[Iain]

I hope this is regarded as a serious civil liberties issue and not locked, if not then my bad.

We've all read the 'Britain is bad' threads on here, usually I defend my country, if not always its government. Today though I am handing you all ammunition in the hope of some thoughtful answers that I know you can give me.

"Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame,
All their attempts to bend thee down
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.

Rule, Britannia!
Britannia, rule the waves: Britons never will be slaves."

Or won't we?

...the two most controversial elements of the scheme are how it would be used by public services and the issue of compulsion.

Under the draft bill, ministers will have powers to change the system to prevent people using specific public services if they do not produce a valid ID card.

Secondly, ministers will have the power to set a future date when the carrying or production of ID cards would become compulsory. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3239556.stm

Compulsory ID cards? Non-holders being prevented from using specific public services (and I wonder if they mean the NHS?)?

My gut reaction is that I don't want this to happen and so I am going to write a letter to Mr Blunkett, our esteemed Home Secretary and champion of this scheme, am sure someone will read it and ignore it but I need to have my say. I do need some serious arguments. Have been reading around on places like this http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/id-cards.shtml but I also wondered what you guys think.

The argument that 'identification can lead to eradication' (my little slogan) is probably not going to cut the mustard with Mr Blunkett, although it may be valid. Blunkett will be using Belgium as his model rather than Nazi Germany. However the powers of the state exceeding its mandate is of great concern, it is less clear cut for us as there is no hallowed document outlining the exact powers of the State.

I posted a thread when this became an issue and Agricola said that he thought the scheme would die and Labour's opponents would easily be able to make political hay with it. Mr Letwin of the opposition is speaking out:

"If the card is compulsory, but you do not have to carry it, are we to expect that individuals will tamely turn up at a police station some days later to admit that they have not got one? We shall need a awful lot of persuasion that the government actually has any coherent, practical, effective, affordable scheme that is consistent with civil liberties, and that actually does anything to improve the control of immigration and the protection of the public and terrorism and other threats." http://www.conservatives.com/news/article.cfm?obj_id=72837

His crucial point being - will it do anything? The main argument is to protect us from terrorists, would that cut any ice with you guys if your government proposed something similar?

What shall I say to Mr Blunkett so that I at least know that I have had my say in our great democracy, spoken my mind and joined the great ranks of the ignored.

[geekWithA.45]

The problem with schemes like this is that the alleged benefits appear to be readily apparent and practical, (even though they don't hold water) while the drawbacks are theoretical, far reaching, and somewhat abstract.

In other words, the harm of such a scheme is a second order of consequence, while the supposed virtue is envisioned as a first order of consequence, that will somehow never materialize.

Because of that dynamic, this issue may well be one of those things that is beyond rationale argument; too many times bad things are foisted upon citizens, despite many knowing that its a disgrace.

You'll have to make the arguments, so as to fill in the argument check box, but that's not going to be the lever that actually alters the trajectory of the thing.

Here's 3 words that can:

Mass Civil Disobedience.

You're going to need a popular support against the thing.

Organize it now, so the threat is credible.

[foghornl]

Three more words:

Read Orwell's "1984"

[TallPine]

What else did you expect after they took your guns away ...?

[agricola]

Geek is correct St. Johns, this will never happen for the same reason the Poll Tax isnt still with us - the public are never going to pay £40 each for the priviledge of carrying one, and the benefits of the scheme (if indeed there are any) are massively outweighed by the costs.

The greatest of these (in the minds of the New Labour crowd) is that it will cost them the next election - though now that the Tories have unbelievably sacked IDS and associated themselves with the funereal one it will be more difficult to paint themselves as the honest party. In addition you have the cost, the lack of any independent verification of someones status before they actually get the card, the difficulty of issuing them and making them fraudproof, and the legislation and criminal justice spending needed to make the system capable of dealing with those who transgress.

Thats without even mentioning the civil liberties standpoint, for which the ID card scheme falls down - remember at the height of the 80's footie badness the Thatcher Government, at the height of its powers could not force through a compulsory ID scheme just for football fans attending games which is several light-years short of this proposal.

In all likelyhood its a straw policy designed to be trumpeted until before the next election when it will be dropped, causing the electorate to breathe a sigh of relief and consider voting for TB again.

On the issue of terrorism, I remind you that we remain at a de facto lower level of alert than during the big IRA bombing campaigns - there is no internment, no "ring of steel" around the City, and (most importantly, and I am grasping the wooden desk as I write this) no "islamic" bombs going off.

[Coronach]

I hope this is regarded as a serious civil liberties issue and not locked, if not then my bad.Nope, you're on topic. :)

Mike

[tcsd1236]

I've had an on-going debate about national ID cards on one LEO board that seems to have a lot of Brit/ former British holdings officers posting there..they apparently LOVE the whole national ID card thing......

[Iain]

tcsd -

what are their reasons?

[agricola]

st. johns,

the only reason I can think of is that it would enable Police to have an idea as to who someone is - I can think of at least ten occasions when I or others have chased someone who has ran off for what appears to be no reason, when detained it has taken either their own stupidity (like trying to swing at Police) or luck (in that someone recognized them as being wanted) that they have been dealt with appropriately. It is a problem, but not one on such a scale that it requires this level of solution.

The Immigration side of things is also a non-starter as most asylum claimants will carry either their IND papers with them, or more recently their IND card. Police and Immigration officials have powers under the law to deal with suspected illegal immigrants anyway so issuing everyone else cards wouldnt cause that much of an improvement.

[tcsd1236]

"tcsd -

what are their reasons?"


http://www.todayscop.com/cgi-todayscop/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?s=3fce3c004735ffff;act=ST;f=2;t=914;st=0

This isnt THAT thread, but another similar one on another board that I have posted to recently, along with some of the same ideas posted in the thread I was thinking of. I can't post a direct link to the first thread I mentioned because its a restricted board.

Basically, the argument is for ID cards seems to rest on its role in reducing crime ,especially in the age of terrorism.

[MicroBalrog]

Works here...

[Bill Hook]

Just get your ID number tattooed on your forehead and implanted in a scanable chip.

Next time an officer rousts me during lunch, he won't even have to ask for ID, but merely wave the scanner over me. :barf:

Anything to make the lives of authority figures and public servants easier. :rolleyes: