Refusing to get an ID card could be more difficult than it seems

[Robert Henderson]

Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.

A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?

More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.

Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?

All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.

An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

[bigboard]

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.

What if a card is needed in order to pay tax?

Post by Robert Henderson
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?

I predict a huge rise in illegal labour and the black economy. Exactly
the things such a card is supposed to prevent.

Post by Robert Henderson
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist.

Absolutely. If it is introduced, I will be presenting my passport to
everyone who asks me for ID.

Post by Robert Henderson
It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

[Robert Henderson]

Post by Robert Henderson
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist.

Absolutely. If it is introduced, I will be presenting my passport to everyone
who asks me for ID.

They are proposing to turn that into a smart card. RH

[alan truelove]

Post by Robert Henderson
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures

Damn right.

Post by Robert Henderson
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.

They are a good thing. Cutting down the hordes of diseased bogus
immigrants is undoubtedly a good thing.

Post by Robert Henderson
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist.

No, the most degrading thing is open borders, and re-racing the whole
****ing country.

[>>sPoNiX<<]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:59:33 GMT, alan truelove

Post by alan truelove
They are a good thing. Cutting down the hordes of diseased bogus
immigrants is undoubtedly a good thing.

So how will an ID card stop illegal immigrants? Fool.

sPoNiX

[James Cameron]

Post by >>sPoNiX<<
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:59:33 GMT, alan truelove

Post by alan truelove
They are a good thing. Cutting down the hordes of diseased bogus
immigrants is undoubtedly a good thing.

So how will an ID card stop illegal immigrants? Fool.

I suppose it will be in the same way it will cut down on street crime,
burglaries and Internet pr0n.

You won't be able to break the law without a card. It will be illegal.

[Gaz]

Post by alan truelove

Post by Robert Henderson
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures

Damn right.

Post by Robert Henderson
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.

They are a good thing. Cutting down the hordes of diseased bogus
immigrants is undoubtedly a good thing.

Ending child poverty and eating lots of greens are good things, but like the
above things, an ID card will have no impact.

Post by alan truelove
No, the most degrading thing is open borders, and re-racing the whole
****ing country.

Be worried about the exponential legal immigration mate.

Gaz

[Steve Glynn]

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

However, I think we could all have an interesting discussion with the powers
that be about why, their clearly having been satisfied for several years
that Robert Henderson is a chap they pay a disability pension to, and that
Stephen Glynn is a chap they give free treatment on the NHS, Anna Glynn is
someone to whom they pay DLA, Dorothy Glynn (my mum) is the elderly lady to
whom they give an enhanced widow's pension because of her age (not to
mention a civil service widow's pension and her University lecturer's
pension) and Kit Kalnajs (ma-in-law) an OAP, income support, and Housing
Benefit they suddenly doubt that we all of us are who we say we are.

Whenever I need to prove my identity I can do so perfectly well already,
whether it's to enter and leave the country, obtain either a television or a
shot-gun licence, cash a cheque, vote in an election or borrow a book from
the local library.

In the name of God, what the hell do I need to pay £39 for to prove
something that I can perfectly well do already and have so done for more
years than I care to remember?

Steve

[Steve Glynn]

Post by Steve Glynn
In the name of God, what the hell do I need to pay £39 for to prove
something that I can perfectly well do already and have so done for more
years than I care to remember?
Steve
Try asking the people who lived in east Germany why they needed Id about

them at all times, its all part of the total control of people in a
socialist society.

But it's not. No one in their right mind could have described California
in the mid-80s as a Socialist Society. I spent a couple of very enjoyable
years there, and was more than happy to produce my passport, my Amex card,
my employee ID card, my international driving licence, and so forth if and
when I had so to do.

No one, strangely enough, asked me to prove my identity except when I was
trying to enter the country or to cash a cheque, hire a car, pay for a meal
on plastic.

I can do all those things well enough in my own coutry, and I'm damned if
HMG are going to make me get yet another plastic card so as I can do things
I perfectly well do without one.

Steve

[phil]

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

I dont think they endorsed it at all. Letwin said he would look at it
"constructively" but the 'entitlement card' has already fallen by the
wayside and now we have the ID card which they do (apparently) oppose. dont
forget Peter Lilly ruled out entitlement cards when he was the secretary of
state for social security.

Post by Robert Henderson
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

[James Cameron]

Post by phil

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

I dont think they endorsed it at all. Letwin said he would look at it
"constructively" but the 'entitlement card' has already fallen by the
wayside and now we have the ID card which they do (apparently) oppose. dont
forget Peter Lilly ruled out entitlement cards when he was the secretary of
state for social security.

I believe the wartime identity cards were kept up by Labour when they
got power at the end of the war. The cards were finally abolished by
the Tories in 1952.

[Gaz]

Post by James Cameron

Post by phil

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

I dont think they endorsed it at all. Letwin said he would look at it
"constructively" but the 'entitlement card' has already fallen by the
wayside and now we have the ID card which they do (apparently) oppose. dont
forget Peter Lilly ruled out entitlement cards when he was the secretary of
state for social security.

I believe the wartime identity cards were kept up by Labour when they
got power at the end of the war. The cards were finally abolished by
the Tories in 1952.

At the end of the War, Labour also increased the scope of rationing, all
part of the socialist mindset. It wasnt until the Tories got back in that
rationing went.

Gaz

[Steve Glynn]

Post by Gaz
At the end of the War, Labour also increased the scope of rationing, all
part of the socialist mindset. It wasnt until the Tories got back in that
rationing went.

But wasn't that because the country was effectively bankrupt after WW2? I
doubt the Conservatives, had they been in power then, could have done much
different.

