Not said it yet then?

Quibble.

http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/nr_arch/nr011024b.html

Thats one officer. In a force of how many? I'd like to see how many white officers took that force to the tribunal as well.

I'm not aware of any cases of *white* officers complaining about racial harassment. Perhaps you can enlighten me of some?

Maby he was just very unpopular? Do we know the whole story? No!

Quibble.

Note where it says "the sergeant who brought the disciplinary proceedings "admitted that he had never before submitted a failure to pay fixed penalty notice for disciplinary proceedings, and he had been in the force for 24 years"."

Thats good, the South Wales police are being proactive with regards to the problem. Looks like they have the welfare of racial minorities well in mind. Whats your problem with this then?

Quibble.

If there were no cases of racial harassment, there wouldn't *need* to be such a campaign!

Those are allegations of brutality...innocent untill proven guilty....remember?

Ah, almost a reasonable point. But somehow I don't expect Amnesty International to get invoved with something like this unless there are good grounds for them to suspect that those allegations have facts to back them up which are not being investigated.

Please do. I've just demolished the above examples.

ROFL! Sure you have...!

Oh and "Demolished"?! That's a good word! I wonder where you learned it from?

So If you know that a certain part of the population is commiting more crimes then you would be foolish if you didn't keep a closer eye on that part. Seems more like common sense to me!

Seems like an excuse for harassment to me.

You mean that you are so naive that you can't spot a drug dealer at 100 yards?

Well actually I don't have much (well, any) dealings with them, so, no, I don't think I could. Could you?

Well if you can't I bet the police can! It' their job to! :rofl:

Hilarious, Ramrod. Utterly hilarious.

And obviously they will be keeping a closer eye on the *young black* population because they know that they're more likely to be drug pushers than the white ones, won't they?

Of course if *you* were young and black and *innocent*, you might feel a little different about it, mightn't you?

Credit them with a bit more professionalism please. These are people trying to protect you and me.

Actually they're the people who are suppose to be trying to protect the *rights* of *EVERYONE*! Even those who are members of a group who are known to commit more crimes than others!!

Graham

05-09-2003, 22:40

Originally posted by homealone
I need to "prove" who I am to legally drive a car on the public highway, travel abroad, use credit etc.

And I don't drive a car, haven't travelled abroad for many a year and don't need to use credit.

Why should I be required or expected to be able to *prove* who I am?

Just because all of these transactions are potentially traceable - how many actually will be collated?

The point is that they *can* be collated. In fact there are elements in the government and security services etc who would *love* to be able to collate all that information because it would make their job of "monitoring subversive elements" or "preventing fraud" so much easier.

The fact that it would mean that Big Brother was watching *everyone* and *everyone* would be a potential suspect clearly doesn't bother them like it bothers me!

Graham

05-09-2003, 22:41

Originally posted by Ramrod
If it's not tried then we will never know if we could have benefitted from it.:shrug:

If you've not tried drilling a hole in your head, how do you know if you're going to benefit from it or not?!

Shaun

05-09-2003, 22:45

Originally posted by Graham
If you've not tried drilling a hole in your head, how do you know if you're going to benefit from it or not?!

Someone fetch the drill.:p

Ramrod

05-09-2003, 23:05

Originally posted by Graham

Oh and "Demolished"?! That's a good word! I wonder where you learned it from?

What is that, sarcasm? It's insulting. I have been more than patient with your style of argument in threads and in pm's. Not to mention your snide comments and the last time you insulted me. Please don't do it any more.

Chris

05-09-2003, 23:09

This thread has become extremely difficult to follow, what with all the multiple-quoting and counter-multiple-quoting going on. Can anyone sum up, in a neutral way, who is saying what?

Ramrod

05-09-2003, 23:28

Originally posted by Graham
[quote]Care to back that *opinion* up with any facts? Cites? Or are you just hoping that I'll take your word for it? No, it just stands to reason, it would take too much time and cost too much to be practicle.

So the *real* and *existing* rights of *everyone* should be set aside because of a *hypothetical* argument you put forward? In the case of this, as you say, hypothetical argument, yes they should.

And again you fail to see how even *more* terrible the loss of presumption of innocence could be. Let me give you an example.

In Japan, their trains, buses, underground etc get so crowded that people are crammed in literally like sardines. Unfortunately there are some people who have taken advantage of this by "groping" women (Japanese women are traditionally brought up to be "meek and mild" and not complain)

However there are now campaigns to stamp out this despicable practice and to get women to make a fuss about it. All very well, however Japanese law does *NOT* necessarily recognise the presumption of innocence.

Read on...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0627/p08s01-woap.html?worldNav

http://www.japantoday.com/gidx/news223069.html

In these cases, based on *nothing* more than the word of the complainant, people get locked up until they confess and pay a fine or have money extorted from them by criminal gangs. No matter that there's no *proof*, no matter that in some cases it may have been physically impossible, the alleged perpetrator is convicted.

Now does that *really* sound like a good thing to you?? And how does the case of whats happening on Japanese subways and in the Japanese legal system remotely impinge on civil rights in the UK?! They have a completely different legal system and outlook on crime and society. You may as well cite something happening in a tribe in the Amazon!

Do I need to remind you what I do for a living?

There are those who think that what I do is "morally corrupting" etc etc and would like to see me out of business, just because *they* don't like what I do! So what? It's a lifestyle choice. It's got nothing to do with someone commiting adultery.

What are "Morals"? Answer they're little bits of "tribal lore" which say "this is accepted behaviour, that is not". Not true.Tribal lore is knowing which berries are good to eat "a body of traditions and knowledge on a subject". Morals are "Concerned with goodness or badness of character or disposition, or with the distinction between right and wrong" (from the Oxford dictionary)

They are not, despite what some might believe, graven in stone. I think that right and wrong is graven in stone If they were, everyone in every society would know them and follow them. But other societies have other views on "moral" matters and for someone to say that "my moral code is better than yours" is being arrogant and presumptuous. But we are in this society, with it's own moral code and types of acceptable behaviour. btw...Adultery is frowned on in many[/i] parts of the world. To argue that morals are (shall we say) fluid is to ignore that they are a rock that anchors our society.
You mean like "Of course I didn't forget our anniversary, Darling, I've got a special surprise planned!" (Followed by desperate phoning around restaurants to book a table) Theres a difference between forgetting an anniversary and f*cking around when you are married. If you can't see that then I have serious doubts about your morals m8!

Ramrod

05-09-2003, 23:37

Originally posted by towny
This thread has become extremely difficult to follow, what with all the multiple-quoting and counter-multiple-quoting going on. Can anyone sum up, in a neutral way, who is saying what? lol. Graham is saying that we shouldn't introduce id cards, I (and others) are saying that we should. The rest is nit picking.
Apart from that we have been going round in circles (as is fast becoming the tradition:D ) in an argument that probably dosn't have an end. It'll all probably end in tears:D I'm off for a bit of fragging before bed:devsmoke:

Chris

06-09-2003, 10:49

Originally posted by Graham
They are not, despite what some might believe, graven in stone. If they were, everyone in every society would know them and follow them. But other societies have other views on "moral" matters and for someone to say that "my moral code is better than yours" is being arrogant and presumptuous.

I happen to think that they are. And for you to suggest that my belief system is wrong is arrogant and presumptious. This is the central fallacy of moral relativism. Let's not even go there, eh?

homealone

06-09-2003, 11:17

originally posted by GrahamAnd I don't drive a car, haven't travelled abroad for many a year and don't need to use credit.

ok, cool, but my point is that if you did, you would need to prove who you are - not presenting drivers licence/insurance when required is an prosecutable offence, for example. Presumably you don't appear in the phone book or on the Electoral Roll, either?

The point is that they *can* be collated. In fact there are elements in the government and security services etc who would *love* to be able to collate all that information because it would make their job of "monitoring subversive elements" or "preventing fraud" so much easier.

imo they wouldn't waste their time on "joe public", the resource required would be too great. However, the fact that the information is available can also be used to ones advantage - as the Hamilton's mobile phone records proved.

Ramrod

06-09-2003, 17:59

Originally posted by Graham
[B][quote]And Policemen aren't *allowed* to racially harass minorities. So, of course, it doesn't happen either, does it?!Listen carefully children, if you have ever made a mistake in the past it means that you can never ever be good again!

There's a wonderful leap of logic! It's not logic, it's just the way that life works sometimes.

No, you just totally *miss* mine! No I don't think I do, you just don't agree with me!

I'm not aware of any cases of *white* officers complaining about racial harassment. Perhaps you can enlighten me of some? No, we were talking about tribunals not racial harssament.

Note where it says "the sergeant who brought the disciplinary proceedings "admitted that he had never before submitted a failure to pay fixed penalty notice for disciplinary proceedings, and he had been in the force for 24 years"." How long has Blair been in the labour party and how unpopular is he now?

If there were no cases of racial harassment, there wouldn't *need* to be such a campaign! erm....no. They might be being proactive. It's a bit like getting a fire extinguisher in the office. Just 'cos you have one there dosn't mean that the building is on fire!

Ah, almost a reasonable point. But somehow I don't expect Amnesty International to get invoved with something like this unless there are good grounds for them to suspect that those allegations have facts to back them up which are not being investigated. That may be but they are still innocent untill proven guilty your words, remember?

ROFL! Sure you have...! I think I did.

Seems like an excuse for harassment to me. If thats the way you choose to see it.

Well actually I don't have much (well, any) dealings with them, so, no, I don't think I could. Could you? Sometimes. The police are very good at it. It's their job you see.......

Hilarious, Ramrod. Utterly hilarious. No. Just a statement of the bleedin' obvious.

And obviously they will be keeping a closer eye on the *young black* population because they know that they're more likely to be drug pushers than the white ones, won't they? In some areas they may be, in others they won't.

Of course if *you* were young and black and *innocent*, you might feel a little different about it, mightn't you?Yes I would. Thats why there needs to be good legislation in place if id cards are introduced. (like I keep saying)

Actually they're the people who are suppose to be trying to protect the *rights* of *EVERYONE*! Even those who are members of a group who are known to commit more crimes than others!! Absolutely! Your point is?

Stuart

06-09-2003, 19:42

Originally posted by Graham

I'm not aware of any cases of *white* officers complaining about racial harassment. Perhaps you can enlighten me of some?

Maybe thats because they don't tend to generate the same levels of publicity that other racism cases generate.

The_real_dj

06-09-2003, 19:47

read the first couple of pages than got lost!! (so if this has been posted before sorry!)

Currently I dont see the problem with an ID card!, I have several forms of id anyway!!! Works ID, Driving Licence, Passport, wouldnt it be great to replace all this lot with one card??

Cause im young i tend to get pulled over by the police quite a lot, they usually ask me to produce my documents at the station, wouldnt it be better if i could show him my id and from that he could see that i have a licence and was insured!?

Sorry if i seem a bit nieve but i dont see the problem with having somthing that proves who i am? How is this affecting my "rights"?

Cheers

DJ

Graham

06-09-2003, 20:06

Originally posted by dellwear

If you've not tried drilling a hole in your head, how do you know if you're going to benefit from it or not?!

Someone fetch the drill.:p

Certainly. It wasn't *my* head I was talking about...

Graham

06-09-2003, 20:09

Originally posted by Ramrod

Oh and "Demolished"?! That's a good word! I wonder where you learned it from?

What is that, sarcasm?

Absolutely right!

It's insulting.

No, it's sarcasm.

I have been more than patient with your style of argument in threads and in pm's. Not to mention your snide comments and the last time you insulted me. Please don't do it any more.

This is rich from someone who...

... oh gods, I *really* can't be bothered to do that argument again.

