View Full Version : ID cards for uk citizens over 16
a leaked letter to other ministers written by david blunkett shows his strong support for a ID card to be compulsery for uk citizens
the card would possibly have fingerprints or iris prints on the card or something facial related to the cardholder
although you would not have to carry the card at all times if police officers request for you to do so you must provide the card within a few days of being asked to the card itself will cost around £40
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3048386.stm
Personnally I'd back it, we have driving licences, passports and credit cards etc. so they already know lots about you. Just think you'd be able to open a video shop account without having to bring 10 forms of ID just to prove who you are.
If I had my way everyone would be planted with a chip at birth and then could be tracked. Mmm this could be a film, perhaps I'd call it demolition man?
But why would I need one if I have a passport?
Originally posted by Tricky
If I had my way everyone would be planted with a chip at birth and then could be tracked. Mmm this could be a film, perhaps I'd call it demolition man?
well lets hope you dont get in to power then those systems can easily be abused in theory im in support of the proposal for ID cards but as the technology gets ever more complex so do the identity thieves...............
Dave Stones
06-07-2003, 22:03
personally i couldnt care less. itd be interesting to see how the identity thieves would steal our iris scans or colonic maps or fingerprints or whatever though...
I wold have no prop with ID cards but there is also no reason the passports couldnt be built intothe cards with you NI number and even Drivers licence with a data base that you could update online
The only thing i dont understand about passports is kids ones my kids have photos on them when they were 3 mths & 2 they are now 2 & 4 and take no resembelence to there photos
At least mine still looks familular just the mullet thats gone
Theodoric
06-07-2003, 22:12
I'd have thought that making most of us pay £40 for the card would be a bit of a political shooting yourself in the foot action. I can see it really riling a lot of people (OK, for 'a lot of people' read 'me' :) ). In some ways it's like the way that the Chinese execute people by shooting them, then make the relatives pay for the ammunition!
i would think the money should be going to a worthy cause back in to public services or something related to everyone
Originally posted by kronas
i would think the money should be going to a worthy cause back in to public services or something related to everyone
I think the money should go towards the card. Why should they charge anymore than the thing costs?
Regarding passports, I was just thinking that you probably don't want fingerprints etc. on that. I can just see US immigration copying the info into their records upon entry, just in case....
Originally posted by danielf
I think the money should go towards the card. Why should they charge anymore than the thing costs?
i dont quite understand you there i was talking about if it was implimented and we were paying £40 for it i was thinking about where the money should go
Originally posted by kronas
i dont quite understand you there i was talking about if it was implimented and we were paying £40 for it i was thinking about where the money should go
Well, the implementation and making of the cards would cost money. I would think the 40 quid would be for that. If the actual cost of the card was less than 40 quid, I'd be right pi**ed, because it meant I was being overcharged for a card I never asked for.
Originally posted by danielf
Well, the implementation and making of the cards would cost money. I would think the 40 quid would be for that. If the actual cost of the card was less than 40 quid, I'd be right pi**ed, because it meant I was being overcharged for a card I never asked for.
of course it wont be costing the full £40 hence why i mentioned the money generated from it should go back to the public in someway or is it the goverments idea to fill a gaping hole in some of there finances :shrug:
vaiolator
06-07-2003, 22:29
Just my initial thoughts;
I wouldn't pay for something I don't want.
What would be the point if you don't have to carry the compulsory card? If I was stopped without a card and given a producer as with a driving licence, what would prevent me from giving a false name and address? Afterall, I would have no ID to show anything different.
Perhaps if as much time and effort was put into tackling the persistant criminals, we wouldn't need cards anyway.
Theodoric
06-07-2003, 22:30
Originally posted by danielf
[B]I think the money should go towards the card. Why should they charge anymore than the thing costs?
Why should they charge us anything? Unlike a driving license or a passport, it's not something that is of particular use to us or something that we're clamouring for. If the government want us to have one, let them pay for it.
OK, I know it's our taxes that pay for it at the end of the day, but it's the sheer arrogance of the government that gets my goat; "Listen, peasant, we know what's best for you! Oh, and that's £40 you owe us."
Originally posted by kronas
of course it wont be costing the full £40 hence why i mentioned the money generated from it should go back to the public in someway or is it the goverments idea to fill a gaping hole in some of there finances :shrug:
If they are going to force this card on you, it should not cost more than needed to run the scheme. IMO anyway...
Originally posted by Theodoric
Why should they charge us anything? Unlike a driving license or a passport, it's not something that is of particular use to us or something that we're clamouring for. If the government want us to have one, let them pay for it.
OK, I know it's our taxes that pay for it at the end of the day, but it's the sheer arrogance of the government that gets my goat; "Listen, peasant, we know what's best for you! Oh, and that's £40 you owe us."
Good point...
Originally posted by Theodoric
Why should they charge us anything? Unlike a driving license or a passport, it's not something that is of particular use to us or something that we're clamouring for. If the government want us to have one, let them pay for it.
OK, I know it's our taxes that pay for it at the end of the day, but it's the sheer arrogance of the government that gets my goat; "Listen, peasant, we know what's best for you! Oh, and that's £40 you owe us."
in esscence you have a point no doubt they will put the terrorist spin on it to scare people in to it :rolleyes:
just my 2p worth
why can't you obtain this id card as your passport runs out that way no mad rush and no boo boo's dropped
and the price for this magnifico card £10 Top's after all it is another people tax well thats how i see it
I think that it is a good idea to have a id card, it should have as much info on it as possible....make life easier. I don't agree with having to pay for it directly. They want us to have one, they pay for it.
btw....the cost of the card is approx £33. It will cost us £39 because we will be subsidising the young/old/unemployed who will only pay £5
But have those in power made allowances for people who's beliefs would dictate that they shouldn't take the mark...erm, I mean the ID card?
Originally posted by Russ D
But have those in power made allowances for people who's beliefs would dictate that they shouldn't take the mark...erm, I mean the ID card?
Explain please?
Yes we should all have them and they should be compulsary to have on you when you are out. The cost should be borne by everyone individually and could be phased in over a period of years to allow people on low incomes to contribute towards the cost of them overtime. Perhaps £1 a week or something taken out of their banks or even off their benefits.
If you try to argue that it shouldn't cost us anything then you are naive. Its going to cost us anyway whether or not we pay for it out of our own money or not. At least my way people across the board pay for it, not some scheme where only those of us who are willing to pay our own way in this word pay for it AND subsidise others aswell.
With regards to those with religious beliefs, rubbish. They live in Britain and enjoy the benefits that brings us so they abide by the law. One rule for everyone. If there was less PC gone mad dicking around with minorities this country would be a better place.
Yes to ID cards, yes to us paying for them, and yes to us carrying them at all times.
Originally posted by danielf
Explain please?
Revelations states that we shall all be required to take some kind of identification 'mark', better known as the 'mark of the beast'. Let's just say that acceptance of this 'mark' would be bad news for all who willingly took it.
Although it is stated that it is to be taken in the right hand or the forehead, this IMO would just be the tip of the iceberg.
With regards to those with religious beliefs, rubbish. They live in Britain and enjoy the benefits that brings us so they abide by the law.
So how does that apply to me then?
Its got nothing to do with bloody religion. The sooner people stop trying to condition the modern world with beliefs written by god knows who millenia ago the better.
Originally posted by Russ D
So how does that apply to me then?
What has religeous beliefs got to do with carrying around cards which confirm your identity ?
