Metropol

The ID card fiasco gets worse - do you know some of the provisions of the Act?

Let's say you fundamentally disagree with being branded as a number by the Government you're meant to be represented by. What are the consequences of this?

The Clark/Blunkett/Bliar Court Ratchet Squad
- refusal to obey an order to register = £2500
- failure to submit to fingerprinting and biometric scanning = £2500
- failure to provide information demanded by the government = £2500
- failure to attend an interview at a specified place and time = £2500
- failure to notify authorities about a lost, stolen, damaged or defective card = up to 51 weeks in prison and/or a fine
- failure to renew a card = £1000
- failure to attend subsequent fingerprinting and biometric scanning when demanded = £1000
- failure to provide subsequent information when demanded = £1000
- failure to attend subsequent interview at specified place and time when demanded = £1000
- failure to notify authorities of any change in personal circumstances (including change of address) = £1000
- providing false information = up to 2 years and/or a fine

All of the above will be considered civil offences too, meaning that you're unlikely to qualify for Legal Aid. So, dissent is only for the rich - very New Labour.

Taken from Defy ID, " For example, it won't just include your full name, but all the names by which you have ever been known. Not just your address, but all the addresses you have ever lived at. Not just your finger print or iris scan, but a photo as well. Also, your National Insurance number, immigration number, passport number, driving licence number, and, the number of 'any designated document not covered by the above'. Plus if you want to change any information (for which they will charge you, or fine you if you don't change it) the old information also stays on the card.

The ability to check your identity against your entry in the National Identity Register will not just be available to the Immigration Service and the Police but also to "providers of public services and private sector organisations" (e.g. employers, banks, credit reference agencies, libraries, dentists, utilities companies, student loans company etc). The ID Card bill includes a power to require 'any person' to provide information which may be required to conduct background checks on people applying for ID cards. So in theory they could force anyone to give information about you. In practice this is likely to be credit reference agencies, inland revenue, and so on (though they make it clear that they won't expect this information for free). The Bill also states that if the info the government receives from this 'person' or organisation differs from their own records, they'll inform that organisation. So if, for example, you are running away from debts and tell the government your address, they can/will tell the credit reference agency who of course will tell the bailiffs."

Why will I be forced to register every single detail listed above (note the open-ended provisions for ever more additions) to be a legal citizen of the country of my birth?

Will they throw me in prison if I don't submit to their gigantic database?

How will I raise £2,500 if I don't supply the government with the information they want without a solicitor?

Smith, Winston 6701 reporting from Gateshead, Airstrip One, where the clocks are striking thirteen.

Bollocks to that!

There's not a sodding chance in holy hell that I'm going to be attending any ID card interview or providing fingerprints. No way!!!

I'm afraid, Jamez, that as long as the sheep of Britain accept (or at least don't fight) this scheme, you just won't have the privilege of having such a choice. At the very least, we'll get a few half-hearted alterations (which end up ultimately meaning nothing and avoiding the main issue in true politician style), but no more. Things have changed to the point of people just not caring about the decisions pushed through by bureaucrats with way too much time on their hands. This world is dominated by self-interests, rather contradictory when you consider the egocentric efforts people go to in order to prove themselves to be a good, worthy, fellow-man-loving human being. It's an incredibly sad fact, but as long as most abide by the rules (however daft they may be), you're easily singled out and picked off. See Hitler's rule of Nazism and the situation in many other tyrannist dictatorships for a perfect example of this. The British people are so apathetic not perhaps due to a lack of opinion or political motive but more to a lack of time, belief and confidence. I will seriously consider* emigrating from this wretched isle if our dear government enjoys imposing such a scheme. All this population control is steadily being introduced (what about those rotten car trackers?) and because each one on its own does not seem to amount to much nobody revolts really. People have short political memories. And those that so much as criticise such schemes are accused by our brainwashed, chav-dominated, daily-mail-reading populus of being "paedos", "terrorists", "sickos" or whatever other label you want to put on the 21st century's dissenters.

* Unfortunately this is what all too many people say and never do -- the very sad case of "death by a thousand cuts".

This is all something which makes me very upset, and, worse, there's nothing anyone can do about it due to a lack of countrywide collaboration, despite the obvious cause for corroboration in peoples' viewpoints. Adults of the previous generation should be very pleased that they were born then instead of now.

It amazes me people vote for this shitty Government.

Why did nobody vote Tory and put it all to bed?

I'm not against national ID cards per se - I think they are a good idea in principle and can be genuinely useful for the people of this country (imagine you're 18 and get ID's buying alcohol. The only ID at present which you know will be accepted is a photocard driving licence or a passport. What if you don't have either?) BUT as usual the government insist on taking things too far.