Graham

06-09-2003, 20:35

Originally posted by Ramrod

Care to back that *opinion* up with any facts? Cites?

No, it just stands to reason, it would take too much time and cost too much to be practicle.

Translation: "No."

So the *real* and *existing* rights of *everyone* should be set aside because of a *hypothetical* argument you put forward?

In the case of this, as you say, hypothetical argument, yes they should.

So in your opinion, the need to preserve human rights is less important than your winning a hypothetical argument. Bravo!

And how does the case of whats happening on Japanese subways and in the Japanese legal system remotely impinge on civil rights in the UK?!

Because it is an *EXAMPLE* of what can happen if the right to the *presumption of innocence* is lost!

There are those who think that what I do is "morally corrupting" etc etc and would like to see me out of business, just because *they* don't like what I do!

So what? It's a lifestyle choice. It's got nothing to do with someone commiting adultery.

But as you say immediately after this...

Morals are "Concerned with goodness or badness of character or disposition, or with the distinction between right and wrong"

There are those who will say that I am "contributing to the moral decline of society" by what I do, since I am encouraging people into "unacceptable" or "perverse" forms of sexual behaviour (ie ones that *they* don't like!).

On a scale of "goodness" to "badness", where you would put Homosexuality, BDSM, Adultery, Or@l Sex, An@l Sex, multiple partners etc etc?

And if (as it will) your list differs from everyone else's why on *earth* do you think that anyone else should follow *your* views?

I think that right and wrong is graven in stone

I can tell that you've never played "Scruples" or listened to "The Moral Maze"!

Life is simply *not* that black and white.

But we are in this society, with it's own moral code and types of acceptable behaviour.

Yes, and how many years ago was it that you could be locked up in prison for being gay? How long ago was it that Operation Spanner (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/paul.bailey/spanner.htm) resulted in a bunch of Gay men being locked up in prison for such "crimes" as "aiding and abetting an assault on themselves"? How long ago was it that a group called The Fringe was unable to hold a party for consenting adults on a boat on the Thames because the boat companies were told by the licencing authorities that if they rented a boat to these people they'd lose their licences (hint, this one was only *last year*!)

The fact is that *our* moral code is archaic and hypocritical, helped by cowardly politicians who are too scared to change what *needs* to be changed in case they lose votes in "middle England" and which is backed up by a hypocritical press that prints lurid and graphic details of people's private lives "in the public interest" (translation: to get more readers) but which then criticises people for doing exactly that!

Now people like me can either knuckle under and hide as if we're ashamed of what we do, or we are willing to stand up and say "sod you, we're here, we're not going away, now get over it!"

Last year the GMB Union took an incredibly brave stand and included the International Union of Sex Workers under its banner, allowing those who *choose* to work in the sex industry to get protection and advice and to *prevent* the sorts of legal and illegal abuses that they face daily.

I'm sure that there are many people who would say that this will *encourage* "immoral" behaviour, but would they *really* prefer the situation where the workers get abused and those who do the abusing get away scot free?

btw...Adultery is frowned on in many[/i] parts of the world.

Of course, because they have had their "moral codes" influenced by the Judaeo/ Christian and Muslim traditions (which are all based on the same set of rules).

To argue that morals are (shall we say) fluid is to ignore that they are a rock that anchors our society.

I prefer the expression "millstone around our necks"!

Theres a difference between forgetting an anniversary and f*cking around when you are married. If you can't see that then I have serious doubts about your morals m8!

Frankly I don't give two hoots about what your opinion is of *my* morals "M8"!

I can stand up and tell the whole world to take it's morals and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. I am answerable only to *my* conscience.

Can *you* say the same or are you too scared to do so because you're worried about "what the neighbours would think"?

Graham

06-09-2003, 20:38

Originally posted by Ramrod

Can anyone sum up, in a neutral way, who is saying what?

Graham is saying that we shouldn't introduce id cards, I (and others) are saying that we should. The rest is nit picking.

In answer to Towny's question, clearly the answer is "no".

Graham

06-09-2003, 20:43

Originally posted by towny

(Morals) are not, despite what some might believe, graven in stone.

I happen to think that they are.

Obviously you've never played "Scruples" either.

There are plenty of "moral dilemmas" in this world which don't resolve into simple Black And White answers that are either Right or Wrong.

If they were, everyone in every society would know them and follow them. But other societies have other views on "moral" matters and for someone to say that "my moral code is better than yours" is being arrogant and presumptuous.

And for you to suggest that my belief system is wrong is arrogant and presumptious.

"Belief" is the acceptance of a fact without proof.

If you can *prove* that your "belief system" is right, please go ahead and demonstrate it.

That's not arrogant, that's just logical.

Graham

06-09-2003, 20:49

Originally posted by homealone

And I don't drive a car, haven't travelled abroad for many a year and don't need to use credit.

ok, cool, but my point is that if you did, you would need to prove who you are

Yes, but you miss the point that it is *MY CHOICE*!!

I am not *obliged* to drive a car, travel abroad or use credit. So I do not *need* to prove who I am, nor carry any means to do so.

I simply do not trust our government (*any* government) to introduce any form of "voluntary" ID card, Entitlement Card, Whateveryouwant Card that will not eventually, by a slow creeping process, become a *compulsory* card that I will be obliged to carry.

there are elements in the government and security services etc who would *love* to be able to collate all that information because it would make their job of "monitoring subversive elements" or "preventing fraud" so much easier.

mo they wouldn't waste their time on "joe public", the resource required would be too great.

On the contrary, it would be *easier* to record *everyone's* information than it would to come up with all sorts of rules and exceptions to exclude Joe Public.

However, the fact that the information is available can also be used to ones advantage - as the Hamilton's mobile phone records proved.

Yes and I have *no* objection to that, *provided* that it is *only* done with the free and full consent of the parties involved.

For someone to collect data on me *without* my permission and to collate it with other personal data about me is an unwarranted and unjustified intrusion into my privacy.

And to claim that it is "for my own good" is a complete fallacy.

Graham

06-09-2003, 21:04

Originally posted by Ramrod

And Policemen aren't *allowed* to racially harass minorities. So, of course, it doesn't happen either, does it?!

Listen carefully children, if you have ever made a mistake in the past it means that you can never ever be good again!

There is a saying "Ignorance of the Law is no Defence".

The Police *know* the law, hell, they *have* to know the law to be able to enforce it, so for them to *break* the law is utterly inexcusable!

Oh and I could have sworn I just heard an echo of those who argue that a person's prior convictions should be revealed to a jury *before* they determine a person's innocence or guilt...!!!

There's a wonderful leap of logic!

It's not logic

Yep, I'd agree with you there!

I'm not aware of any cases of *white* officers complaining about racial harassment. Perhaps you can enlighten me of some?

No, we were talking about tribunals not racial harssament.

Sorry, did I miss this bit: "An Asian-born policeman was victimised by senior officers because of his race, an employment tribunal has decided.Pc Sadruddin Husain, 43, took Merseyside Police to the tribunal "

What do you *think* he was doing at the tribunal???

How long has Blair been in the labour party and how unpopular is he now?

And what on *earth* does that have to do with the price of fish or even racial harassment???

If there were no cases of racial harassment, there wouldn't *need* to be such a campaign!

erm....no. They might be being proactive. It's a bit like getting a fire extinguisher in the office. Just 'cos you have one there dosn't mean that the building is on fire!

A good point.

But, of course, you wouldn't *need* a fire extinguisher if there *wasn't* a risk of fire, would you? Likewise, I don't think you'd need an anti-racism campaign if there wasn't a danger of racism.

Ah, almost a reasonable point. But somehow I don't expect Amnesty International to get invoved with something like this unless there are good grounds for them to suspect that those allegations have facts to back them up which are not being investigated.

That may be but they are still innocent untill proven guilty your words, remember?

Of course, I've never said otherwise. So let's investigate the claims as AI wants them to do and find out the *truth*.

Of course if *you* were young and black and *innocent*, you might feel a little different about it, mightn't you?

Yes I would. Thats why there needs to be good legislation in place if id cards are introduced. (like I keep saying)

But you keep missing the point that until this problem of racism is sorted out from the ground up (and/ or from the top down) there is going to be widespread resistance to any measures that will only *facilitate* racist behaviour as demonstrated in France.

Actually they're the people who are suppose to be trying to protect the *rights* of *EVERYONE*! Even those who are members of a group who are known to commit more crimes than others!!

Absolutely! Your point is?

AAARGH!! I give up, Ramrod, I just bloody well give up! If you can't work it out from that after everything I've written, there's just *NO* point in me wasting more time explaining it again.

Oh and before you suggest it, I haven't run out of arguments, I've just run out of patience.

Graham

06-09-2003, 21:07

Originally posted by scastle

I'm not aware of any cases of *white* officers complaining about racial harassment. Perhaps you can enlighten me of some?

[QUOTE]Maybe thats because they don't tend to generate the same levels of publicity that other racism cases generate.

I would have thought that a white officer complaining (and, especially, winning!) a complaint of racism against a black officer would be headline news!

To quote: '"Dog bits man" is not news. "Man bites dog" is'.

Graham

06-09-2003, 21:08

Originally posted by The_real_dj
[B]read the first couple of pages than got lost!! (so if this has been posted before sorry!) [...]
Sorry if i seem a bit nieve but i dont see the problem with having somthing that proves who i am? How is this affecting my "rights"?

Sorry, DJ, but this has been covered, extensively and at length and there's *NO* way I'm going to go over it all again.

Stephen Robb

07-09-2003, 14:41

Having read through this thread, personally I don't see the problem with ID's. I had one during WWII with a photo and I was only a kid. Next quote, how much information?

Before answering that one, has anyone got any idea on how many data bases your in. Doe's anyone really care or even give a thought about it until someone mentions ID Cards?!

How many Countries in the world require you by law to carry your ID card (and in some cases more than one) at all times, and if you don't you are arrested, taken to the local nick and kept there until someone proves who you are!

Next thing information on the said strip or gold chip on the said card:

Photograph - Yes. Not much point in having a card without one!
Full name - Yes. To seperate you from all the other Joe Bloggs!
Full Address - Yes. To prove you live there!
DOB - Yes. Proof that your are old enough to have something!
NI number - Another proof as to who you are dealing with benefits!
National Health number - Yes. Proves I'm entitled to medical attention anywhere in this Country
Blood Group - Yes. In cases where you are out of it and require blood!
Medical History - To a certain extent Yes. Allergies and if your unconsious and allergic to penicillin, certain antibiotics, anaesthetics (a friend of mine has to wear dog tags all the time because he is allergic to anaesthetics)
Hospital Number - Yes. If I was unconsious, I would want the hospital to access my records pretty quickly.
DNA - Possibly. Would help in certain cases!
Thumb Print - Don't see why not. Prove with DNA who you were for certain if you were found dead!
Religion - Probably yes in cases of death, receiving blood transfusions etc.

Now before Liberty and all the others start jumping up and down screaming rape that everyone will have access to your personal information "on the side of the road" as it were, the above information for me personally wouldn't bother me, in fact, in certain cases it would help more than hinder.

But the technology is there now, to split these bits up if that is required, so for example, and ambulance crew swiped your card, they would only have the information they were entitled to. Same with the Police, they could have what they want, but couldn't access your medical history. So It can be done.

Shaun

07-09-2003, 14:56

Originally posted by Stephen Robb
Having read through this thread, personally I don't see the problem with ID's. I had one during WWII with a photo and I was only a kid. Next quote, how much information?

Before answering that one, has anyone got any idea on how many data bases your in. Doe's anyone really care or even give a thought about it until someone mentions ID Cards?!

How many Countries in the world require you by law to carry your ID card (and in some cases more than one) at all times, and if you don't you are arrested, taken to the local nick and kept there until someone proves who you are!

Next thing information on the said strip or gold chip on the said card:

Photograph - Yes. Not much point in having a card without one!
Full name - Yes. To seperate you from all the other Joe Bloggs!
Full Address - Yes. To prove you live there!
DOB - Yes. Proof that your are old enough to have something!
NI number - Another proof as to who you are dealing with benefits!
National Health number - Yes. Proves I'm entitled to medical attention anywhere in this Country
Blood Group - Yes. In cases where you are out of it and require blood!
Medical History - To a certain extent Yes. Allergies and if your unconsious and allergic to penicillin, certain antibiotics, anaesthetics (a friend of mine has to wear dog tags all the time because he is allergic to anaesthetics)
Hospital Number - Yes. If I was unconsious, I would want the hospital to access my records pretty quickly.
DNA - Possibly. Would help in certain cases!
Thumb Print - Don't see why not. Prove with DNA who you were for certain if you were found dead!
Religion - Probably yes in cases of death, receiving blood transfusions etc.

Now before Liberty and all the others start jumping up and down screaming rape that everyone will have access to your personal information "on the side of the road" as it were, the above information for me personally wouldn't bother me, in fact, in certain cases it would help more than hinder.

But the technology is there now, to split these bits up if that is required, so for example, and ambulance crew swiped your card, they would only have the information they were entitled to. Same with the Police, they could have what they want, but couldn't access your medical history. So It can be done.

Well said.;)

Ramrod

07-09-2003, 18:21

Dave Stones

07-09-2003, 18:24

and me. most of the companies and government things have all this information in one way or another anyway, so why not just stick it on a piece of plastic and have done with?

though to list all that stuff would require a tiny font size or a big card... :erm:

my passport has my photo address dob etc
my credit card and cash card and various other bank stuff have various information abuot me
my driving licence does as well
and i have to carry other pieces of paper and so forth

why shouldnt i be able to carry it all on one card?!

Ramrod

07-09-2003, 18:24

AAARGH!! I give up, Ramrod, I just bloody well give up! If you can't work it out from that after everything I've written, there's just *NO* point in me wasting more time explaining it again.

Oh and before you suggest it, I haven't run out of arguments, I've just run out of patience. [/B] rotflmao:rofl: :D ....lets just call it quits then! We are not really going to get anywhere with this since we are coming at it from totally opposite viewpoints:)
....we could keep going till doomsday:D

Ramrod

07-09-2003, 18:28

Originally posted by Graham
Originally posted by Ramrod

In answer to Towny's question, clearly the answer is "no". Hang on a second, what wasn't neutral about that:confused: (or are you on about something else?)

Stephen Robb

07-09-2003, 18:55

Originally posted by Dave Stones
and me. most of the companies and government things have all this information in one way or another anyway, so why not just stick it on a piece of plastic and have done with?

though to list all that stuff would require a tiny font size or a big card... :erm:

my passport has my photo address dob etc
my credit card and cash card and various other bank stuff have various information abuot me
my driving licence does as well
and i have to carry other pieces of paper and so forth

why shouldnt i be able to carry it all on one card?!

Hello Dave. Actually no, you wouldn't need a big card! I worked for a Banking Company about 14 years ago and we used a card about the same size as a credit card, which had set in it a gold chip about ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¼" square and that could hold 50,000 accounts with all the transactions of money in and out! And that was with the technology then.

I believe some Walkman's are now solid state i.e. no moving parts, and you can store about 4 or 5 CD's on a gold chip, and think how much information that is. So as I have said before, the technology is there to do it!

Stuart

07-09-2003, 19:03

Originally posted by Graham

I would have thought that a white officer complaining (and, especially, winning!) a complaint of racism against a black officer would be headline news!

To quote: '"Dog bits man" is not news. "Man bites dog" is'.

As I understand it, the actual reason is that the way the law is phrased (and I haven't seen the law on this) if a black person is racist to a white person, it is not actually an offence, as the law does not consider black people to be possibly racist. IF this is true, this in itself is racist.

Dave Stones

07-09-2003, 19:04

Originally posted by Stephen Robb
Hello Dave. Actually no, you wouldn't need a big card! I worked for a Banking Company about 14 years ago and we used a card about the same size as a credit card, which had set in it a gold chip about ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¼" square and that could hold 50,000 accounts with all the transactions of money in and out! And that was with the technology then.

I believe some Walkman's are now solid state i.e. no moving parts, and you can store about 4 or 5 CD's on a gold chip, and think how much information that is. So as I have said before, the technology is there to do it!

oh yeh i knew about microschips etc. i read it as though everything that you listed was gona be printed on the card DOH :spin: :spin: :spin:

Stuart

07-09-2003, 19:07

Originally posted by Stephen Robb
<snip>
Now before Liberty and all the others start jumping up and down screaming rape that everyone will have access to your personal information "on the side of the road" as it were, the above information for me personally wouldn't bother me, in fact, in certain cases it would help more than hinder.

But the technology is there now, to split these bits up if that is required, so for example, and ambulance crew swiped your card, they would only have the information they were entitled to. Same with the Police, they could have what they want, but couldn't access your medical history. So It can be done.

Stephen, I agree with you. Even if all that info where stored on a national database, it would be relatively easy to limit the access each Emergency Service worker has.

Stephen Robb

07-09-2003, 19:21

Originally posted by Dave Stones
oh yeh i knew about microschips etc. i read it as though everything that you listed was gona be printed on the card DOH :spin: :spin: :spin:

No, sorry Dave, I didn't mean all the info being printed but being stored on the chip! Sorry if I confused you. I haven't actually seen one, but the new driving license is supposed to be credit card size as well isn't it? So I think if the size of the ID card is about that size or marginally a bit bigger wouldn't be a problem.

Graham

07-09-2003, 21:28

Originally posted by Stephen Robb
Having read through this thread, personally I don't see the problem with ID's. I had one during WWII with a photo and I was only a kid.

From http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/

"During World War II, a national ID card was established to facilitate identification of aliens. Persons were required to carry the card at all times and show it on demand to police and members of the armed forces. In 1951, Acting Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard ruled that police demanding that individuals show their ID cards was unlawful because it was not relevant to the purposes for which the card was adopted. This ruling led the the repealing of the National Registration Act and the end of the national ID card in the UK in 1952."

Note that expression "not relevant to the purposes for which the card was adopted". The purpose of that ID card you had was because we were *at war* with Germany et al.

As I've mentioned already, despite the claims of our political leaders we are *not* "at war" with anyone, nor do we need the trappings of wartime, nor will they prevent terrorist atrocities.

Proposals such as "entitlement cards" or any other such balderdash are simply attempts to introduce them by the "back door" in the hope that people won't realise what is happening.

Before answering that one, has anyone got any idea on how many data bases your in. Doe's anyone really care or even give a thought about it until someone mentions ID Cards?!

Actually, yes, I do. And that is why I don't just argue against ID cards, I argue against The Powers That Be having the ability to link unrelated databases containing facts about us because they don't *need* to, they just *want* to.

How many Countries in the world require you by law to carry your ID card (and in some cases more than one) at all times, and if you don't you are arrested, taken to the local nick and kept there until someone proves who you are!

From: http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47073,00.html

"It's hard to find countries without ID cards," said Simon Davies, the director of Privacy International, which is based in England. "It's safe to say that the majority of countries have some kind of national identification system."

"[...] in many countries that have adopted a national ID system, people who fail to produce their cards on demand are regarded with suspicion, according to a report by the organization. In Greece and Argentina, for example, being caught cardless in public could land you at the local precinct, where the police will attempt to establish your identity using other methods, the report said.

"The cards have also been employed by certain regimes to repress segments of the population that are seen as "troublesome." In apartheid South Africa, the cards were used to exclude blacks from voting and other activities. "

Also see: http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/personal.html (I could quote the entire bloody article here!)

And this is something you *want* to happen in *this* country?

Yet again I repeat that in the UK you have the *right* to go about your lawful business without let or hinderance *and* the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Are these rights you want to give up?

Next thing information on the said strip or gold chip on the said card:

Photograph - Yes. Not much point in having a card without one!
Full name - Yes. To seperate you from all the other Joe Bloggs!
Full Address - Yes. To prove you live there!

I have no objection to my bank, building society or other such organisation knowing where I live, because I want to be able to get information from them and access my accounts etc.

But *WHY* is it necessary for the Government to keep track on where I live at all times? Currently the only groups I can think of on which such information is generally kept are murderers out on Licence and Sex Offenders!

It is necessary for the register of electors, to make sure that everyone has a vote, but that is all.

DOB - Yes. Proof that your are old enough to have something!

So you can stop under 18 year olds from buying alcohol or under 16s from buying cigarettes, for instance. Ok, fine. But if you or I want to buy fags or booze etc, *WE* don't look under 16 or 18, do we? So why should we *need* to carry that information to prove something which is bloody obvious?!

NI number - Another proof as to who you are dealing with benefits!

I don't *deal* with benefits. I haven't had to deal with benefits for many years now. Most people in this country don't need to either. So, again, why should they need to? Or are you saying that *everyone* is a potential benefit fraudster and can't be trusted?

National Health number - Yes. Proves I'm entitled to medical attention anywhere in this Country

I'm not aware of *anyone*, be they a UK citizen, a tourist, or even an illegal immigrant who has been *denied* medical attention anywhere in the country.

Or are you saying that if an illegal immigrant is knocked down by a car they should be left to bleed to death by the road because they aren't *entitled* to help??

Blood Group - Yes. In cases where you are out of it and require blood!

So they stick Type O Negative and plasma into you which will keep you going until they can "Type and cross-match for X units" as they always say on medical dramas.

Medical History - To a certain extent Yes. Allergies and if your unconsious and allergic to penicillin, certain antibiotics, anaesthetics (a friend of mine has to wear dog tags all the time because he is allergic to anaesthetics). Hospital Number - Yes. If I was unconsious, I would want the hospital to access my records pretty quickly.

And I know people who carry an "SOS Talisman" or similar things because they are diabetic or have other medical conditions.

I have no such medical conditions. Why should I have to carry something that say this, then?

DNA - Possibly. Would help in certain cases!

Yes, those where the presumption of innocence is *most* important!

Thumb Print - Don't see why not. Prove with DNA who you were for certain if you were found dead!
Religion - Probably yes in cases of death, receiving blood transfusions etc.

Oh gods, now you're *really* reaching!

Now before Liberty and all the others start jumping up and down screaming rape that everyone will have access to your personal information "on the side of the road" as it were, the above information for me personally wouldn't bother me, in fact, in certain cases it would help more than hinder.

AND IT WOULD BOTHER *ME*!! If I haven't made that clear enough in this thread, let me say it again, IT WOULD BOTHER ME!

But the technology is there now, to split these bits up if that is required, so for example, and ambulance crew swiped your card, they would only have the information they were entitled to. Same with the Police, they could have what they want, but couldn't access your medical history. So It can be done.

And *how much* would it cost? David Blunkett recently proposed a ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£39 addition to the cost of a passport to cover the cost of one of his recent card schemes. Then you have to buy the readers etc for the police, ambulance service etc and install them.

Then you have to build the infrastructure to link them all together and the computer system to hold all the information.

Then you have to make it *SECURE* and robust and make sure that there isn't the chance of my records being mixed up with yours.

Then you have to *PAY* for it and we all know how good the government is at building computer systems that a) come in on time b) work and c) come in under budget!!!

Of course before all that you have to convince everyone that giving up basic human rights is going to be a "good thing", but every time you do there are going to be people like me who are pointing out the fallacies in your arguments and the dangers of giving up those rights that people fought so hard to get because *we*, at least, appreciate just how valuable and precious they are.