Originally posted by Nor
Its got nothing to do with bloody religion. The sooner people stop trying to condition the modern world with beliefs written by god knows who millenia ago the better.
Nothing to do with religion. When such an identification device is predicted in the Bible.
So by your logic I'm not to follow my beliefs? Wow, someone else imposing their beliefs on me :D
Russ you really need to forget about what it says in the bible sometimes and think things out for yourself.
Originally posted by Russ D
Revelations states that we shall all be required to take some kind of identification 'mark', better known as the 'mark of the beast'. Let's just say that acceptance of this 'mark' would be bad news for all who willingly took it.
Although it is stated that it is to be taken in the right hand or the forehead, this IMO would just be the tip of the iceberg.
I'm not that scared of this beasty of yours, but I do have my doubts over what info should go onto a card like this. Not that I have anything to worry about, or don't want to carry identification. I usually have my passport on me.
Originally posted by Nor
Russ you really need to forget about what it says in the bible sometimes and think things out for yourself.
I'm sure you're not deliberately trying to be so insulting....
How about if I said to you that you really need to start beliving what the Bible says?
Then that would be silly Russ.
Originally posted by Nor
Then that would be silly Russ.
OK now take what you just said to me - equally silly.
No. What I'm saying is we should be able to discuss, evaluate and decide on whats right in our society based on the potential benefits versus the potential drawbacks not on what it says in a book that was written 2000 years ago which had no clue what a society of today faces. That isn't silly.
Originally posted by Nor
No. What I'm saying is we should be able to discuss, evaluate and decide on whats right in our society based on the potential benefits versus the potential drawbacks not on what it says in a book that was written 2000 years ago which had no clue what a society of today faces. That isn't silly.
I'm not saying we should ALL boycott the ID card - just that it should not be compulsary. You advised me to stop believing in something which means a lot to me and millions of others. That's what I consider silly.
How many criminals do you think will suddenly find God ? The whole point about these cards is they have to be compulsary. There isn't much point in all the nice law abiding folk having them and the criminals not having to bother.
They should be compulsary regardless of religous beliefs because quite frankly if those beliefs are at odds with helping fight crime then the people who hold those beliefs really need to re-evaluate them.
Originally posted by Nor
They should be compulsary regardless of religous beliefs because quite frankly if those beliefs are at odds with helping fight crime then the people who hold those beliefs really need to re-evaluate them.
Sorry but that's rubbish. I have nothing to hide and if the police want to check up on me at any time then they're welcome to (except on a friday between 9:30 and 10pm coz that's when Scrubs is on :)), but I will never be forced in to carrying such an identifier.
Stuart W
06-07-2003, 23:46
ID cards are a BAD idea.
No matter what technology is incorperated into the card it will still be abused.
Imagin having someone elses card adjusted to your photo / retinal scan / fingerprint..... not only would you pass yourself off as them, you wouldn't need any other ID.
Just like they are abused in the states. Ask any american teen if they own / use fake ID........
Besides, what ever happened to freedom? Am I only free if I conform to a set of restrictions??
OK, I understand there are allways restrictions in any society (no murdering people etc.) but to enforce everyone to carry identification is wrong in my opinion.
If I am stopped in the street by the Police, I expect them to have a reason to stop me, not me to provide proof of my identity!!
Can't believe how ridiculous you are being Russ. What has having a card confirming your identity really have to do with the mark of the beast anyway ? You already have to carry identification anyway when you go sit an exam, or open a video shop membership, get a library book out etc. I find it ridiculous that 1. the Bible says you shouldn't have to carry something identifying yourself and 2 that you choose to adopt such a position when its written 2000 years ago when they had no comprehension at all of the problems facing modern society.
Dunno how we always seem to manage to get into the religious debate on so many non related issues. Not everything has to be a religous choice you know. We'd be alot better off if we didn't have religion. Blind faith may be comendable and conforting but its also an excuse to adopt positions contrary to whats for the good of the country and the law abiding people who live here.
Yep I would back this, in my book nothing to hide nothing to fear.:) Police could certainly keep track on people stopped in the street for one thing and another.
Originally posted by Nor
Can't believe how ridiculous you are being Russ. What has having a card confirming your identity really have to do with the mark of the beast anyway ? You already have to carry identification anyway when you go sit an exam, or open a video shop membership, get a library book out etc. I find it ridiculous that 1. the Bible says you shouldn't have to carry something identifying yourself and 2 that you choose to adopt such a position when its written 2000 years ago when they had no comprehension at all of the problems facing modern society.
Dunno how we always seem to manage to get into the religious debate on so many non related issues. Not everything has to be a religous choice you know. We'd be alot better off if we didn't have religion. Blind faith may be comendable and conforting but its also an excuse to adopt positions contrary to whats for the good of the country and the law abiding people who live here.
I'll assume your lack of knowledge comes from not knowing anything about Revelations.
It is stated that during the 'end times' (do a google for more info) the antichrist will demand everyone takes a mark of loyalty to him. This will come in the form of an indentifying 'mark' on the forehead or back of the right hand. Anyone who takes this mark will never be saved. Hopefully you can see from this why many christians would not be in favour of using and ID card.
The problem here is that of all the books of the Bible, the only one which has not yet come true is Revelations - it is a prediction of the future. 2000 years or 10,000 years, we believe it will happen.
Originally posted by Russ D
I'll assume your lack of knowledge comes from not knowing anything about Revelations.
It is stated that during the 'end times' (do a google for more info) the antichrist will demand everyone takes a mark of loyalty to him. This will come in the form of an indentifying 'mark' on the forehead or back of the right hand. Anyone who takes this mark will never be saved. Hopefully you can see from this why many christians would not be in favour of using and ID card.
The problem here is that of all the books of the Bible, the only one which has not yet come true is Revelations - it is a prediction of the future. 2000 years or 10,000 years, we believe it will happen.
I didn't know that. So if it became compulsory to have a card at some point, you wouldn't carry one Russ? I can't see carry one of these cards would be swearing alliegence to the Antichrist.
Originally posted by Martin
I didn't know that. So if it became compulsory to have a card at some point, you wouldn't carry one Russ? I can't see carry one of these cards would be swearing alliegence to the Antichrist.
I've only given you a very small part of Revelations, I'd need to go in to detail to explain it all. Using this card may not neccessarily mean the antichrist is on the scene but a little research on the subject (try a google) will explain far more than I could.
I'm all in favour of UK ID cards, this well overdue. It will be a very useful thing to do and can only make life simpler. Those who are opposed suffer from a form of paranoia and completely ignore the fact that we already carry numerous examples of ID everyday.
:wavey:
Oh gods, here we go with the ID card debate again...
Let's take a few critical points:
1) "So what's the problem? We carry lots of ID all the time".
Generally true, however in the UK we have a fundamental right to "go about our lawful business without let or hinderance". (A "let" is a "permission")
We do *not* have to carry ID and we cannot be *required* to identify ourselves to anyone, not even the Police unless they have reasonable grounds for asking. (And "I think you're not carrying an ID card" is *not* reasonable grounds!)
2) But the government says they won't be compulsory and they have no plans to make them compulsory.
Again, true. There again, this government also said that they had no plans to increase taxes...!
3) They will prevent crime.
Err, how? What crimes will they prevent? Burglary? Mugging? Driving without licence or insurance? Nope.