The information contained on a photocard driving licence is all the information that needs to be on an ID card - ie enough information to reasonably satisfy those who have a need to see ID that you are who you say you are. I would even venture to say that the photocard licence should be the template on which the ID card is based.

And as to who should have to hold them? If you allready have an acceptable form of national ID (namely, a photocard driving licence or a passport), then you shouldn't be required to have an ID card. If you do fall in the category of people who are required to have them, then the government should provide them for free. And whilst charges (cost charges that is, not profit making revenue earners for the treasury) for lost cards are acceptable. But if a new card needs to be issued through changes of information, then the government should fund as many replacement cards as are necessary.

But biometric data? A list of all previous addresses (what about students who might well have a different address each year? Will they have to renew their card yearly? Will 7 or 8 addresses fit on the card?)? Previous names? Requiring people to have them even though they allready have national ID? This Big Brother level of information is totally unnecessary. And you can bet that we'll be charged exhorborant fees to have them and modify them.

I am quietly confident that the scheme in it's present form will be put to bed because it is just too police-state esque, but sadly that will also put to bed what, if properly implemented, could be a useful step towards ensuring national security, and something which will be a help, not a hindrance, to this country's citizens.

Trust Blair to take a good idea in principle and come up with a proposed implementation which is so unfavourable that the whole scheme will have to be scrapped.

James Martin wrote:Why did nobody vote Tory and put it all to bed?

probably because they saw you supporting them and they felt physically sick.

I have things to say about the whole vehicle tracking plan of the Dear Leader at some point but when it's cooled down a bit

cdd wrote:People have short political memories. And those that so much as criticise such schemes are accused by our brainwashed, chav-dominated, daily-mail-reading populus of being "paedos", "terrorists", "sickos" or whatever other label you want to put on the 21st century's dissenters.

I'm not the Mail's biggest fan, but I find myself defending them this time. I've checked an online newspaper archive, and it seems that the Mail and MoS have been publishing anti-ID card articles for a while now:

<ul>
<li>ID turmoil over plan to sell our personal details - 27th June 2005</li>
<li>Shock for Blair as 9 out of 10 say No to GBP100 identity card - 26th June 2005</li>
<li>KILL THE PLASTIC POLL TAX - 26th June 2005</li>
<li>Blair faces mounting revolt over ID cards - 25th June 2005</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ul>

cwathen wrote:(imagine you're 18 and get ID's buying alcohol. The only ID at present which you know will be accepted is a photocard driving licence or a passport. What if you don't have either?)

Photocard driving licenses cost under £40; less than half of even the Government's prediction for ID cards, and about eight times less than the LSE's calculation of £300. Given a photocard license lets you do something useful, i.e. actually drive a car, I know which I'd rather have to fork out for as a student.

cwathen wrote:(imagine you're 18 and get ID's buying alcohol. The only ID at present which you know will be accepted is a photocard driving licence or a passport. What if you don't have either?)

I take the point, but with respect, if teenagers buying alcohol is one of the few reasons to carry a card then I'm even more opposed to it.

As 'important' a matter as that is for 18 year old, I'm afraid they will have to find another way.

MarkN wrote:

cdd wrote:People have short political memories. And those that so much as criticise such schemes are accused by our brainwashed, chav-dominated, daily-mail-reading populus of being "paedos", "terrorists", "sickos" or whatever other label you want to put on the 21st century's dissenters.

I'm not the Mail's biggest fan, but I find myself defending them this time. I've checked an online newspaper archive, and it seems that the Mail and MoS have been publishing anti-ID card articles for a while now:

<ul>
<li>ID turmoil over plan to sell our personal details - 27th June 2005</li>
<li>Shock for Blair as 9 out of 10 say No to GBP100 identity card - 26th June 2005</li>
<li>KILL THE PLASTIC POLL TAX - 26th June 2005</li>
<li>Blair faces mounting revolt over ID cards - 25th June 2005</li>
<li>etc.</li>
</ul>

Although this is not exactly the case with the Daily Mail, I was referring to the general opposition to dissension rather than this specific case. As I said, despite that many people may agree that ID Cards in that form are a bad idea (and I'm still not sure of the statistics), bills get pushed through and nobody does anything. After time these "temporary" bills (as many of them are) never disappear and thus the government has more long-term power.

And as far as age identity goes -- well, wouldn't something like this do? Supported by the gov't too! :roll:

Sorry for bumping an old thread, but it looks like ID Cards are coming our way (compulsory with our new passports).

BBC News article