If you don't want ID cards to be introduced

Heh. Well, quite, but it's still (IMHO) an extremely valid point.

No. but it gives them another excuse/reason to misbehave.

 

They used to need an actual reason to pull you over, in the car... 'your
brake light is out, Sir', etc.

Whilst much mileage could be had by simply suggesting they had reason to
believe you'd been drinking, now, they don't need an excuse to pull you
over... they just can, and will for any reason they like, should they choose
to do so.

Not only that, but they are far more intrusive when they do, now -
requesting and making a note of the details of any who happen to be in the
vehicle with you, is more the norm now, even when you or your passengers
haven't actually been stopped on suspicion of any actual offence having been
committed.

 

What is? Your guess of what will happen? Or that the fact that other people
agreed with you?

And what of my question in the last paragraph? It wasn't rhetorical.

 

What I am saying, repeatedly, is that the road to any totalitarian state can
be a very slow and gradual downhill slope. I don't believe that this
government or the next or any government in sight is going to suddenly
dismantle democracy and start locking up their political opponents, but I do
believe that moves are being made, allegedly in the national interest, that
would allow a future government to do so.

Once the framework is in place to allow this to happen, even in theory, then
a big battle has been lost because if it happens then there is no legal
recourse to prevent it happening and you have no civil liberties left to
prevent you being locked up, without trial, if you speak out against the
authorities.

What I am not saying is that current laws are being brough in with the
deliberate goal of bringing about this state or that anybody currently has
plans to use them for such a purpose, I'm just saying that they could be
used that way.

That's why I think the slow errosion of civil liberties needs to be stopped.

I think ID cards are the spot to draw the line for three reasons;

1. Because every other step on the road of removing civil liberties is
apparently small, but this step is big and clear. It's a point where what
is happening can be clearly seen this means that ...

2. The cards will affect the lives of everybody in the UK, nobody is
disinterested and precisely because there is the frothing-at-the-mouth
paranoia about them. The public don't get that worked up about what appear
to be small changes to the legal system, because they believe that they are
not effected.

3. Importantly all of the arguments in favour of them are weak. They don't
prevent terrorism, they don't stop illegal immigrants and they're going to
be very expensive. So this a battle that can be won.

As in the proverb, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil ...

I thought I'd avoid your pot-shot for being melodramatic by only alluding to
it.

You're allowed to paraphrase who you like in whatever context you want, but
if you do it with the aim of belittling me or my argument then expect it to
get thrown back at you.

Then what do you want? There are two schools of thought when it comes to
opposing ID cards. The first says that they're going to be expensive and
won't do anything useful and the second asserts that they strip us of civil
liberties and could be misused. If we're discussing the second view then
all anybody can do is give you examples of how they could be misused. If
you believe that such examples are scaremongering or hysterical portents
then that's your evaluation and you then have to decide if ID cards have any
merits that make them worth the expense.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

The former.

<re-checks>

It's a possibility, yes, but it's equally possible that the nastier
coppers will use it against them.

 

So why not present the possible positive side? You're firmly in the Don't
Let it Happen camp, without seemingly considering the possible benefits. It
bothers me much more what the government is already doing and lying about
then what might happen in the future, the possible downsides of which last
occured somewhere else 60 odd years ago but have been succesfully employed
since then (also somewhere else) with no ill effect.

I don't think anything can prevent terrorism in itself. It might be one
extra obstacle for a terrorist, mind you. Just as on the flip side this is
one extra attack on our liberty. And a result of the war in Iraq. There's
almost some kind of connection here...

My "pot shot"? Is that kiddie speak for penchant?

How is saying that business p0wnz government belittling you for christ's
sake?

Well we don't know yet, do we? There are a multitude of things that their
employment might help: It might help authorities identify kiddie-molesters
before they become PE coach in a mental institution, it might make it easier
for the pol-lice to differentiate between warring middle European illegal
immigrants and 2nd generation Lithuanians attending LU, they might PREVENT
the police from giving someone a hard time when they produce an ID card
since they don't have an excuse, they might stop all this taking 3 forms of
identification to open a bank account or buy something on credit. They may
prevent someone being credit-blacklisted because a previous tenant didn't
fulfill their obligations on a washing machine contract.
In short, it might actually be beneficial in a practical sense and slightly
less evil than the issue of being forced to pay for an illegal war (taking
it back to my original POV). The prospect of Big Brother is all very scary
and stuff except without the oppressive laws we'd probably be in even more
of a mess because people are basically shit at taking responsiblity for
themselves in a cooperative spociety. Which also goes back to my comment
about leaving the door open.

 

They can already stop anyone with the flimsiest of excuses. I would offer
that a rozzer that is nasty to someone despite holding an ID card is going
to do it anyway if they didn't have one or they didn't exist. If you agree
with that then you must concede that there's a possiblity that the prodution
of an ID card will make some of those targets' lives easier since it can't
make them any worse. Ergo, well.. you can do the maths.

I'm not in favour of them, I'm not anti them. If this newsgroup is
representative of the population then obviously the anti brigade is in the
majority so I don't know what you're worrying about and I'll go back to
moaning about the war until my visa comes through and I can finally **** off
from this shithole of a country and laugh from a distance.

 

Where you planning to go... just so I can plan to avoid it. ;-)

 

I wouldn't take the risk that you're lying.

 

Questions over police powers led to the repeal of the wartime national
identity scheme in 1952. The catalyst was a Mr Willcock, who when
stopped in his car by police and asked to show his ID card, made a stand
against the most controversial part of the national identity scheme by
refusing to show his card or produce it later in the police station. In
summing up the ensuing court case, Lord Chief Justice Goddard concluded
that police powers to demand to see ID cards "tend to make people
resentful of the acts of the police and incline them to obstruct the
police instead of assist them".