They *may* be able to cut down on eg Benefit Fraud, but since the majority of the country aren't *on* benefits, it seems like a big sledgehammer to crack a small nut. They may also be able to cut credit and debit card fraud, but let's just look at that in the next point...
4) Ah, but they'll make life easier when you do need to identify yourself.
Possibly true. Not long ago, when I opened a new business account, I had problems because, as I don't drive and don't have a passport, I had no "photographic ID" which was needed (despite the fact that there were six people in the bank who could have identified me by sight!)
However let's just follow this along a moment. It could cut down on credit card and debit card fraud if you have to present your ID card with your credit card. But what this means is that *every* time you want to buy something, be it fuel for your card or your weekly shopping you could be *required* to prove who you are! But if the cards aren't compulsory to carry and you didn't bring yours along, are they going to refuse the transaction??
5) Ah, but the only people who worry about that are the crooks. After all, if you have nothing to hide, why should you worry?
Well, actually what I worry about is every time I hear that argument I see a basic and fundamental right being eroded a little more.
*EVERYBODY*, even those who have been convicted of crimes and subsequently been released from jail, has the right to be PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!
Pardon me for shouting, but that right is one that too many people seem to take for granted.
The "if you have nothing to hide" bunch, however, even if they don't *realise* they are saying, want to reverse that right so you are "presumed guilty until proven innocent". By their logic, if I don't want an ID card, I must have "something to hide", therefore I am guilty and *I* have to prove my innocence!
That would turn our entire system of justice on its head throw away an extremely precious right.
6) Ok, but you'd only be asked for your ID if the Police had reason to believe you were a criminal.
Really? I suggest, then, you take a look at the application of the "Sus" laws from the 1980s where the Police could stop someone "on suspicion" of them being criminals.
Unfortunately a lot of people seemed to be being stopped solely on the grounds of being "suspiciously black". Even in France, where they have ID cards and the rules say you're not allowed to do this, a disproportionate number of people who are stopped and asked for ID are of North African/ Algerian descent (and that includes black British tourists).
So, tell me again, how good ID cards are for us all...
Originally posted by Nor
<snip> I find it ridiculous that 1. the Bible says you shouldn't have to carry something identifying yourself and 2 that you choose to adopt such a position when its written 2000 years ago when they had no comprehension at all of the problems facing modern society.<snip>
It would be helpful if you displayed some evidence of having tried to understand what the Bible is about before dismissing it out of hand. I want to believe you have an honest and well thought out opinion on the subject 'cos I prefer always to think the best of people as far as possible. However I can't escape the niggling suspicion that you're just being ignorant.
<snip>Blind faith may be comendable and conforting but its also an excuse to adopt positions contrary to whats for the good of the country and the law abiding people who live here.
How deeply patronizing. Who made you the arbiter of what's good for this country? People deciding for themselves that they know what's best for everyone else is exactly how this ridiculous ID card plan has come about. :rolleyes:
Interesting Graham but not convincing. Having lived & worked in Zimbabwe where ID cards are compulsory but strangely not required when moving about my wife & I always used to carry ID because the ZRP (Zimbabwe Republic Police) would often stop people to check ID and the consequences for not carrying ID could be very serious, kept standing in the heat, hungry & thirsty until some hours later being marched off to nearest police station to be charged. The ZRP took little interest if those apprehended were locals, often Black women with kids, the odd unsuspecting tourist or anyone else. I suppose that's an argument against ID cards but its extreme, there is no law & order in Zimbabwe now.
Likewise in Kenya was supposed to carry ID but never a problem there.
Anyway fair enough you have your opinion we agree to differ.
:wavey:
Russ, I went and read Revelations13. A gripping read. I then read a lot of stuff that I googled (good conspiracy theory type stuf there). If I was even of a mildly religious bent it would scare me sh*tless. I can see where you are coming from about the id card business.
Now, unless the card is required to be on my forehead/ the back of my right hand or has the number of the beast on it, I cannot accept that it is the work of the beast. The bit about not being able to buy or sell or conduct your business is a bit freaky though.....:devsmoke: :batty: :D
Foucault, Cohen and Lyon have all written about social control through the use of surveillance [interesting stuff, there might be some extracts floating on the Web].
We are already 'visible' in society without even having ID cards. Every cash point you use, every camera that sees you and purchases you make mean that your movements can be traced. In terms of social control ID cards are the next logical step.
The law abiding people will take up ID cards because they have nothing to hide. The people who don't break the law but want some privacy will be pressuried into believing they have something to hide and eventually take-up cards. The people who the Goverment are targeting [criminal elements] will just develop new ways of evading capture and surveillance. The Government will tell us we are in a safer society but we won't really be.
Originally posted by towny
It would be helpful if you displayed some evidence of having tried to understand what the Bible is about before dismissing it out of hand. I want to believe you have an honest and well thought out opinion on the subject 'cos I prefer always to think the best of people as far as possible. However I can't escape the niggling suspicion that you're just being ignorant.
I haven't read all those bits of the bible so I can't argue why ID cards aren't opposed by the bible. But thats not really where I'm coming from. I'm coming from the perspective that to claim immunity from ID cards because of something it says in a book written 2000 years ago is, in my opinion, nonsense. How religion can be involved in this I really do not know, its just ridiculous. In my view decisions should be made on whats best for us, our neighbour and society as a whole after weighing up the pro's and con's. Not by what was written 2000 years ago by people who had no clue what a modern societies problems are.
How deeply patronizing. Who made you the arbiter of what's good for this country? People deciding for themselves that they know what's best for everyone else is exactly how this ridiculous ID card plan has come about. :rolleyes:
No.. I'm saying we should use our own minds to decide whats best for the us. I'm not proclaiming to be right, I could be wrong. Stewart put forward a good argument against ID cards. I don't care about being right, I care about whats best for me and the country. I don't think its right to use the bible as a reason not to support something that may help our society, but by all means argue that ID cards may be bad for society but do it on the basis of advantages and disadvantages not on the sole reason that someone wrote in a book 2000 years ago that it shouldn't happen.
ID Card? I'd carry one, but I sure as sh*t is brown wouldn't pay 40 quid for something that's forced on me.
Originally posted by Nor
I don't think its right to use the bible as a reason not to support something that may help our society, but by all means argue that ID cards may be bad for society but do it on the basis of advantages and disadvantages not on the sole reason that someone wrote in a book 2000 years ago that it shouldn't happen. [/B]
Go and read up online and in the bible. Honestly, it is some scary sh*t that is being promoted there. I can see why some people are having second thoughts from a religious angle. (and I don't believe:eek: )
Originally posted by Ramrod
Go and read up online and in the bible. Honestly, it is some scary sh*t that is being promoted there. I can see why some people are having second thoughts from a religious angle. (and I don't believe:eek: )
But still, I would imagine religious people have passports. Are they just hesitant to cary another card as this might be 'the big one'?
Originally posted by danielf
But still, I would imagine religious people have passports. Are they just hesitant to cary another card as this might be 'the big one'?
Seems that way. Every generation seems to have had its 'the end of the world is nigh' brigade, we are no different.
Originally posted by Nor
<snip> Not by what was written 2000 years ago by people who had no clue what a modern societies problems are.<snip>
The overwhelming majority of people on Earth follow one religion or another. That's why religious considerations are perfectly valid in any kind of decision or debate you could care to name. Fashionable atheism or agnosticism is very much a product of certain parts of Western Europe and one or two other places, Australia for example. In world terms, you are in a very small minority.