Graham

07-09-2003, 21:31

Originally posted by Ramrod
We are not really going to get anywhere with this since we are coming at it from totally opposite viewpoints:)

You keep claiming you want reasoned debate of issues, but if you're not going to *read* what I have said, to the extent that you had to *ask* what my point was in that previous message when it should have been blatantly obvious, there's no point in going on with this.

Graham

07-09-2003, 21:34

Originally posted by scastle
As I understand it, the actual reason is that the way the law is phrased (and I haven't seen the law on this) if a black person is racist to a white person, it is not actually an offence, as the law does not consider black people to be possibly racist. IF this is true, this in itself is racist.

I'm not that familar with that law to be able to comment, but, yes, it's possible that the law could be described as "racist", just as the law on "blasphemy" only includes Christianity could be called discriminatory.

However the point is that there *haven't* to the best of my knowledge been any cases of white people being discriminated on racial grounds, unless you know otherwise.

Stuart

07-09-2003, 21:44

Ramrod

07-09-2003, 22:04

Originally posted by Graham
You keep claiming you want reasoned debate of issues, but if you're not going to *read* what I have said, to the extent that you had to *ask* what my point was in that previous message when it should have been blatantly obvious, there's no point in going on with this. Yea, whatever.....:)

Ramrod

07-09-2003, 22:13

On the issue of racial attacks: According to the British Commission for Racial Equality, more Whites are the victims of race attacks than Asians and Blacks added together. (Daily Telegraph, London, 9 February 1999).

According to the CRE's own statistics, in the year 1997/1998, a total of 230,000 Whites were attacked by non-Whites in racially motivated assaults in Britain, compared to 101,000 Asians and 42,000 Blacks reporting racial attacks by Whites. The majority of racial attacks in Britain are therefore, in real and pro-rata terms, carried out by non-Whites against Whites.:confused:

Stephen Robb

09-09-2003, 15:24

Mmmmmm! This is going to take sometime to answer! Before I answer I will say I respect your views and you are entitled to your opions, but.......

Originally posted by Graham
During World War II, a national ID card was established to facilitate identification of aliens. Persons were required to carry the card at all times and show it on demand to police and members of the armed forces.The purpose of that ID card you had was because we were *at war* with Germany

Identity cards were issued to everyone not only aliens. I had one that was blue, about the size of a ration book. In it was a photo of me, DOB, and my address. The reason for this? In case you were found dead in a bombed building. Also, because of the danger from gas bombing in the first blitzes (you were stupid if you didn't) you also had to have your gas mask!

As I've mentioned already, despite the claims of our political leaders we are *not* "at war" with anyone, nor do we need the trappings of wartime, nor will they prevent terrorist atrocities.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but it would make it harder for terrorists to move about! We maybe a peace keeping force in Iraq and the Baltic States, but that wouldn't stop them having a go in this country!

Proposals such as "entitlement cards" or any other such balderdash are simply attempts to introduce them by the "back door" in the hope that people won't realise what is happening.

But I thought Graham, these were being brought in to try and combat benefit fraud, which is running at about 1 or 2 billion a year, or doesn't that bother you?

that is why I don't just argue against ID cards, I argue against The Powers That Be having the ability to link unrelated databases containing facts about us because they don't *need* to, they just *want* to.

How does one know that they already have or haven't?

"It's hard to find countries without ID cards," said Simon Davies, the director of Privacy International, which is based in England. "It's safe to say that the majority of countries have some kind of national identification system."
"[...] in many countries that have adopted a national ID system, people who fail to produce their cards on demand are regarded with suspicion, according to a report by the organization. In Greece and Argentina, for example, being caught cardless in public could land you at the local precinct, where the police will attempt to establish your identity using other methods, the report said.

My first wife came to this country in 1953 at the age of ten from Chile. There you have an identity card from the age of 6 months. It carries your photograph, DOB, the town where you live, and your right thumb print. Then it updated at the age 5, 10, 16 and then the last one at 21. You are by law there to carry it at all times. With regards the above quote, I have no problem with that at all.

The cards have also been employed by certain regimes to repress segments of the population that are seen as "troublesome".

I would assume the whole country has identity cards but you have a gold star if your a bad boy! What is classified as "troublesome". Sh*t stirrers? If a alien is stirring up race hatred here, it appears nothing is done because the local authority doesn't want to appear racist. What would happen if a white English man stood up and spouted the same rubbish? He would be arrested, processed, up before the beak and sentenced to 5 years for stirring, all in 24 hours!

In apartheid South Africa, the cards were used to exclude blacks from voting and other activities.

Reminds me of the USA, Alabama 1960's, blacks attending a white school and the apartheid had been running years before that in the States. Remember "I have a dream"? Didn't we have something like that during the days of the Raj? Who invented concentration camps? The Germans? No, not on your nelly, it was the good old British in the Boer War!

Also see: http://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/personal.html (I could quote the entire bloody article here!)
And this is something you *want* to happen in *this* country?

I don't see that I have a problem with that!

Yet again I repeat that in the UK you have the *right* to go about your lawful business without let or hinderance *and* the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Are these rights you want to give up?

Graham, I just don't get the point your making. Please explain it to me. How does carrying an ID card prevent "your right to go about your lawful business without let or hinderence"? How does carrying an ID card "to be presumed innocent until proven guilty" Just what has that got to do with anything?

It may even prove your innocence. Remember the lorry drivers uproar over the "spy in the cab" and the opposition to them?
There was a very bad accident on the M1, I think it was, involving about 15 cars and a tanker a few years ago. Every one involved said it was the lorry drivers fault cause he was going too fast, at least 70mph.

When the Police expert examined his tacho card they found that he hadn't exceeded 45mph in the previous 15 miles, as he was driving at a speed what he considered to be safe for the conditions at that time. He only caught up in it due to the reckless driving on the part of the car drivers. So his "spy" saved him from prosecution. Wonder what would have happened if he didn't have a tacho?

I have no objection to my bank, building society or other such organisation knowing where I live, because I want to be able to get information from them and access my accounts etc.

Well you wouldn't would you!

But *WHY* is it necessary for the Government to keep track on where I live at all times? Currently the only groups I can think of on which such information is generally kept are murderers out on Licence and Sex Offenders!

Funny though it may seem, but for forward planning! If Government and local councils didn't have such records, how could they plan ahead. Oh bugger me, we have suddenly found out that we have 25,000 more people in the area than we thought! Oh dear, we haven't enough room in our schools to take the extra kids, and the local hospital is collapsing under the strain!

It is necessary for the register of electors, to make sure that everyone has a vote, but that is all.

Which is a legal requirement. It also helps with the head count for the above.

So you can stop under 18 year olds from buying alcohol or under 16s from buying cigarettes, for instance. Ok, fine. But if you or I want to buy fags or booze etc, *WE* don't look under 16 or 18, do we? So why should we *need* to carry that information to prove something which is bloody obvious?!

In this instance, for me or you, no! But, if cards started at 16; no card means no fags or booze. Simple, cured in one stroke. Did you actually know there is no offence for a under 16 smoking! It's the supplying!

I don't *deal* with benefits. I haven't had to deal with benefits for many years now. Most people in this country don't need to either. So, again, why should they need to? Or are you saying that *everyone* is a potential benefit fraudster and can't be trusted?

I do. Part of which you say is true. No, I'm not saying everyone. But I think you have to wake up to the fact, that they don't go around anymore in a striped jersey carrying a bag marked swag!
They are all now in suits, laptop and a beamer to drive around in!
And lots of them have been at it for years!

I'm not aware of *anyone*, be they a UK citizen, a tourist, or even an illegal immigrant who has been *denied* medical attention anywhere in the country. Or are you saying that if an illegal immigrant is knocked down by a car they should be left to bleed to death by the road because they aren't *entitled* to help??

I think your'll find just "tourists" from the EC are entitled to free treatment. Everyone else pays for treatment especially the Americas. I assume that by a UK citizen, you mean somebody who lives, works and pay taxes here. Yes, they have that right.

Now the illegals are in a boat all by themselves. You think then, that it is right (and this has been banded about in the press a long time) for illegals (and I mean the ones who get smuggled in and any other way they do it) to jump the queue to see doctors, consultants, have operations, get first class treatment for HIV, Aids, TB and anything else nasty that they are bringing in, in front of you.

I'm sorry Mr Graham, your life saving operation has had to be put back a year because the local hospital is overwhelmed with patients who have entered the country illegally and the Government has told us that they must be treated first, and UK residents who have been born in this country and lived here all their lives are to be put back to the end of the queue. You still think that is right?

So they stick Type O Negative and plasma into you which will keep you going until they can "Type and cross-match for X units" as they always say on medical dramas.

Yes, but if it was on your ID card, they wouldn't have to, would they. It would save a considerable amount of time in the first place, cause the hospital would know what blood type you are before you got there!

And I know people who carry an "SOS Talisman" or similar things because they are diabetic or have other medical conditions.

And if you are unconsious they would be able to know, wouldn't they. But if you had your ID card, you wouldn't have to wear dog tags!

I have no such medical conditions. Why should I have to carry something that say this, then?

If you collapsed, and had no conditions they would know it was something really serious!

Yes, those where the presumption of innocence is *most* important!

I really don't know why you keep banging on about presumption of innocence. What really has guilt or innocence got to do with this thread. You show me anywhere in this world in black and white where the carrying of an ID card makes you guilty or innocent.

Oh gods, now you're *really* reaching!

So your saying that religion shouldn't be on there. What about religions that do not accept blood from someone else?

AND IT WOULD BOTHER *ME*!! If I haven't made that clear enough in this thread, let me say it again, IT WOULD BOTHER ME!

OK. So it bothers you, that is your opinion!

And *how much* would it cost? David Blunkett recently proposed a ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£39 addition to the cost of a passport to cover the cost of one of his recent card schemes. Then you have to buy the readers etc for the police, ambulance service etc and install them. Then you have to build the infrastructure to link them all together and the computer system to hold all the information.

I think the Government of the day will work it out and let us know in due course!

Then you have to make it *SECURE* and robust and make sure that there isn't the chance of my records being mixed up with yours.

No reason why they wouldn't! I wouldn't have thought so seeing for a start your name is different to mine!

Then you have to *PAY* for it and we all know how good the government is at building computer systems that a) come in on time b) work and c) come in under budget!!!

Not really my problem and I would have thought not yours either!

Of course before all that you have to convince everyone that giving up basic human rights is going to be a "good thing", but every time you do there are going to be people like me who are pointing out the fallacies in your arguments and the dangers of giving up those rights that people fought so hard to get because *we*, at least, appreciate just how valuable and precious they are.

Who said we were going to lose our basic rights? I have never seen anything in writing about it. As for the fallacies part, your exercising right to free speech in a democratic society. I take it by the last part you were born well after WWII. But don't worry about it, your rights are slowly being eroded by the EC.

Ramrod

09-09-2003, 16:31

Well said!

Graham

09-09-2003, 20:40

Originally posted by Stephen Robb
Before I answer I will say I respect your views and you are entitled to your opions, but.......

There's no but about it. I have no problem with you or anyone questioning what I say or what I think.

Identity cards were issued to [b]everyone not only aliens.

Well, yes, it would be a bit daft not to! "No ID card? Ok, I'll take your word you're legally here!". But that rather shoots down the "it will only be for asylum seekers" argument, for exactly the same reason!

I had one that was blue, about the size of a ration book. In it was a photo of me, DOB, and my address. The reason for this? In case you were found dead in a bombed building.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this danger has subsided a bit, hasn't it? So I don't *really* need to worry about being identified in such a situation?