This is the sort of thing proposed taken from Hansard:

Mr. Bennett : The Bill proposes that everybody aged 12 years or over
ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom shall be in possession of a
valid identity card.

The Bill applies to first-year pupils in secondary schools. They will be
required to possess and carry an identity card and be subject to the
criminal law if they do not do so. Also, 48 million people, if they are
not in possession of a valid identity card, will find themselves

"guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not
exceeding level 3"--

that is, £400--

"on the standard scale."

That is in clause 1(3). Clause 1(4) states :

"A constable, if he has reasonable grounds for doing so, may require any
person who is in a public place to produce his identity card for
examination so as to enable the constable to ascertain its validity."

 

Because I don't think that an possible positive effects that I can forsee
outweight the possible negatives.

I mean I'm sure that being able to lock suspected terrorists up without
trial or without presenting evidence or without having to satisfy the
balance of probability is very effective at dealing with terrorist suspects,
but I still think it is an abomination.

I have the same concerns as you over the same matters, but that doesn't stop
me opposing ID cards as well. The government continues to act as if they
are not accountable to the public. Giving everybody ID cards won't change
their stance on that.

Yes it might be an extra obstacle, but so might a lot of other infringements
of civil liberties. It doesn't make them a good idea.

No. I suspected that if I actually quoted the phrase "All that is necessary
for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" then you would have a
_pot shot_ at me for being melodramatic about things.

Because, just as in your quote above, you chose to do it in the most
patronising way possible.

Yes, those things might happen, but they are just as much speculation as
somebody guessing that ID cards will lead, within 24 hours, to us all being
rounded on to cattle trucks and taken off for extermination.

Also this story sprang to my mind ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3626853.stm

I wonder how Jim would get on in an ID carded country.

Yes, it might be less evil than the war, but that still doesn't make it good
or something that should be accepted.

We have to oppress the people for their own good, eh? I must admit I'm at a
loss for a snappy comeback to that one.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

What would be an effective way to deal with terrorists that would cause no
discomfort whatsoever to the general public, in your opinion?

I go back to my original comment about relative importance and distractions.
Cba to repeat it.

Oh right. Why don't we just cross those bridges if and when we get to them
rather than second guessing potential insults? It seems a waste of time
since this discussion hasn't really been filled with them.

Wtf? Er, ok then. I'll counter with arbritrarily assigning some non-existant
subtext to everything you write from now on, shall I? I haven't intended to
be patronising at all, and if some of my somewhat sarcastic personality
creeps in then I would have thought you would be able to deal with it.

So both our arguments are redundant.

MWHID.

 

First off I didn't say it was an effective way to deal with terrorist - I
said it's an effective way to deal with suspected terrorists. In much the
same way as burning at the stake is an effective way to deal with suspected
witches.

Other than that I'm a bit of a believer in good old fashioned trials where
you charge the accused with an offence which can be shown to have taken
place, present evidence and allow a jury to make a determination of guilt.

I appreciate that it may be a little inconvenient when you've got somebody
you want to get banged up for life right away, but it's a system that
prevents us from coming to far worse harm than any terrorist could ever
inflict upon us.

No, really, I get your point. I'm just wondering what form your outrage at
the war takes that occupies you 24x7 to the exclusion of all else.

I really, really hope that it is.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

He's still a person, he's still a human being. If you accept you only
get out what you pay in, he might just as well go and cut his wrists
now," said Mr Spalding.

I'll lend the sponging **** a knife if that helps

 

Champ said:

Been spending time with Welshmen?

 

"Too"? As well as what?

I don't watch tv. I do read the papers, but I don't remember that report.
[/QUOTE]
I see

I remember both being on the news

 

BAA.[/QUOTE]

Indeed.

 

"porl" <> escribió en el mensaje

[snip]

Er, me living in a country with ID cards on for ages (and yeah, had a
fascist state for ages too here in Spain) And confortable with it, to be
sincere.

Just think of how much do credit card companies know about your habits from
your shopping activity. That Big Brother knows where, when and what you did.
You are all throwing away for free unvaluable marketing personal information
to those guys, but then whining about the gouvernment having thee basic data
that they probably already have as long as you're at least one of
taxpayers/drivers/whatever can be put on a file?

Señor, no comprendo los privacy nazis algunos times...

 

I see

I remember both being on the news[/QUOTE]

Great.

 

Incarceration, even without a charge, isn't necessarily tantamount to a
death sentence now is it? Or perhaps it is in your scenario.

So that the Judge can sentence the blotting paper on which the terrorist's
remains are stained? I think that's what they're trying to avoid.
Regardless, this is all well away from the original discussion. If and when
there is an effective terrorist strike in the UK- which is unlikely to be up
north- we'll see where we all stand on the matter in a clearer light. At the
moment we have the luxury of a very liberal attitude, it might change if a
way of life and families are involved.

Right, and *I'm* the melodramatic one....

It's precisely the fact that this whole business occurs as a result of the
war that it's still important. Rather than discuss the possible merits of
the system versus its negative connotations, the spectre of terrorism is
thrown into the mix, which is a direct result of our particpation in the war
(and its lead up). Whether the terrorism aspect is relevant or not to the
question of ID cards, my finger's still pointing back to the war in either
case and saying "Hang on a sec..." Remember: I agree with you on the matter
of the unaccountability of the government. It's where it starts to take
place that's under discussion. I have no idea why you're getting so tetchy
about something we don't disagree that much on.

Aah, the old "I'm bored/at a loss" ploy. I'm just exploring my opinion
through discussion, I *think* that's a right you've apparently expressed an
interest in protecting. And yet you don't really seem to be tremendously
enthusiastic about the actual discussing bit. Or are discussions only fun if
you end up convincing someone of you POV?