The Bible was completed a little under 2000 years ago but was begun much earlier than that. And it isn't merely an a-b-c instruction manual for life. If it were, I would agree with you that it would be silly to base modern decisions on the perspective of people who had no concept of technology, industrialisation etc etc. However the Bible is about God, our relationship to him and each other, and, yes, patterns for living a 'godly' life. It sets out basic principles which are as valid now as they ever were. You can't, for example, tell me that "Love your neighbour" is no longer good advice simply because it was written down two millennia ago.
To try to keep this on topic, Russ' particular point was with regard to a Biblical book - The Revelation - which claims to be prophesy; i.e. a prediction/warning/promise of things to come in the future. That means it is necessarily of interest to those people living in the times to which it relates. Many Christians believe these are those times.
Personally, I do look for a time when an ID scheme forces Christians to decide who they are loyal to. However I don't think a UK ID card scheme is it. As Ramrod has pointed out, Revelation talks about a mark on the forehead or the back of the hand. I think we're looking at something a little further into the future, tied up with some kind of international authority or even a single world government.
My own objections to a UK ID card scheme are more based on civil liberties concerns, but I've gone on enough for now and other people have already made that point very well. :)
Originally posted by Gogogo
Interesting Graham but not convincing. Having lived & worked in Zimbabwe [snip] the consequences for not carrying ID could be very serious. I suppose that's an argument against ID cards
Yes, it gives those who wish to abuse power the right to do so with impunity.
but its extreme, there is no law & order in Zimbabwe now.
Which has no logical connection to the subject.
Anyway fair enough you have your opinion we agree to differ.
If you wish to differ with me, that's fine.
But this is, for me, not just an opinion, nor merely an interesting discussion, this is something I will damn well *fight*. I am entirely willing to stand up and be counted and have already done so.
When the government tried their "stealth consultation" on ID cards I made certain that I spread the word far and wide so people could register their disapproval. When the government tried to ignore or write off the 5000+ responses that were sent via the Privacy International website I wrote to my MP to ensure that they weren't going to get away with this.
This is going to affect *my* rights and yours, and whether you care about them or not, I *do* care and will try my best to do something about it.
spacedhopper
08-07-2003, 09:43
I'd rather just go for the barcode tattoo on the forearm, one less item in the wallet, it worked for the Nazis...
timewarrior2001
08-07-2003, 09:49
Although I dont have any objectiosn to carrying an ID card, I do think that this country is already like a police state.
Hopefully the ID card will become reality, and those immigrants that enter illegallly will end up destitute no money, no nice cosy council house and no chance at all of claiming legal aid.
However, theres still nothing to prevent false Iris and fingerprint scans, I mean, fake an ID card and put your own details on, et voila an acceptable ID card.
I fail to see what rights we have now that will be affected by having an ID card, I mean, if we dont have our driving documents on us we have to report to a police station within 7 days.
If we are not on the electoral role it is impossible to obtain credit.
The national insurance card scheme failed.
So we need a replacement, a card that can act as :-
A) a passport
B) proof of ID
C) a credit card
D) a bank card
E) a driving licence
Whats the harm? dont mention human rights, how can this be against our human rights. What about our right to live in safety?
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 09:54
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Although I dont have any objectiosn to carrying an ID card, I do think that this country is already like a police state.
Hopefully the ID card will become reality, and those immigrants that enter illegallly will end up destitute no money, no nice cosy council house and no chance at all of claiming legal aid.
However, theres still nothing to prevent false Iris and fingerprint scans, I mean, fake an ID card and put your own details on, et voila an acceptable ID card.
surely when you go along to the police station or whatver with your fake ID though, and they ask to scan your iris and it doesnt match, there would be a problem?
or have i missed something here?
and as for reading revelations, well i would but i don think there is a bible in this house, and im feeling too lazy to google for it :shrug:
Originally posted by spacedhopper
I'd rather just go for the barcode tattoo on the forearm, one less item in the wallet, it worked for the Nazis... :erm: :disturbd: :nono:
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 10:00
regarding something russ D said earlier about "the mark"... cant find it to quote now :rolleyes: oh well.
totally offtopic is this why people in the middle ages that committed crimes etc had letters braned on their heads, so they could be identified by the public _and_ so they couldnt be "saved"?
just a thought...
timewarrior2001
08-07-2003, 10:04
Originally posted by Dave Stones
surely when you go along to the police station or whatver with your fake ID though, and they ask to scan your iris and it doesnt match, there would be a problem?
or have i missed something here?
and as for reading revelations, well i would but i don think there is a bible in this house, and im feeling too lazy to google for it :shrug:
Make a fake ID card, put correct Iris and finger prints on it, hey presto no ones an illegal immigrant. It wouldnt be until closer inspection that anythign would show up. And how many hours would that take? the police stations would be overflowing while everyhting was documented so it would not be checked thoroughly
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 10:07
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
Make a fake ID card, put correct Iris and finger prints on it, hey presto no ones an illegal immigrant. It wouldnt be until closer inspection that anythign would show up. And how many hours would that take? the police stations would be overflowing while everyhting was documented so it would not be checked thoroughly
the filthy immigrants wouldnt need ID cards anyway... no doubt they would get away without having to pay £39, i bet they would get paid £39 for the "inconvenience" of having to carry a card around...
have to say the ID card thing is a good idea in principle though, if driving licence passport etc ever becomes replaced by one piece of plastic, i will be a happy bunny :D
Originally posted by Dave Stones
regarding something russ D said earlier about "the mark"... cant find it to quote now :rolleyes: oh well.
totally offtopic is this why people in the middle ages that committed crimes etc had letters braned on their heads, so they could be identified by the public _and_ so they couldnt be "saved"?
just a thought...
I don't know, but it's an interesting idea. The Catholic church in the middle ages had a very high view of itself and thought it had a great deal of authority to decide what should happen to people both in this life and in the afterlife.
For example, the first man to translate the Bible into English from the Latin version used by the Church (John Wycliffe, in the late 14th century) upset the Pope so much that some years after his death, his bones were exhumed and burned. This was because they believed that by cremating him they could deny him the chance of being resurrected at the end of time. Just for good measure they officially excommunicated him as well, clearly believing that even though he went to meet his maker some 40 years earlier, it was still in their gift to decide whether he should be in heaven or not!
Sorry all, that was totally off topic ...
ID cards anyone? ;)
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 10:18
Originally posted by towny
I don't know, but it's an interesting idea. The Catholic church in the middle ages had a very high view of itself and thought it had a great deal of authority to decide what should happen to people both in this life and in the afterlife.
For example, the first man to translate the Bible into English from the Latin version used by the Church (John Wycliffe, in the late 14th century) upset the Pope so much that some years after his death, his bones were exhumed and burned. This was because they believed that by cremating him they could deny him the chance of being resurrected at the end of time. Just for good measure they officially excommunicated him as well, clearly believing that even though he went to meet his maker some 40 years earlier, it was still in their gift to decide whether he should be in heaven or not!
Sorry all, that was totally off topic ...
ID cards anyone? ;)
ah all the poor people nowadays that get cremated... no second life for them ;)
yes ID cards.. theyre a good thing :D
Originally posted by Dave Stones
<snip>have to say the ID card thing is a good idea in principle though, if driving licence passport etc ever becomes replaced by one piece of plastic, i will be a happy bunny :D
I was a happy bunny when I learned that the new driving licence would be a photo card. 'Great', I thought, 'no more carrying round that big piece of paper, and it'll be good for proving who I am as well'. Of course, I was cheezed in the extreme to discover that the new driving licence is in fact a photo card and a paper licence, and that the licence is not technically complete unless you are carrying them both. Any jobsworth copper could refuse to accept your photocard as proof of anything unless you're carrying the paper counterpart as well.