I agree with you to a certain extent, but it would make it harder for terrorists to move about!

It will also make it harder for ordinary people, engaged in legitimate business to move about! And I think that any "danger" from terrorists being "able to move about freely" is being greatly exaggerated/

I thought Graham, these were being brought in to try and combat benefit fraud, which is running at about 1 or 2 billion a year, or doesn't that bother you?

Well that's one excuse for trying to foist them on us.

But having *experienced* the benefit system, I know for a fact that ID cards are *NOT* going to make a blind bit of difference in preventing benefit fraud unless *every* employer is required to do ID checks on every employee.

And even then there will always be those who run illegal sweat shops, fruit and veg picking businesses etc who will ignore the rules anyway and go on letting people work for them and claim benefits.

What the government *should* do is change the benefit system entirely, but that's an argument for another thread.

I argue against The Powers That Be having the ability to link unrelated databases containing facts about us because they don't *need* to, they just *want* to.

How does one know that they already have or haven't?

Because organisations such as Privacy International keep a damn close eye on such things and there are also MPs who consider that such things would be a bad idea and will also speak up against them.

My first wife came to this country in 1953 at the age of ten from Chile. There you have an identity card from the age of 6 months (snip) You are by law there to carry it at all times. With regards the above quote, I have no problem with that at all.

Fortunate for her that she left before the Pinochet regime took power. http://www.remember-chile.org.uk/ ID cards are an ideal tool for repression for regimes like his.

In apartheid South Africa, the cards were used to exclude blacks from voting and other activities.

Reminds me of the USA, Alabama 1960's, blacks attending a white school and the apartheid had been running years before that in the States. Remember "I have a dream"? Didn't we have something like that during the days of the Raj? Who invented concentration camps? The Germans? No, not on your nelly, it was the good old British in the Boer War!

And these are arguments *for* ID cards??

Oh, BTW, to correct a common misunderstanding, the Concentration Camps used by the British were *NOT* the same as those used as "Death Camps" by the Nazis. People did die in them, true, but that was due to incompetance and mis-management, not deliberate intent.

Graham, I just don't get the point your making. Please explain it to me. How does carrying an ID card prevent "your right to go about your lawful business without let or hinderence"?

A "let" is a permission. If I need a card to allow me to walk down the street without the risk of being arrested, that is a "let". I do not need that and I'll do my best to ensure I *never* need that.

How does carrying an ID card "to be presumed innocent until proven guilty"

Oh gods, I've been explaining that all through this thread, but let me do it once more!

If a Policeman thinks I am a criminal he must have *reasonable grounds* for suspicion that I am guilty of something. However with a compulsory ID card he can stop me, check that I *am* carrying an ID (and arrest me if I'm not!) and then *check* to see if I am wanted for anything.

That is not *presumption of innocence*, that is "you're in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong face, let's see if you're guilty of something".

It may even prove your innocence. Remember the lorry drivers uproar over the "spy in the cab" and the opposition to them?

So how will an ID card prove my innocence? Answer it *won't* unless I have to present it everywhere I go and that fact is kept on record so I can say "see, I wasn't at the scene of the crime".

Firstly I wouldn't want my government to keep that close tabs on where I go (although there's plenty of dictatorial regimes who have had exactly that power, where you may need permission to even go to another town!) and secondly it can easily be abused by my committing a crime at Point A whilst having a "look-alike" accomplice present my ID at Point B thus giving me an alibi.

But *WHY* is it necessary for the Government to keep track on where I live at all times? Currently the only groups I can think of on which such information is generally kept are murderers out on Licence and Sex Offenders!

Funny though it may seem, but for forward planning!

And *WHY* do they need ID cards to do that? How are they doing it at the moment *without* ID cards? Things don't change so rapidly that between one update of the electoral roll and the next there's going to be such a massive influx of people that suddenly everything collapses.

It is necessary for the register of electors, to make sure that everyone has a vote, but that is all.

[QUOTE]Which is a legal requirement. It also helps with the head count for the above.

Yes, it's a legal requirement, but have you ever heard of someone being prosecuted for *not* being on the electoral roll? There are an awful lot of people who, through deliberate intent or not really caring, slip through the cracks. How will you stop that happening with an ID card scheme?

if you or I want to buy fags or booze etc, *WE* don't look under 16 or 18, do we? So why should we *need* to carry that information to prove something which is bloody obvious?!

In this instance, for me or you, no!

Exactly. So to try to use this as an argument for a *compulsory* ID scheme for everyone is nonsense.

But, if cards started at 16; no card means no fags or booze. Simple, cured in one stroke. Did you actually know there is no offence for a under 16 smoking! It's the supplying!

Yes, I did know. But despite threats of fines for supplying etc, there are *still* people who will buy and supply cigarettes to under 16s. And they will *still* be able to buy them and give them to kids even if you have an ID card scheme.

I don't *deal* with benefits. I haven't had to deal with benefits for many years now. Most people in this country don't need to either. So, again, why should they need to? Or are you saying that *everyone* is a potential benefit fraudster and can't be trusted?

I do. Part of which you say is true. No, I'm not saying everyone.

Ah, I see, only the criminals, then. Err, but how do you tell them apart from the legitimate claimants??? Oh, of course, as you say...

They are all now in suits, laptop and a beamer to drive around in! And lots of them have been at it for years!

And yet they're so stupid that they won't be able to circumvent an ID card scheme...!

But I think you have to wake up to the fact, that they don't go around anymore in a striped jersey carrying a bag marked swag!

You know what, it's funny, but I could have *sworn* that I've used just exactly those same words somewhere around here...!!!

I'm not aware of *anyone*, be they a UK citizen, a tourist, or even an illegal immigrant who has been *denied* medical attention anywhere in the country. Or are you saying that if an illegal immigrant is knocked down by a car they should be left to bleed to death by the road because they aren't *entitled* to help??

I think your'll find just "tourists" from the EC are entitled to free treatment. Everyone else pays for treatment especially the Americas. I assume that by a UK citizen, you mean somebody who lives, works and pay taxes here. Yes, they have that right.

You didn't answer the question.

Now the illegals are in a boat all by themselves. You think then, that it is right (and this has been banded about in the press a long time) for illegals (and I mean the ones who get smuggled in and any other way they do it) to jump the queue to see doctors, consultants, have operations, get first class treatment for HIV, Aids, TB and anything else nasty that they are bringing in, in front of you.

No, I have never said anything of the sort. And frankly what you say there sounds like the ranting of the Right Wing press.

Yes, but if it was on your ID card, they wouldn't have to, would they. It would save a considerable amount of time in the first place, cause the hospital would know what blood type you are before you got there!

If you want something that tells hospitals what your blood type is, become a blood donor and they'll give you a nice little key ring with your blood type on it. Or carry an SOS talisman or similar.

Not a very convincing argument.

And if you are unconsious they would be able to know, wouldn't they. But if you had your ID card, you wouldn't have to wear dog tags!

And if you had been mugged and didn't have your ID because your wallet had been stolen? Whereas a mugger is unlikely to steal a set of dog tags...! Nope, still not convincing.

I really don't know why you keep banging on about presumption of innocence.

Because it's a bloody important right, that's why!

What really has guilt or innocence got to do with this thread. You show me anywhere in this world in black and white where the carrying of an ID card makes you guilty or innocent.

I just did, in those quotes I posted previously. There are places in this world where simply *failing* to carry an ID is an arrestable offence!

So your saying that religion shouldn't be on there. What about religions that do not accept blood from someone else?

Again, carry something that says "I'm a Jehovah's Witness, don't give me someone else's blood".

Why should I carry something that says "I'm *not* a Jehovah's Witness, please do give me someone else's blood"??

OK. So it bothers you, that is your opinion!

Yes, but I'm backing *my* opinion up with facts.

Then you have to make it *SECURE* and robust and make sure that there isn't the chance of my records being mixed up with yours.

No reason why they wouldn't! I wouldn't have thought so seeing for a start your name is different to mine!

Have you ever applied to Experian or Equifax for your credit details?

I have, most recently because I was turned down for a new credit card despite having never defaulted on a payment etc.

When I got them I discovered that my details had been linked with people I'd never even *heard* of at addresses I'd never lived at.

Now all these companies are trying to do is check if you're credit worthy or not. Imagine what sort of cock-ups could ensue if someone presses the wrong button and somehow links your details with mine. Oops you're blood type O negative? Sorry, we've just given you A Positive, you're going to die!

Then you have to *PAY* for it and we all know how good the government is at building computer systems that a) come in on time b) work and c) come in under budget!!!

Not really my problem and I would have thought not yours either!

It's coming out of the Tax money I pay to the government! I think it entitles me to consider it *my* problem!

Who said we were going to lose our basic rights? I have never seen anything in writing about it.

Well I've bloody well written about it! And for more information see:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/index.html

As for the fallacies part, your exercising right to free speech in a democratic society. I take it by the last part you were born well after WWII. But don't worry about it, your rights are slowly being eroded by the EC.

So where the hell did I say anything about *not* complaining about those losses either? Answer, I didn't!

And, yes, I'm exercising my right to speak freely. Now imagine I do it at Speakers Corner and a Policeman comes along and says "Ok, chummy, we don't like what you've been saying against the government, let's see your ID card..."

Graham

11-09-2003, 20:00

Ok, I don't want to do the whole damn debate again, but here's our ever trustworthy government's *latest* attempt to foist an ID scheme on us.

This time they're going for the "we must protect the children" angle!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32733.html

Who wants to bet that when a child reaches 16 under this scheme they're going to take all those records and burn them?!

Chris

11-09-2003, 20:21

Originally posted by Graham
Ok, I don't want to do the whole damn debate again, but here's our ever trustworthy government's *latest* attempt to foist an ID scheme on us.

This time they're going for the "we must protect the children" angle!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32733.html

Who wants to bet that when a child reaches 16 under this scheme they're going to take all those records and burn them?!

Not a chance, this Government loves stealth policies.

Ramrod

11-09-2003, 20:42

Originally posted by Graham

A "let" is a permission. If I need a card to allow me to walk down the street without the risk of being arrested, that is a "let". I do not need that and I'll do my best to ensure I *never* need that.

Oh gods, I've been explaining that all through this thread, but let me do it once more!

If a Policeman thinks I am a criminal he must have *reasonable grounds* for suspicion that I am guilty of something. However with a compulsory ID card he can stop me, check that I *am* carrying an ID (and arrest me if I'm not!) and then *check* to see if I am wanted for anything.

That is not *presumption of innocence*, that is "you're in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong face, let's see if you're guilty of something".

At the moment the poice can stop anyone they want to. They have the right to demand proof of id and if they think you are lying (my name is J Smith officer, really!) they have the right to take you back to the station and try to establish your id whilst there. ID cards would make it easier for the innocent to prove their id quickly and police would be able to establish that they have their man easier as well, cutting down on time spent faffing about at the station trying to establish it.
( a policeman told me that last week)

MadGamer

11-09-2003, 22:40

Yeah but you don't want personal information being given do you.

Graham

12-09-2003, 18:20

Originally posted by Ramrod

[SNIP]

( a policeman told me that last week)

And we discussed that one last week, so I'm not going to do it again.

Stephen Robb

13-09-2003, 03:00

As someone said on another thread not far from here, "I really don't know why I am rising up to this, but..."

Originally posted by Graham
Well, yes, it would be a bit daft not to! "No ID card? Ok, I'll take your word you're legally here!". But that rather shoots down the "it will only be for asylum seekers" argument, for exactly the same reason!

As I said ID cards were issued to every one. I lived through WWII
so I do think I know what I am talking about. I don't think you quoting an Act that was repealed 1952 (which was up to the time we still had ID cards) 51 years ago is hardly relevent to illegal asylum seekers in 2003.

Posted by Graham
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this danger has subsided a bit, hasn't it? So I don't *really* need to worry about being identified in such a situation?

Then your more naive than I thought, or are you too complacent about what goes on around you?

Posted by Graham
It will also make it harder for ordinary people, engaged in legitimate business to move about! And I think that any "danger" from terrorists being "able to move about freely" is being greatly exaggerated.

All through this thread you have not been able to substanciate this whatsoever!

Posted by Graham
Well that's one excuse for trying to foist them on us.

What is?

Posted by Graham
But having *experienced* the benefit system, I know for a fact that ID cards are *NOT* going to make a blind bit of difference in preventing benefit fraud unless *every* employer is required to do ID checks on every employee.

How do you know this? Until till it's been tried you and anybody else doesn't what difference it will make. Anyway you said:
originally posted by Graham
I don't *deal* with benefits. I haven't had to deal with benefits for many years now

If you haven't dealt with benefits "for many years now" how do know how the system works now?

Posted by Graham
And even then there will always be those who run illegal sweat shops, fruit and veg picking businesses etc who will ignore the rules anyway and go on letting people work for them and claim benefits.

You will find that the gangs who deal with the asylum seeker rackets, usually run the sweat shops and prostitution knowing that the illegals cannot go to the authorities.
As regards fruit and veg pickers as it's seasonal work, they are usually paid as casual labour, cash in hand, which I might tell you is perfectly legal. It is the workers who are required to notify the Benefits Agency.

Posted by Graham
What the government *should* do is change the benefit system entirely, but that's an argument for another thread.

And just what do you think they are trying to do now? Is it to be another thread? You've spouted nothing less!

Posted by Graham
Because organisations such as Privacy International keep a damn close eye on such things and there are also MPs who consider that such things would be a bad idea and will also speak up against them.

And has Privacy International got any teeth? Didn't look like it when I had a look! As regards the MP's you won't hear much. Due to our illustrious leader who wants get the next Constitutional Rules in as fast as possible, you might end up being you have got to have an ID card (to be carried at all times) to bring us in line with rest of Europe. What you going to do then, burn your Y-fronts in Parliament Square?

Posted by Graham
Fortunate for her that she left before the Pinochet regime took power. http://www.remember-chile.org.uk/ ID cards are an ideal tool for repression for regimes like his.

What's that got to with anything? She left 60 years ago so it is rather irrellevent today.

Posted by Graham
The cards have also been employed by certain regimes to repress segments of the population that are seen as "troublesome."

Posted by Stephen Robb
I would assume the whole country has identity cards but you have a gold star if your a bad boy! What is classified as "troublesome". Sh*t stirrers? If a alien is stirring up race hatred here, it appears nothing is done because the local authority doesn't want to appear racist. What would happen if a white English man stood up and spouted the same rubbish? He would be arrested, processed, up before the beak and sentenced to 5 years for stirring, all in 24 hours!

Posted by Graham
In apartheid South Africa, the cards were used to exclude blacks from voting and other activities

Posted by Stephen Robb
Reminds me of the USA, Alabama 1960's, blacks attending a white school and the apartheid had been running years before that in the States. Remember "I have a dream"? Didn't we have something like that during the days of the Raj? Who invented concentration camps? The Germans? No, it was the good old British in the Boer War!

Posted by Graham
And these are arguments *for* ID cards?? Oh, BTW, to correct a common misunderstanding, the Concentration Camps used by the British were *NOT* the same as those used as "Death Camps" by the Nazis. People did die in them, true, but that was due to incompetance and mis-management, not deliberate intent.

If you care to read through the quotes above you are talking about apartheid which is not rellevent to this country. Apartheid was running in the USA probably longer than it ever did in South Africa or as it was called Rhodesia. Oh BTW I do know the difference between the concentration camp's and you even forgot to mention the Russian ones which ran on a par to the German ones and Stalin in his reign killed more of his countrymen than WWII ever did. 18 to 20 million although the true figure would never be known.

All posted by Graham
A "let" is a permission. If I need a card to allow me to walk down the street without the risk of being arrested, that is a "let". I do not need that and I'll do my best to ensure I *never* need that.

Oh gods, I've been explaining that all through this thread, but let me do it once more!

If a Policeman thinks I am a criminal he must have *reasonable grounds* for suspicion that I am guilty of something. However with a compulsory ID card he can stop me, check that I *am* carrying an ID (and arrest me if I'm not!) and then *check* to see if I am wanted for anything.

That is not *presumption of innocence*, that is "you're in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong face, let's see if you're guilty of something".

If a Policeman thinks I am a criminal he must have *reasonable grounds* for suspicion that I am guilty of something. However with a compulsory ID card he can stop me, check that I *am* carrying an ID (and arrest me if I'm not!) and then *check* to see if I am wanted for anything.

That is not *presumption of innocence*, that is "you're in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong face, let's see if you're guilty of something".

So how will an ID card prove my innocence? Answer it *won't* unless I have to present it everywhere I go and that fact is kept on record so I can say "see, I wasn't at the scene of the crime".

Firstly I wouldn't want my government to keep that close tabs on where I go (although there's plenty of dictatorial regimes who have had exactly that power, where you may need permission to even go to another town!) and secondly it can easily be abused by my committing a crime at Point A whilst having a "look-alike" accomplice present my ID at Point B thus giving me an alibi.

I seriously think you are suffering from a distinct psychological paranoia over arrests and being guilty or innocent!

All posted by Graham
And *WHY* do they need ID cards to do that? How are they doing it at the moment *without* ID cards? Things don't change so rapidly that between one update of the electoral roll and the next there's going to be such a massive influx of people that suddenly everything collapses.

Yes, it's a legal requirement, but have you ever heard of someone being prosecuted for *not* being on the electoral roll? There are an awful lot of people who, through deliberate intent or not really caring, slip through the cracks. How will you stop that happening with an ID card scheme?

In answer to this if you want to quote me, quote me don't put words into my mouth!

Posted by Graham
Exactly. So to try to use this as an argument for a *compulsory* ID scheme for everyone is nonsense.

No, it's not an aurgument, it's a statement!

Posted by Graham
Yes, I did know. But despite threats of fines for supplying etc, there are *still* people who will buy and supply cigarettes to under 16s. And they will *still* be able to buy them and give them to kids even if you have an ID card scheme.

Yes but it would still make it more difficult to get booze and fags!

All posted by Graham
Ah, I see, only the criminals, then. Err, but how do you tell them apart from the legitimate claimants??? Oh, of course, as you say...

And yet they're so stupid that they won't be able to circumvent an ID card scheme...!

You are so short sighted it's unbelieveable!

All posted by Graham
You know what, it's funny, but I could have *sworn* that I've used just exactly those same words somewhere around here...!!!
Did you really?

All posted by Graham
You didn't answer the question.

I think you'll find I did, and as I said before, you want to quote me, quote me properly and word for word!

All posted by Graham
No, I have never said anything of the sort. And frankly what you say there sounds like the ranting of the Right Wing press.

Who said you did? I didn't. I suggest you read the quote properly and not keep going off half cocked like you do

All posted by Graham
If you want something that tells hospitals what your blood type is, become a blood donor and they'll give you a nice little key ring with your blood type on it. Or carry an SOS talisman or similar.

Not a very convincing argument.

And if you had been mugged and didn't have your ID because your wallet had been stolen? Whereas a mugger is unlikely to steal a set of dog tags...! Nope, still not convincing.

A matter of opinion.

All posted by Graham
Because it's a bloody important right, that's why!

Paranoia is still there!

Posted by Graham
I just did, in those quotes I posted previously. There are places in this world where simply *failing* to carry an ID is an arrestable offence!

This answer you have given here was to this question of mine below:

Posted by Stephen Robb
I really don't know why you keep banging on about presumption of innocence. What really has guilt or innocence got to do with this thread. You show me anywhere in this world in black and white where the carrying of an ID card makes you guilty or innocent.

Looking at the question, I don't think I made any comment about "failing to carry", I was talking about something completely different!

Posted by Graham
Again, carry something that says "I'm a Jehovah's Witness, don't give me someone else's blood".

Why should I carry something that says "I'm *not* a Jehovah's Witness, please do give me someone else's blood"??

You do really say some stupid things!

Posted by Graham
Yes, but I'm backing *my* opinion up with facts.

And as I said OK. So it bothers you, that is your opinion!

Posted by Graham
Have you ever applied to Experian or Equifax for your credit details?

I have, most recently because I was turned down for a new credit card despite having never defaulted on a payment etc.

When I got them I discovered that my details had been linked with people I'd never even *heard* of at addresses I'd never lived at.

Now all these companies are trying to do is check if you're credit worthy or not. Imagine what sort of cock-ups could ensue if someone presses the wrong button and somehow links your details with mine. Oops you're blood type O negative? Sorry, we've just given you A Positive, you're going to die!

No I'm afraid I haven't. How distressing for you! I've had credit and debit cards continually for over 30 years, and cannot see for the life of me the connection between credit cards and blood groups. Two different data bases for a start, so I don't ever see the problem ever arising!

Posted by Graham
It's coming out of the Tax money I pay to the government! I think it entitles me to consider it *my* problem!

What are you going to do, stop paying your taxes? I smell a bit of anarchy here.

Posted by Graham
Well I've bloody well written about it! And for more information see:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/index.html

So you keep saying. As I said before they have no teeth.

Posted by Graham
So where the hell did I say anything about *not* complaining about those losses either? Answer, I didn't!

This answer you have given here was to this question of mine below:
Posted by Stephen Robb
Who said we were going to lose our basic rights? I have never seen anything in writing about it. As for the fallacies part, your exercising right to free speech in a democratic society. I take it by the last part you were born well after WWII. But don't worry about it, your rights are slowly being eroded by the EC.

I didn't say you did, so as I have said before, don't insinuate that I did.

Posted by Graham
And, yes, I'm exercising my right to speak freely. Now imagine I do it at Speakers Corner and a Policeman comes along and says "Ok, chummy, we don't like what you've been saying against the government, let's see your ID card..."

Now that's where you wrong again you see. Speakers Corner was originally a execution site where they could execute up to 24 prisoners at a time. The Speakers Corner was originally where the prisoners said their final words. When public executions were done away with the tradition carried on. You can basically say what you like provided it was not seriously offensive. In today's climate you wouldn't be able to say anything to stir up racial hatred (that's against the Public Order Act 2001 or 2 anyway). You could even go there and spout off about ID cards and you won't even be arrested!

Shaun

13-09-2003, 07:43

Originally posted by Stephen Robb
You could even go there and spout off about ID cards and you won't even be arrested!

Which is where I think he should go and do it, because for every counter point anyone comes up with Graham spouts yet more rubbish.:rolleyes:

Nice post btw Stephen;)

Stephen Robb

13-09-2003, 12:00

Originally posted by dellwear
Which is where I think he should go and do it, because for every counter point anyone comes up with Graham spouts yet more rubbish.:rolleyes:

Nice post btw Stephen;)

Thank you, kind Sir!

Stephen Robb

13-09-2003, 12:37

Originally posted by Graham
I'm not that familar with that law to be able to comment, but, yes, it's possible that the law could be described as "racist", just as the law on "blasphemy" only includes Christianity could be called discriminatory.

However the point is that there *haven't* to the best of my knowledge been any cases of white people being discriminated on racial grounds, unless you know otherwise.

It was commented in the press some time ago that the biggest racists and who have the biggest chip, but more like a tree, was the Race Relations Board themselves to the point of being fanatical.