So I have to say I am not at all confident that any bureaucrat can devise a scheme that is genuinely convenient for users. The civil service mindset just doesn't work like that.
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 10:23
Originally posted by towny
I was a happy bunny when I learned that the new driving licence would be a photo card. 'Great', I thought, 'no more carrying round that big piece of paper, and it'll be good for proving who I am as well'. Of course, I was cheezed in the extreme to discover that the new driving licence is in fact a photo card and a paper licence, and that the licence is not technically complete unless you are carrying them both. Any jobsworth copper could refuse to accept your photocard as proof of anything unless you're carrying the paper counterpart as well.
So I have to say I am not at all confident that any bureaucrat can devise a scheme that is genuinely convenient for users. The civil service mindset just doesn't work like that.
is it really that hard to keep the piece of paper in the glovebox or the bit in the side of the door wear all the snotty tissues seem to congregate?
i keep mine separate tho, the plasticky bit stays in my wallet cos i still get ID'd at pubs etc :D (im only ickle and 18 :p)
Originally posted by Dave Stones
is it really that hard to keep the piece of paper in the glovebox or the bit in the side of the door wear all the snotty tissues seem to congregate?
i keep mine separate tho, the plasticky bit stays in my wallet cos i still get ID'd at pubs etc :D (im only ickle and 18 :p)
Yes, I keep the plasticky bit in my wallet (sadly, at 30, I don't get ID-ed any more tho').
But I would never keep any form of personal ID anywhere it could be easily stolen - like a glove box. Illegal immigrants with fake IDs have to get them from somewhere. Personally I don't want some fugitive Talib wandering round Leicester pretending to be me.
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 10:36
Originally posted by towny
Yes, I keep the plasticky bit in my wallet (sadly, at 30, I don't get ID-ed any more tho').
But I would never keep any form of personal ID anywhere it could be easily stolen - like a glove box. Illegal immigrants with fake IDs have to get them from somewhere. Personally I don't want some fugitive Talib wandering round Leicester pretending to be me.
if you have a good security system it wouldnt get nicked ;)... but you keep the plasticky bit in your wallet and how many wallets go missing every year :disturbd:
i think it would be interesting though if someone did steal ur ID (just ID, not bank details etc) and the police came and arrested you... but you had a airtight alibi. itd be funny just to see the look on PC jobsworth's face when he had nicked the wrong guy...
im drifting into fantasy world agin... :sleep:
Originally posted by Dave Stones
if you have a good security system it wouldnt get nicked ;)... but you keep the plasticky bit in your wallet and how many wallets go missing every year :disturbd:
i think it would be interesting though if someone did steal ur ID (just ID, not bank details etc) and the police came and arrested you... but you had a airtight alibi. itd be funny just to see the look on PC jobsworth's face when he had nicked the wrong guy...
im drifting into fantasy world agin... :sleep:
Show me the security device that can stop a hammer finding its way through your window ...
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 11:53
Originally posted by towny
Show me the security device that can stop a hammer finding its way through your window ...
reinforced glass ;)
also have you seen those systems that were allowed in south africa for a while, the ones that shot flames out of the bottom of your car if anyone touched the metalwork... what i wouldnt give to see one of those torch a criminal...
zoombini
08-07-2003, 13:08
It is stated that during the 'end times' (do a google for more info) the antichrist will demand everyone takes a mark of loyalty to him. This will come in the form of an indentifying 'mark' on the forehead or back of the right hand. Anyone who takes this mark will never be saved. Hopefully you can see from this why many christians would not be in favour of using and ID card
Personally I would keep mine in my wallet, so it would not form a "mark" of any sort. So the against the Bible bit is pointless.
Originally posted by zoombini
Personally I would keep mine in my wallet, so it would not form a "mark" of any sort. So the against the Bible bit is pointless. Thats what I thought
Originally posted by zoombini
Personally I would keep mine in my wallet, so it would not form a "mark" of any sort. So the against the Bible bit is pointless.
Personally, I think we're confusing two issues. A UK ID card scheme does not, for me, fulfill Biblical prophecy, which seems to point towards some form of international scheme tied in to a demand of loyalty to an international figure, possibly a world president.
What Blunkett wants to do is offer us all plastic cards to put in our wallets.
According to the Bible, what the 'Antichrist' wants to do (at some point in the future) is to force everyone to take some kind of mark, perhaps a barcode or subcutaneous chip, either on their forehead or on the back of their right hand.
SMHarman
08-07-2003, 14:30
Originally posted by Dave Stones
reinforced glass ;)
also have you seen those systems that were allowed in south africa for a while, the ones that shot flames out of the bottom of your car if anyone touched the metalwork... what i wouldnt give to see one of those torch a criminal...
And would you want RG on the sides of your car in the event of an accident when the doors had jammed?
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 14:33
Originally posted by SMHarman
And would you want RG on the sides of your car in the event of an accident when the doors had jammed?
trains have reinforced glass and they are in accidents often enough ;)
and i wouldnt get in an accident anyway seeing as how i dont have a car :p
still wouldnt mind seeing a few of those security systems tho, torch the dirty asylum seekers if they break a window...
Originally posted by Nor
em, thats twice now.
What's twice?
duncant403
08-07-2003, 15:55
Originally posted by Dave Stones
trains have reinforced glass and they are in accidents often enough ;)
Trains have laminated glass - that are designed not to shatter - not reinforced glass. Laminated glass isn't too difficult to remove with a hammer - otherwise there wouldn't be much point in providing hammers by the windows in trains.
Originally posted by Nor
Pretty obvious to me.
Obviously. Go on, indulge an idiot. :wavey:
Originally posted by towny
Personally, I think we're confusing two issues. A UK ID card scheme does not, for me, fulfill Biblical prophecy, which seems to point towards some form of international scheme tied in to a demand of loyalty to an international figure, possibly a world president.
What Blunkett wants to do is offer us all plastic cards to put in our wallets.
According to the Bible, what the 'Antichrist' wants to do (at some point in the future) is to force everyone to take some kind of mark, perhaps a barcode or subcutaneous chip, either on their forehead or on the back of their right hand.
Thats what I thought. Now go tell that to Russ.....:D
Originally posted by Ramrod
Thats what I thought. Now go tell that to Russ.....:D
Even born again, Bible-believing Christians disagree on some of the finer fringe issues ... we all agree on the central, important stuff, but that's got nowt to do with ID cards. ;)
Originally posted by Ramrod
Thats what I thought. Now go tell that to Russ.....:D
You're missing the point - I never said I'd refuse to have that silly ID card, neither did I say that it would be what Revelations states. I just pointed out that I did not think it should be compulsary.
Passports are entirely different btw - they are only required if you go abroad. Apart from a one-year passport when I was 17 I've never had one actually.
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 16:45
Originally posted by duncant403
Trains have laminated glass - that are designed not to shatter - not reinforced glass. Laminated glass isn't too difficult to remove with a hammer - otherwise there wouldn't be much point in providing hammers by the windows in trains.
i stand corrected...
dont go around reading the etchings in the corners or breaking glass much to know tho :D as far as im concerned glass is glass...
Passports are entirely different btw - they are only required if you go abroad. Apart from a one-year passport when I was 17 I've never had one actually.
*remembers the days when you didnt need a passport to travel in europe...
Originally posted by Dave Stones
*remembers the days when you didnt need a passport to travel in europe...
I thought you were only 18? You've needed a passport to travel round Europe since the late 19th century, afaik ...
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 16:49
Originally posted by towny
I thought you were only 18? You've needed a passport to travel round Europe since the late 19th century, afaik ...
i am. i went to greece when i was 14 and it stated on our tickets that passports werent required. before 9/11 airflights round europe were like trains werent they?
anyway i had a passport but there were more than one businessman who just showed their boarding cards and didnt have passports...
edit : cjanged my age from 145 to 14 :rolleyes: i cant type...
Originally posted by Dave Stones
i am. i went to greece when i was 14 and it stated on our tickets that passports werent required. before 9/11 airflights round europe were like trains werent they?
anyway i had a passport but there were more than one businessman who just showed their boarding cards and didnt have passports...
edit : cjanged my age from 145 to 14 :rolleyes: i cant type...
Very odd. Did you fly from a different European country into Greece? The UK is not part of the agreement that removes the need for passports within the EU, so you should have your passport checked every time you enter or leave the UK.
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 16:54
Originally posted by towny
Very odd. Did you fly from a different European country into Greece? The UK is not part of the agreement that removes the need for passports within the EU, so you should have your passport checked every time you enter or leave the UK.
well i flew from manchester... does that count? us yorkshire peeps need a passport to go there ;)
maybe the security was just slack or something then, cos our passports got checked nowhere, they didnt ask for it at check in, or where u get frisked by the guards, or where we got on, or at the other end. at the other end we just waltzed merrily thru the blue channel... no one was there at all ;)
i cant remember what happened on the way back though.probably got checked but i cant remember...
On the subject of the 'mark', I found this (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/digitalangel/index.htm) short article.
And this was mentioned in a book witten 2000 years ago.....
This is more like Mystic Meg to me than Religion. In my view Religion is fine when its about acceptance and compassion, but this is just ridiculous to me.
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 17:33
Originally posted by Russ D
On the subject of the 'mark', I found this (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/digitalangel/index.htm) short article.
And this was mentioned in a book witten 2000 years ago.....
*remembers an x-files ep a few years ago where scully had one of these removed from the back of her neck...
...as long as it wasn't from her forehead or the back of her right hand then she's fine :D
to me its all BS yes it will happen not in our lifetimes i dont think and religion is not even a part of it humans or machines will most likely try to dictate people by using these 'chips' to 'control' them
Dave Stones
08-07-2003, 17:40
Originally posted by Russ D
...as long as it wasn't from her forehead or the back of her right hand then she's fine :D
nah it was from the back of her neck, but then it somehow made her pregnant and i got lost... that was about when i stopped watching the x-files it confuddled me too much. :confused: :confused:
OT tho whats the significance of the right hand? i thought it was left-handed people that were the work of the devil according to olden-days people, or is that me confusing something else again?
to me its all BS yes it will happen not in our lifetimes i dont think and religion is not even a part of it humans or machines will most likely try to dictate people by using these 'chips' to 'control' them
theres semi-control now tho aint there, tracking criminals with those ankle belts or shock-collars or whatever the hell those things are they wear... not that im against it just arguiing that i think it is likley in our lifetime we will be tracked everywhere...
Originally posted by Dave Stones
theres semi-control now tho aint there, tracking criminals with those ankle belts or shock-collars or whatever the hell those things are they wear... not that im against it just arguiing that i think it is likley in our lifetime we will be tracked everywhere...
yes tracking devices are there in use for criminals also for keeping track of kids by parents through the mobile phone using a service on the net but i was rather talking about actually controlling humans and there thoughts etc
Not sure what the significance of the right hand is, that;s just what is stated in Revelations. The whole "left-hand" thing I think was invented when people couldn't understand why some prefer their left-hand for everyday use.
Originally posted by Russ D
Not sure what the significance of the right hand is, that;s just what is stated in Revelations. The whole "left-hand" thing I think was invented when people couldn't understand why some prefer their left-hand for everyday use.
In the symbolism of the Bible, the right hand symbolises authority (hence why, when Jesus ascended into heaven, he sat down 'at the right hand of God'.)
It's the right hand because by accepting the mark there you symbolically yield allegiance to Antichrist. That said, I have no idea why the forehead is offered as an alternative. Must do some reading up...
El Diablo
09-07-2003, 01:31
Originally posted by Russ D
It is stated that during the 'end times' (do a google for more info) the antichrist will demand everyone takes a mark of loyalty to him. This will come in the form of an indentifying 'mark' on the forehead or back of the right hand. Anyone who takes this mark will never be saved. Hopefully you can see from this why many christians would not be in favour of using and ID card.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I am still really failing to see the significance between the mark of the antichrist and the use of an ID card. :confused: If this was a good enough reason for people to not carry such cards, how do all the American christians manage? Surely, an ID card is proof of identity [as it's name would suggest], rather than a 'mark' as you seem to be suggesting. The mark on the back forehead or back of the right hand is not a personal identifier, simply a form of generic labelling that identifies persons belonging to a particular set - nothing more specific. If the government were suggesting I have "UK" tattooed to my forehead, or back of my right hand, then yes, I would object also.
Originally posted by Russ D
The problem here is that of all the books of the Bible, the only one which has not yet come true is Revelations - it is a prediction of the future. 2000 years or 10,000 years, we believe it will happen.
...erm... with respect, you would need to 'prove' that the other books of the bible are true or have come true since they were created... to my knowledge, no conclusive proof of the existence of these people or the validity of the stories contained within the good books actually exists - hence the existence of varying religions, dependant upon ones choice of flavour.
Originally posted inRevelations 20: 7-8
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth...to gather them together in battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
IMHO, it's all down to interpretation and belief... I just find it hard to believe your resoning behind christians not wishing to have ID... surely if Satan is going to put his mark on you anyway, as can be intrerpreted from the book of revelations, it's inevitable and therefore no matter what is done by us mere mortals, our fate is already decided.
:devsmoke:
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
[B]Hopefully the ID card will become reality, and those immigrants that enter illegallly will end up destitute no money, no nice cosy council house and no chance at all of claiming legal aid.
Curiously enough, that's exactly the excuse that David Blunkett used to re-introduce the idea of ID cards after the last attempt to introduce "entitlement cards" fell through.
If you can't get them to agree "for their own good" then try to scare them with the bogeyman...
However, theres still nothing to prevent false Iris and fingerprint scans, I mean, fake an ID card and put your own details on, et voila an acceptable ID card.
And yet, later on, you demand ID cards because of "our right to live in safety", yet as you demonstrate here, those who would infringe on that safety would immediately find ways of circumventing the system!
I fail to see what rights we have now that will be affected by having an ID card
That's pretty self-evident.
I mean, if we dont have our driving documents on us we have to report to a police station within 7 days.
I don't drive. I don't have a licence. I don't *need* a licence. I don't *need* to be able to prove my identity to *anyone*.
And what good is having to produce your documents at a Police station within 7 days if you've stolen the car?!
And how will having an ID Card change that??
The national insurance card scheme failed. So we need a replacement, a card that can act as :- A) a passport B) proof of ID C) a credit card D) a bank card E) a driving licence
No, we do not *NEED* anything of the sort!