I thought blasphemy covered all religions, except with all the others, you are more likely to loose your head. Remember Simon Rushdie (?spelling) and his Satanic Verses?

There have been loads of cases reported in the press, usually involving promotion or the application of getting jobs. White man has better qualifications or experience, is overstepped by someone who has less. Biggest prime examples, the Police, (there is one going on now or has just been concluded) the Judiciary, big Corporates, the list is endless. Reasons why, the Organisation does not want to appear racist, by not promoting the coloured person.

There have been the odd cases, where the white man has taken the white issue to court, in other words the role has been reversed.

Graham

14-09-2003, 05:10

Originally posted by Stephen Robb
As someone said on another thread not far from here, "I really don't know why I am rising up to this, but..."

And as someone else said "Before I answer I will say I respect your views and you are entitled to your opions,"

Unfortunately they then follow this with a reply where they call me naive, complacent, stupid, short-sighted and even paranoid!

Now do the words "respect your views" and "entitled to your opinions" quite gel with these sort of comments?

Anyway...

As I said ID cards were issued to every one. I lived through WWII so I do think I know what I am talking about.

Did I say that you didn't?

I don't think you quoting an Act that was repealed 1952 (which was up to the time we still had ID cards) 51 years ago is hardly relevent to illegal asylum seekers in 2003.

An act that was repealed because it was *no longer necessary* for the Police or the Army (ie the "Security Services") to be able to identify someone as an "illegal alien" or a bona fide citizen.

What has now changed so greatly in the past few years that such a thing is desirable or necessary again?

You follow this by asking:

Then your more naive than I thought, or are you too complacent about what goes on around you?

But you don't actually make a point. You just make a vaguely worded and possibly insulting accusation.

It will also make it harder for ordinary people, engaged in legitimate business to move about! And I think that any "danger" from terrorists being "able to move about freely" is being greatly exaggerated.

All through this thread you have not been able to substanciate this whatsoever!

Which? The first sentence? The second? Both? Oh well, let's do both.

Firstly I have given the examples from France of ID cards being used to harass racial minorities and the abuse of the "sus" laws in the 1980s and the "institutional racism" of the UKs Police forces as valid demonstrations of ordinary people, engaged in legitimate business finding it harder to move about.

Secondly, yes, terrorists may be able to "move about freely", but what evidence do you actually *have* of there being any real and present danger to the people of this country from terrorists? It's all very well to claim there's a bogeyman out there, but some of us have grown up enough to say "ok, so where *is* it"?

Well that's one excuse for trying to foist them on us.

What is?

This is (quoted from post #158): "I thought Graham, these were being brought in to try and combat benefit fraud, which is running at about 1 or 2 billion a year, or doesn't that bother you?"

I know for a fact that ID cards are *NOT* going to make a blind bit of difference in preventing benefit fraud unless *every* employer is required to do ID checks on every employee.

How do you know this? Until till it's been tried you and anybody else doesn't what difference it will make.

Balderdash! If someone takes a casual job with eg a small business that doesn't deal with PAYE, say, to use an example from a bit further down, picking fruit, unless the employer gets the person's ID and contacts the Benefits Agency to see if they're claiming or not, nobody is going to be any the wiser.

(BTW are you the sort of person who will hit themselves with a hammer because until they've done it they don't know if it will hurt or not?!)

Anyway you said: [...] If you haven't dealt with benefits "for many years now" how do know how the system works now?

Gosh! You caught me out there! Obviously I don't have any friends who claim benefits with whom I've talked about the current state of the system and noted that whilst the rules may have been tightened in various areas, the fundamentals still work exactly the same (and still badly!)

You will find that the gangs who deal with the asylum seeker rackets, usually run the sweat shops and prostitution knowing that the illegals cannot go to the authorities.

A good point, a pity you then shoot yourself in the foot when you immediately follow this with....

As regards fruit and veg pickers as it's seasonal work, they are usually paid as casual labour, cash in hand, which I might tell you is perfectly legal. It is the workers who are required to notify the Benefits Agency.

Well, yes, but if these are *illegal* workers, do you think they're likely to contact the Benefits Agency? And, BTW, would their employers be scrupulous about, say, Health and Safety or paying the minimum wage or the European Working Times Directive?

Oh, and wasn't someone using this as an example for how ID cards *could* prevent benefit fraud?

What the government *should* do is change the benefit system entirely, but that's an argument for another thread.

And just what do you think they are trying to do now? Is it to be another thread?

Yes, because it's OFF TOPIC for this one.

And has Privacy International got any teeth? Didn't look like it when I had a look!

What "teeth" does any organisation of private citizens have? Precious little, in general. However groups of citizens *have* achieved changes in the law when sufficient of them decide that enough is enough and are willing to stand up and be counted.

As regards the MP's you won't hear much. Due to our illustrious leader who wants get the next Constitutional Rules in as fast as possible, you might end up being you have got to have an ID card (to be carried at all times) to bring us in line with rest of Europe.

So what do you think we should do? Sit on our backsides, crying into our beer (or orange squash) and moan whilst doing nothing? Or perhaps getting up and *saying* and *doing* something about it?

What you going to do then, burn your Y-fronts in Parliament Square?

Precisely what value do you think silly comments like this add to your arguments?

Fortunate for her that she left before the Pinochet regime took power. ID cards are an ideal tool for repression for regimes like his.

What's that got to with anything? She left 60 years ago so it is rather irrellevent today.

Ah, so it's a case of "I'm alright, Jack. Screw anyone else"?

But did she have family or friends or work colleagues that were left behind? Did any of them suffer through the torture and repression and murder of his Regime? Perhaps some of them might have different opinions on the value of ID cards?

If you care to read through the quotes above you are talking about apartheid which is not rellevent to this country.

I am talking about the *repression* of *minorities* through systems such as ID cards. They are as relevant to this country as any other.

I seriously think you are suffering from a distinct psychological paranoia over arrests and being guilty or innocent!

I think your ridiculous comments are seriously weaking what valid arguments you might have had.

In answer to this if you want to quote me, quote me don't put words into my mouth!

What on earth are you talking about? *What* words was I putting into your mouth?

Let me put the whole section back in:

(Re: Forward Planning) And *WHY* do they need ID cards to do that? How are they doing it at the moment *without* ID cards? Things don't change so rapidly that between one update of the electoral roll and the next there's going to be such a massive influx of people that suddenly everything collapses.

It is necessary for the register of electors, to make sure that everyone has a vote, but that is all.

Which is a legal requirement. It also helps with the head count for the above.

Yes, it's a legal requirement, but have you ever heard of someone being prosecuted for *not* being on the electoral roll? There are an awful lot of people who, through deliberate intent or not really caring, slip through the cracks. How will you stop that happening with an ID card scheme?

Now please tell me *which* words are the ones I was "putting into your mouth"?

if you or I want to buy fags or booze etc, *WE* don't look under 16 or 18, do we? So why should we *need* to carry that information to prove something which is bloody obvious?!

In this instance, for me or you, no!

Exactly. So to try to use this as an argument for a *compulsory* ID scheme for everyone is nonsense.

No, it's not an aurgument, it's a statement!

The *argument* was the one you put forward that ID cards would prevent children from buying fags and booze.

This is correct, but since it is unlikely that either of us could be mistaken for children and thus denied the ability to purchase these items, it is *NOT* an argument for IDs for everyone!

You are so short sighted it's unbelieveable!

If you have a point to make or an argument to put forward, please do so.

Resorting to insults doesn't help your case.

You didn't answer the question.

I think you'll find I did,

No, I think I found you didn't, which is *why* I said that.

Let me put it back in again and we'll see...

I'm not aware of *anyone*, be they a UK citizen, a tourist, or even an illegal immigrant who has been *denied* medical attention anywhere in the country. Or are you saying that if an illegal immigrant is knocked down by a car they should be left to bleed to death by the road because they aren't *entitled* to help??

I think your'll find just "tourists" from the EC are entitled to free treatment. Everyone else pays for treatment especially the Americas. I assume that by a UK citizen, you mean somebody who lives, works and pay taxes here. Yes, they have that right.

Now, please, can you tell me *which* part of this answers my question "are you saying that if an illegal immigrant is knocked down by a car they should be left to bleed to death by the road because they aren't *entitled* to help??"

and as I said before, you want to quote me, quote me properly and word for word!

Which bit did I omit to quote? Please tell me because if you're going to accuse me of distorting your words, I'd like to see the evidence.

You did write two subsequent paragraphs, but neither of those answered the question either and I saw no point in quoting large amounts of irrelevant material, so I snipped it.

Now the illegals are in a boat all by themselves. You think then, that it is right (and this has been banded about in the press a long time) for illegals (and I mean the ones who get smuggled in and any other way they do it) to jump the queue to see doctors, consultants, have operations, get first class treatment for HIV, Aids, TB and anything else nasty that they are bringing in, in front of you.

No, I have never said anything of the sort.

Who said you did? I didn't.

Excuse me?

Did I misunderstand where you say "You think then that it is right..." in the above quoted section?

If *I* am not the "you" being referred to, who is?

I suggest you read the quote properly and not keep going off half cocked like you do

And I suggest you don't keep doing this sort of thing because you are only making yourself look more and more foolish.

[Snip]

Paranoia is still there!

You do really say some stupid things!

You seem to be resorting to insults instead of answering my points more and more.

Yes, but I'm backing *my* opinion up with facts.

And as I said OK. So it bothers you, that is your opinion!

And again, I re-iterate, I am backing my opinion up with facts. Not insults. Not accusations, *FACTS*.

Where are *your* facts to counter mine?

I've had credit and debit cards continually for over 30 years, and cannot see for the life of me the connection between credit cards and blood groups. Two different data bases for a start, so I don't ever see the problem ever arising!

You don't? Sorry, could I just remind you of *YOUR* words from *YOUR* post #156:

"if it was on your ID card, they wouldn't have to, would they. It would save a considerable amount of time in the first place, cause the hospital would know what blood type you are before you got there!"

*YOU* were the one who was suggesting that blood groups could be stored on ID cards.

I then pointed out that if *non-critical* data such as your credit worthiness information can be cocked up by careless entry, "Imagine what sort of cock-ups could ensue if someone presses the wrong button and somehow links your details with mine. Oops you're blood type O negative? Sorry, we've just given you A Positive, you're going to die!"

Both are examples of electronic data storage. Both can be cocked up by someone entering incorrect information into a data base. QED.

It's coming out of the Tax money I pay to the government! I think it entitles me to consider it *my* problem!

What are you going to do, stop paying your taxes? I smell a bit of anarchy here.

Why do you feel it necessary to spout nonsense such as this?

Where did *I* say anything about "stopping paying my taxes"?

For someone who seems so concerned when he thinks I am "trying to put words into his mouth", you seem to be pretty unconcerned when you do exactly the same to me!

Well I've bloody well written about it! And for more information see:
http://www.privacyinternational.org...card/index.html

So you keep saying. As I said before they have no teeth.

You asked (again I quote) "Who said we were going to lose our basic rights? I have never seen anything in writing about it." and I replied pointing out that not only have *I* written about it, but so have others which was exactly what you wanted.

This answer you have given here was to this question of mine below:

I didn't say you did, so as I have said before, don't insinuate that I did.

Yet again I quote "You show me anywhere in this world in black and white where the carrying of an ID card makes you guilty or innocent."

I responded "I just did, in those quotes I posted previously. There are places in this world where simply *failing* to carry an ID is an arrestable offence!"

You now follow this up with "Looking at the question, I don't think I made any comment about "failing to carry", I was talking about something completely different! "

Well I wish you would tell me what you were bloody well talking about, because it seems pretty self-evident from where I'm sitting!