It may be *convenient* for some (especially the government and big business), however that is nothing like the same thing!
[quote]Whats the harm? dont mention human rights, how can this be against our human rights. What about our right to live in safety?
The fact that you ask this merely points out that you don't understand the rights you will have and which you risk losing if such a scheme is introduced.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
/wonders what Graham has to hide :D
Originally posted by Russ D
On the subject of the 'mark', I found this (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/digitalangel/index.htm) short article.
And this was mentioned in a book witten 2000 years ago.....
That site is poppy-cock
The very chip contains no more information than your credit card does (ie just a number)
It's the same principle as getting your dog or cat chipped.
It is not a tracking device!
The range of the signal barely breaks the skin, you have to run the reader over the implant.
The reader checks the number against a database that holds your information.
GPS tracking my arse.
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by El Diablo
Forgive me for my ignorance, but I am still really failing to see the significance between the mark of the antichrist and the use of an ID card. :confused: If this was a good enough reason for people to not carry such cards, how do all the American christians manage? Surely, an ID card is proof of identity [as it's name would suggest], rather than a 'mark' as you seem to be suggesting. The mark on the back forehead or back of the right hand is not a personal identifier, simply a form of generic labelling that identifies persons belonging to a particular set - nothing more specific. If the government were suggesting I have "UK" tattooed to my forehead, or back of my right hand, then yes, I would object also.
I repeat, I never said that this silly ID card is the 'mark' described in Revelations.
..erm... with respect, you would need to 'prove' that the other books of the bible are true or have come true since they were created... to my knowledge, no conclusive proof of the existence of these people or the validity of the stories contained within the good books actually exists - hence the existence of varying religions, dependant upon ones choice of flavour.
Erm...with respect, no I don't need to prove anything, Christianity is based on 'faith'. I also repeat that I have never said there should be no ID cards at all, I just said they should not be compulsary.
IMHO, it's all down to interpretation and belief... I just find it hard to believe your resoning behind christians not wishing to have ID... surely if Satan is going to put his mark on you anyway, as can be intrerpreted from the book of revelations, it's inevitable and therefore no matter what is done by us mere mortals, our fate is already decided.
I love to listen to those with little or no understanding of the Bible ;) :D
If you've read Revelations (I assume you haven't) you'll see that it is not inevitable that antichrist will put the mark on us at all - he will try to force it on us but he is also subject to free will just as God is.
That site is poppy-cock
The very chip contains no more information than your credit card does (ie just a number)
It's the same principle as getting your dog or cat chipped.
It is not a tracking device!
The range of the signal barely breaks the skin, you have to run the reader over the implant.
The reader checks the number against a database that holds your information.
GPS tracking my arse
Grrrrrrrrr!! I did not say that this was the chip mentioned in Revelations!! I'm just pointing out how close we are to something mentioned in a book written 2000 years ago which could not have imagined the technology we have today!!
duncant403
09-07-2003, 11:12
If you want to get really worried about "marks" you should read the following:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/31461.html
:)
Hmmm after reading some of the links in this thread, i was always of the opinion an ID card wouldn't be a problem and I still think that. But the other mentions of chips were they could track money or a person does make me wonder if that would be a little too far. I wouldn't object to an ID card but I would object to possible tracking of myself. Again all this is more for stopping crime and in a way would be a good thing but the other half of me thinks it could easily be used for other motives.
russ a question from a freind of mine to you
which part of revelations this comes from............
"woe to you o earth and sea
for the devil sends the beast with wrath
because he knows the time is short.
let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast
for it is a human number.
it's number is 666"
Originally posted by kronas
russ a question from a freind of mine to you
which part of revelations this comes from............
"woe to you o earth and sea for the devil sends the beast with wrath because he knows the time is short. let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast for it is a human number. it's number is 666"
Iron Maiden if I'm not mistaken:p
Rev 12:12woe to you o earth and sea for the devil sends the beast with wrath because he knows the time is short
Rev 13:18 let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast for it is a human number. it's number is 666
Someone beat me to it! :)
Originally posted by Martin
Iron Maiden if I'm not mistaken:p
Rev 12:12woe to you o earth and sea for the devil sends the beast with wrath because he knows the time is short
Rev 13:18 let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast for it is a human number. it's number is 666
from me thanks for spoling it:mad:
from my freind thank you for the response :)
Originally posted by kronas
from me thanks for spoling it:mad:
from my freind thank you for the response :)
Sorry matey;) Second time I have been called a killjoy in one day.:p
timewarrior2001
10-07-2003, 13:52
Originally posted by Graham
Curiously enough, that's exactly the excuse that David Blunkett used to re-introduce the idea of ID cards after the last attempt to introduce "entitlement cards" fell through.
If you can't get them to agree "for their own good" then try to scare them with the bogeyman...
Oh right so no one is allowed to be concerned about this country, fair enough, let people roam the land unchecked. Just dont complain when nasty things start happening.
And yet, later on, you demand ID cards because of "our right to live in safety", yet as you demonstrate here, those who would infringe on that safety would immediately find ways of circumventing the system!
As they will circumvent ANY kind of security checks if so determined.
I don't drive. I don't have a licence. I don't *need* a licence. I don't *need* to be able to prove my identity to *anyone*.
Unfortunately it is sometimes required to prove your identity.
And what good is having to produce your documents at a Police station within 7 days if you've stolen the car?!
If the car had been stolen. a) the police reg check would indicate this. b) evidence of damage would be evident to the officer who nearly always checks the car over.
And how will having an ID Card change that??
Simply because it will be another way of identifying yourself, your address and any other kind of status so needed for credit to be obtained.
The national insurance card scheme failed. So we need a replacement, a card that can act as :- A) a passport B) proof of ID C) a credit card D) a bank card E) a driving licence
No, we do not *NEED* anything of the sort!
That would be YOUR oppinion. But if one scheme has failed surely it is essential to replace it with somehting better?
It may be *convenient* for some (especially the government and big business), however that is nothing like the same thing!
It would be damned comvenient for me, it would save having to carry around several cards that I currently have to carry. And just think of the reduction in plastic that would be dumped in landfills.
The fact that you ask this merely points out that you don't understand the rights you will have and which you risk losing if such a scheme is introduced.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
And just what liberty would we be giving up if we had the introduction of ID cards?
The police can stop and question you now, without you having to have an ID card.
You need a NI number to get any kind of state benefit.
You HAVE to have several valid documents in order to drive a vehicle......ALL at cost to yourself in one way or another.
So then what Human rights are we going to lose? show me some ideas, some evidence?
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
So then what Human rights are we going to lose? show me some ideas, some evidence?
As things stand at the moment, I could go and live on a croft in the north of Scotland, work the land just enough to feed myself, never have a bank account, nor a loan, neither pay NI nor claim a pension, never drive a car on a public road, never travel abroad...
And if I did live that way, I would never need to prove my identity to anyone. The police could come and ask who I am for whatever reason, but I would not be breaking a law simply by having no proof of my ID.
If a compulsory ID card scheme were introduced, the basic human right that I now have to be completely anonymous if I so choose will be gone.
timewarrior2001
10-07-2003, 14:17
But your not, Your Birth, Marriage and Death are all registered By law.
So with the exception of Marraige (possibly) and Death, you simply are NOT anonymous are you?