And, yes, I'm exercising my right to speak freely. Now imagine I do it at Speakers Corner and a Policeman comes along and says "Ok, chummy, we don't like what you've been saying against the government, let's see your ID card..."

[...] You can basically say what you like provided it was not seriously offensive. In today's climate you wouldn't be able to say anything to stir up racial hatred (that's against the Public Order Act 2001 or 2 anyway). You could even go there and spout off about ID cards and you won't even be arrested!

*Now* who is being "naive" and "short sighted"?!

My above quoted paragraph clearly predicates a situation where the law has changed such that ID cards are compulsory, hence it is a simple logical extension of the scenario that the "rules" for Speakers Corner and the Public Order Act 2002 may *also* have changed and, as such, it *would* be legal for a Policeman to demand my ID for saying "un-British" things.

Now if you're going to reply to this, may I suggest that you confine yourself to facts and reasonable debate and omit your customary insults, vague accusations and erroneous claims of mis-quoting because they don't help your credibility at all.

Graham

14-09-2003, 05:20

Originally posted by Stephen Robb

I'm not that familar with that law to be able to comment, but, yes, it's possible that the law could be described as "racist", just as the law on "blasphemy" only includes Christianity could be called discriminatory.

I thought blasphemy covered all religions, except with all the others, you are more likely to loose your head. Remember Simon Rushdie (?spelling) and his Satanic Verses?

Yes, I do remember Salman Rushdie.

And, from the following link you will note that (whilst many, if not all, religions have laws regarding blasphemy) in the UK when a Muslim demanded that The Satanic Verses be banned as "blasphemous" it was determined that the *only* religion this applied to was Christianity, as I pointed out in the first place.

http://www.flash.net/~lbartley/au/activist/act0104/grateful.htm

"In 1989, a devout follower of Islam attempted to bring a private prosecution against Salman Rushdie and his publisher, Viking Press, for writing and publishing the book, The Satanic Verses. According to the complaint, RushdieÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒ â€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢s book blasphemed "Allah, the Prophet Abraham and his son Ishmael, Muhammad (the Holy Prophet of Islam), his wives and companions, and the religion of Islam, contrary to common law." The QueenÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€ šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢s Bench Divisional Court held, however, that as the common law "now stands, it does not extend to religions other than Christianity." Moreover, Lord Justice Watkins went on to write, "We think it right to say that, were it open to us to extend the law to religions other than Christianity, we should refrain from doing so." The judge remarked that while an "English jury may be expected, or certainly were in the last century, to understand the tenets of Christianity, this would not be so with other religions." Moreover, shortly before the judgeÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€ šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢s decision, the Law Commission of the United Kingdom had recommended the abolition of the crime of blasphemy. So there certainly was no inclination to expand the law of blasphemy."

Stuart

14-09-2003, 13:52

Graham, while I agree that ID cards will not stop terrorism, as terrorists can be quite adept at intergrating themselves into local society, sometimes years before they do something.

The point I do have a query with is the fact you continually bring up racism in the french police force twenty years ago.

As the Stephen Lawerence enquiry concluded, the Metropolitan Police in "institutionally racist". I believe that (assuming the enquiry is correct and the police are institutionally racist) the police will stop anyone they want. And, yes, the police DO stop people and require them to identify themselves now, even without ID cards.

Anyway, I digress. What I believe is that ID cards will make little or no difference to this.

So, bearing in mind that the police already do stop the people they want to, and bearing in mind that what you say happened in France happened twenty years ago, so (I believe) cannot be compared, what difference do you think ID cards would make?

Also, I would like to know, what is your objection to a limited trial?

Graham

14-09-2003, 20:10

Originally posted by scastle
The point I do have a query with is the fact you continually bring up racism in the french police force twenty years ago.

Err, I think you've just conflated two entirely separate points here!

So, bearing in mind that the police already do stop the people they want to, and bearing in mind that what you say happened in France happened twenty years ago

Where did this "twenty years ago" figure come from? Anyone who is apparently of North African descent can be hassled by the French Police even today (in fact, even more so, given the increased worries about terrorism) and have to produce an ID.

Therefore any such comparison is valid *now*.

Also, I would like to know, what is your objection to a limited trial?

A "limited trial" is like "a little bit pregnant"!

Everyone should be entitled to the *full* protection of the law which inclues a fair trial. Or are you of the opinion that "some are more equal than others"?

Stuart

14-09-2003, 21:44

Originally posted by Graham

Anyone who is apparently of North African descent can be hassled by the French Police even today (in fact, even more so, given the increased worries about terrorism) and have to produce an ID.

Therefore any such comparison is valid *now*.

That happens in France. It may or may not happen here. We do not *know* until we try it. As has been stated before (by Ramrod, you & myself) the police in this country have plenty of reasons they can stop people. I doubt that the number of people stopped would be changed much by the introduction of ID cards (whatever colour they may be).

And while I am not a legal expert, my understanding of the French and English judicial systems (and the way they are policed) are different enough that any comparison is invalid.

A "limited trial" is like "a little bit pregnant"!

Depends on the limits defined. The limits I would suggest (as I outlined earlier in the thread) are that it is introduced in one or two small towns, and various indicators (such as arrest rates, racial complaints againt the police etc) should be monitored for the period of the trial.

I don't see how that is like "a little bit pregnant".

Everyone should be entitled to the *full* protection of the law which inclues a fair trial. Or are you of the opinion that "some are more equal than others"?

Exactly. They should be. I just don't see how ID cards would stop that. Yes, it is one more reason the police *may* stop you, but if they are going to stop someone, they have enough reasons to do it now, without ID cards.

Graham

16-09-2003, 00:13

Originally posted by scastle

[Re: Racial harassment of minorities using ID cards]

That happens in France. It may or may not happen here. We do not *know* until we try it.

How many times in this thread have I posted examples of racial miniorities being harassed by the Police in this country *without* needing ID cards? ID cards would, as I keep pointing out, just give them *another* excuse.

A "limited trial" is like "a little bit pregnant"!

Depends on the limits defined.

It wouldn't matter *what* limits were defined. Once such a system was introduced, unless there was a *massive* programme of civil disobedience with people deliberately destroying cards etc, the government would say whatever it wanted to "prove" that it was a success and continue to roll it out all over the UK.

For more details, see the Poll Tax, for instance.

Stephen Robb

17-09-2003, 19:25

Originally posted by Graham
And as someone else said "Before I answer I will say I respect your views and you are entitled to your opions,"

Yes I do, up to a certain point, that is what debate is all about. But your views are so blinkered, that you won't listen to anyone elses views what so ever, to the point of you ranting. You can dig out all the information you want, but the way you present it cuts very little ice with the rest of us. We just use common sense as to the situation that we find ourselves and this country in!
posted by graham
Unfortunately they then follow this with a reply where they call me naive, complacent, stupid, short-sighted and even paranoid!and
posted by graham
Now do the words "respect your views" and "entitled to your opinions" quite gel with these sort of comments?

Yes they do! As they stand on their own they could, but when you remove them out of context as you have done, they are totally meaningless, just words and nothing else! I'll add "blinkered" as it will save you the trouble!

posted by graham
Did I say that you didn't?

I didn't say you did, it was just the way it was implied as though I didn't know what I was talking about.
posted by graham
An act that was repealed because it was *no longer necessary* for the Police or the Army (ie the "Security Services") to be able to identify someone as an "illegal alien" or a bona fide citizen.
And as I said before, an act or statute brought out in 1939/1940 and repealed in 1952 has absolutely no substance to the present climate of today in 2003.
posted by graham
What has now changed so greatly in the past few years that such a thing is desirable or necessary again?

It's obvious with that a quote like that you have not listened to what anyone else has said, you are only intrested in your point of view and you browbeat anybody who doesn't share that view.
posted by graham
You follow this by asking:
[quote]posted by SR
Then your more naive than I thought, or are you too complacent about what goes on around you?
posted by graham
But you don't actually make a point. You just make a vaguely worded and possibly insulting accusation.

But I did make a point. Naive and complacent are words that describe your general view to an answer you gave. Because you said:
posted by graham
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this danger has subsided a bit, hasn't it? So I don't *really* need to worry about being identified in such a situation?[
and I said:
posted by SR
Then your more naive than I thought, or are you too complacent about what goes on around you?

Which? The first sentence? The second? Both? Oh well, let's do both.

Firstly I have given the examples from France of ID cards being used to harass racial minorities and the abuse of the "sus" laws in the 1980s and the "institutional racism" of the UKs Police forces as valid demonstrations of ordinary people, engaged in legitimate business finding it harder to move about.

Secondly, yes, terrorists may be able to "move about freely", but what evidence do you actually *have* of there being any real and present danger to the people of this country from terrorists? It's all very well to claim there's a bogeyman out there, but some of us have grown up enough to say "ok, so where *is* it"?

This is (quoted from post #158): "I thought Graham, these were being brought in to try and combat benefit fraud, which is running at about 1 or 2 billion a year, or doesn't that bother you?"

Balderdash! If someone takes a casual job with eg a small business that doesn't deal with PAYE, say, to use an example from a bit further down, picking fruit, unless the employer gets the person's ID and contacts the Benefits Agency to see if they're claiming or not, nobody is going to be any the wiser.

(BTW are you the sort of person who will hit themselves with a hammer because until they've done it they don't know if it will hurt or not?!)

Gosh! You caught me out there! Obviously I don't have any friends who claim benefits with whom I've talked about the current state of the system and noted that whilst the rules may have been tightened in various areas, the fundamentals still work exactly the same (and still badly!)

A good point, a pity you then shoot yourself in the foot when you immediately follow this with....

Well, yes, but if these are *illegal* workers, do you think they're likely to contact the Benefits Agency? And, BTW, would their employers be scrupulous about, say, Health and Safety or paying the minimum wage or the European Working Times Directive?

Oh, and wasn't someone using this as an example for how ID cards *could* prevent benefit fraud?

Yes, because it's OFF TOPIC for this one.

What "teeth" does any organisation of private citizens have? Precious little, in general. However groups of citizens *have* achieved changes in the law when sufficient of them decide that enough is enough and are willing to stand up and be counted.

So what do you think we should do? Sit on our backsides, crying into our beer (or orange squash) and moan whilst doing nothing? Or perhaps getting up and *saying* and *doing* something about it?

Precisely what value do you think silly comments like this add to your arguments?

Ah, so it's a case of "I'm alright, Jack. Screw anyone else"?

But did she have family or friends or work colleagues that were left behind? Did any of them suffer through the torture and repression and murder of his Regime? Perhaps some of them might have different opinions on the value of ID cards?

I am talking about the *repression* of *minorities* through systems such as ID cards. They are as relevant to this country as any other.

I think your ridiculous comments are seriously weaking what valid arguments you might have had.

What on earth are you talking about? *What* words was I putting into your mouth?

Let me put the whole section back in:

Now please tell me *which* words are the ones I was "putting into your mouth"?

The *argument* was the one you put forward that ID cards would prevent children from buying fags and booze.

This is correct, but since it is unlikely that either of us could be mistaken for children and thus denied the ability to purchase these items, it is *NOT* an argument for IDs for everyone!

If you have a point to make or an argument to put forward, please do so.

Resorting to insults doesn't help your case.

No, I think I found you didn't, which is *why* I said that.

Let me put it back in again and we'll see...

Now, please, can you tell me *which* part of this answers my question "are you saying that if an illegal immigrant is knocked down by a car they should be left to bleed to death by the road because they aren't *entitled* to help??"

Which bit did I omit to quote? Please tell me because if you're going to accuse me of distorting your words, I'd like to see the evidence.

You did write two subsequent paragraphs, but neither of those answered t