You are required by LAW to take part in the census every 10 years. This also gives out certain information.
you understand why I dont think the human rights issue can be given?
I sometimes think of it from an exxtreme angle.
those people that complain about somehting as small and convenient as an ID card going against your human rights. The country is practically at a state of war on terrorism. When was the last time the UK was threatened? Did the population kick up a fuss about national ID cards then?
I'm sorry but I think bleating on about invasion of human rights by being told to carry a little plastic card is extremely detrimental to what the human rights bill is actually about.
Remember the main one, we have NO constitutional right to free speach, But it is tolerated.
Theres far more pressing issues than Extreme left wing policies of human rights and ID cards at this present point in history.
I also dont think that having to be able to identify yourself to the authorities if so requested would actually be against human rights. After all it happens in the states and a lot of other countries.
peterska2
10-07-2003, 14:28
right then well shortly everyone will have a photocard driving licence.
This is a form of ID card in itself.
At work I wear a ID card at all times.
If I go to the bank I have to take my passport if I want to withdraw more than £500 in one day.
Now if everywhere accepted the same ID then it would be better.
Somewhere in this thread someone said about the things happening in revalation not happing in our lifetimes. I have to say that it is not possible for anyone to know that and that as such the events foretold could start today, next week, next year or in a thousand years. Only God knows the answer to that one and as such it cannot be foretold with any dates involved.
Originally posted by timewarrior2001
But your not, Your Birth, Marriage and Death are all registered By law.
So with the exception of Marraige (possibly) and Death, you simply are NOT anonymous are you?
You are required by LAW to take part in the census every 10 years. This also gives out certain information.
you understand why I dont think the human rights issue can be given?
I understand where you're coming from but I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the registration of births, deaths and marriages, and the census.
BDMs notes where I was on the day I was born, married and died (not yet tho'!) That information is on file but I cannot be required by law to produce it simply to prove who I am, unless it is to satisfy someone providing a service I myself have requested.
The Census takes a snapshot of who and where I am on a certain day, once a decade. But any information I give that could personally identify me is protectd by law for 100 years. No-one is allowed to use it to trace me as an individual.
There is a fundamental difference between records that are kept concerning me, and a legal power granted to the police requiring me to prove my ID.
I sometimes think of it from an exxtreme angle.
those people that complain about somehting as small and convenient as an ID card going against your human rights. The country is practically at a state of war on terrorism. When was the last time the UK was threatened? Did the population kick up a fuss about national ID cards then?
Last time we had an ID card scheme this country was in real danger of being invaded and occupied by a foreign power. At the beginning of the Blitz on London, public swimming baths were drained and then filled with formaldehyde in readiness for the 10s of 1,000s of people that died. 9/11 was an utter tragedy, as would something similar happening here, but it, and the 'war on terror' is simply not of the same magnitude as WW2.
I would be interested in some thoughts on how ID cards might have prevented 9/11, when the consensus appears to be that had the US security agencies made better use of powers they already had, the tragedy might have been averted.
I'm sorry but I think bleating on about invasion of human rights by being told to carry a little plastic card is extremely detrimental to what the human rights bill is actually about.
Belittling the opposing point of view - i.e. 'bleating', 'little plastic card' - does nothing to further a reasoned debate though, does it?
Remember the main one, we have NO constitutional right to free speach, But it is tolerated.
Merely a quirk of British history, all tied up with our constitutional monarchy. No-one rocks the boat essentially because any attempt by the Monarch to enforce his/her 'true authority' would end up in a constitutional crisis. At one time there was even a real fear amongst the British Establishment that the fervour of the French Revolution might spread to this side of the Channel.
Theres far more pressing issues than Extreme left wing policies of human rights and ID cards at this present point in history.
Very true, although a relative lack of importance is not equivalent to 'not important at all'.
I also dont think that having to be able to identify yourself to the authorities if so requested would actually be against human rights. After all it happens in the states and a lot of other countries.
True, and yet this police power in the USA failed to prevent 9/11. The number of people on Earth that have to carry ID papers is skewed by the fact that there is an oppressive regime running China - the most populous nation on Earth.
timewarrior2001
10-07-2003, 14:47
great post towny, I accept that belittling the opposition argument comment.
I just couldnt think of any better wording at that time and "spoke" my mind.
As for 9/11 and police power not being able ot stop it, there has been some evidence to suggest that they did in fact know but simply didnt act upon it, or didnt have precise enough information.
Which, not meaning to belittle 9/11, unless the perps stood there with placards telling the gov exactly when and where and by whom the attacks would be carried out I dont think the US would have been able to stop it anyway.
I worry about the security of this country, I worry about terrorism. I just think that its a frivilous argument about carrying ID cards or not. I can probably sit here and come up with some extreme examples of human rights invasions, and yes they would all be completely out of context but actually and very worryingly could be argued at the European court.
As stated in another very recent post by KA I beleive of the top of my head, anything that can positively identify anyone that was as small as a credit card would in essence be a good and practicle thing. I dislike carrying my passport, I worry enough about it whilst on holiday. I dont like carying my driving licence although this is better since I got my picture card one.
Originally posted by Xaccers
/wonders what Graham has to hide :D
Have I mentioned recently what I do for a living?!:naughty:
Originally posted by Martin
Sorry matey;) Second time I have been called a killjoy in one day.:p
yeh yeh i wont forget this :mad: :rolleyes: :p ;)
Originally posted by kronas
yeh yeh i wont forget this
:rolleyes: I did say sorry, anyway Russ would have known that it wasn't exactly hard was it? :p ;) I promise next time you ask a question I'll ignore it.:D :p :beer: :drunk:
Originally posted by Martin
:rolleyes: I did say sorry, anyway Russ would have known that it wasn't exactly hard was it? I promise next time you ask a question I'll ignore it.:
nah dont ignore my questions... i did ask russ i didnt know your name was russ :p
/me wonders if there is something we should know ;)
want to come out of the closet :p ;) :D
Originally posted by peterska2 right then well shortly everyone will have a photocard driving licence.
Err, no, actually they won't.
I don't drive. I have no plans to learn to drive, so I won't have a photocard driving licence.
Even if I did I would not be required to carry it unless I'm driving and nobody can *expect* me to produce it to prove my identity.
If I go to the bank I have to take my passport if I want to withdraw more than £500 in one day.
Now if everywhere accepted the same ID then it would be better
No, it could be *easier*, but that is not the same as "better".
PS BTW, your viewpoint seems rather at odds with someone who has "Why behave?" on his profile!!
Towny:
Re: your post 112.
I was going to respond to timewarrior's message, but you've said practically everything I would have said in reply to it (and pretty much in the style I would have done too!), so thanks for saving me the time! :)
Theodoric
13-07-2003, 13:43
Originally posted by Drudge
From todays "Sunday Times"
"I have to buy an identity card type "passport", at about £40, for my horse in case he should ever enter the human food chain.
Now Blunkett says I will have to buy an identity card at nearly £40 for myself.
Should I start worrying"
Definitely! It has all been predicted. Hands up those who have read a book by Harry Harrison called "Make Room, Make Room!" or the film that was made of it, "Soylent Green"?
Soylent Green is People!!
Lord Nikon
14-07-2003, 00:47
Originally posted by Graham
Soylent Green is People!!
Welcome to the millenium network Frank Black
zoombini
14-07-2003, 13:00
/me wonders how many people "forgot" and went swimming during the blitz?
That sounds nasty.. :D
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.