Steve

[Greg Hennessy]

Post by Steve Glynn

Post by Gaz
At the end of the War, Labour also increased the scope of rationing, all
part of the socialist mindset. It wasnt until the Tories got back in that
rationing went.

But wasn't that because the country was effectively bankrupt after WW2?

It was, as were other countries.

Post by Steve Glynn
I
doubt the Conservatives, had they been in power then, could have done much
different.

They wouldn't have wasted 100s of billions @ todays prices nationalising
industries on the basis of a corrupt and bankrupt ideology, scarce money
and long term debt which would have been way better spent elsewhere.

They wouldn't have wasted Marshall plan money on welfare.

Its highly unlikely they would have taxed investment income @ well in
excess of 100% like the millionaire communist Stafford
Cripps did in some vain attempt to pay for it.

Its also highly unlikely that a Tory chancellor would have fought tooth and
nail to prevent sterling being devalued on the basis that doing so would
lead to a 'free economy'.

Or going against all considered opinion and the success of regional schemes
by creating a national health service which wasnt based on insurance
contributions, (free at the point of delivery is anything but free). Thus
creating a producer captured millstone which went bankrupt 3 times in its
1st year of existence.



greg

Post by Steve Glynn
Steve

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[Gaz]

Post by Steve Glynn

Post by Gaz
At the end of the War, Labour also increased the scope of rationing, all
part of the socialist mindset. It wasnt until the Tories got back in that
rationing went.

But wasn't that because the country was effectively bankrupt after WW2?

I

Post by Steve Glynn
doubt the Conservatives, had they been in power then, could have done much
different.

Seemed to be enough money to create the Socialist utopia, but not enough to
allow people to buy their own food.

Gaz

Post by Steve Glynn
Steve

[Steve Glynn]

Post by Gaz

Post by Steve Glynn

Post by Gaz
At the end of the War, Labour also increased the scope of rationing, all
part of the socialist mindset. It wasnt until the Tories got back in

that

Post by Steve Glynn

Post by Gaz
rationing went.

But wasn't that because the country was effectively bankrupt after WW2?

I

Post by Steve Glynn
doubt the Conservatives, had they been in power then, could have done much
different.

Seemed to be enough money to create the Socialist utopia, but not enough to
allow people to buy their own food.
Gaz

Gaz, you are being a bit silly.

The taxpayers having to pay, for several years, for God alone knows how
many Lancaster bombers and Lee-Enfield rifles and battleships, and men to
fly the bombers or sail the battleships, all at the taxpayer's expense, is
bound to leave a bit of an hole in the public finances, is it not?

Steve

[Steve Glynn]

So therefore the immediate post-war period might not have been the
best time to set up a non means-tested, free at the point of use,
National Health Service.

I think, from what I've been told by people who were around at the time,
that the general idea was that whatever they'd been fighting for it wasn't a
return to how things were in the 30's. Annecdotal, I know, but even my
late father, a man of the most extreme Conservative views, voted Labour for
the first and last time in 1945 exactly because he wanted the Beverage
Report implemented

Steve

[Joe Hutcheon]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:23:57 +0100, "Steve Glynn"

Post by Steve Glynn

So therefore the immediate post-war period might not have been the
best time to set up a non means-tested, free at the point of use,
National Health Service.

I think, from what I've been told by people who were around at the time,
that the general idea was that whatever they'd been fighting for it wasn't a
return to how things were in the 30's.

Ah, well, hindsight's a wonderful thing of course, but it does seem to
have escaped the notice of those setting up the NHS that the potential
demand for a 'free' health service is limitless. Did anyone make
objections to that effect? I know the proposal to set up the NHS had
all-party support, but were alternative funding models explored?

Post by Steve Glynn
Annecdotal, I know, but even my
late father, a man of the most extreme Conservative views, voted Labour for
the first and last time in 1945 exactly because he wanted the Beverage
Report implemented

He probably just wanted a nice cup of tea.

[Will.Cormack]

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.
--
Robert Henderson

Worried that Plod might track you down?

Post by Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

[AD C]

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

I can not see even this government refusing medical treatment to people
with no I.D card. I do think they will come, and nothing will stop them.
The I.D card idea i am not against as long as you are not forced to
carry them and it is just a photo and your name on it.
I would not want fingerprints, DNA or any other information on the card.
I would certainly refuse to give DNA, and yes they can stop my money or
any thing else.

My card would be in my drawer most of the time anyway, as I do not even
carry my debit card, unless i need it.

[Mark]

Post by AD C
The I.D card idea i am not against as long as you are not forced to
carry them and it is just a photo and your name on it.

If you're not forced to carry them and the police can't demand "your
papers please" on any street corner, what value would they have?

Mark

[AD C]

Post by Mark
If you're not forced to carry them and the police can't demand "your
papers please" on any street corner, what value would they have?

For I.d if you open a bank account or for things like that.
According to what we heard, you will not forced to carry the I.D card
anyway, but will have to produce it at a police Station within so many days.
Seems a bit daft that, who in their right mind is going to tell a copper
their right name and address?

[Gaz]

Post by AD C

Post by Mark
If you're not forced to carry them and the police can't demand "your
papers please" on any street corner, what value would they have?

For I.d if you open a bank account or for things like that.
According to what we heard, you will not forced to carry the I.D card
anyway, but will have to produce it at a police Station within so many days.
Seems a bit daft that, who in their right mind is going to tell a copper
their right name and address?

Thats why, eighteen months after their introductoin, the Home Secretary will
put into place a 'Statutory Instrument' which will make it necessary to
carry one.

Gaz

[Robert Henderson]

Post by Gaz

Post by AD C

Post by Mark
If you're not forced to carry them and the police can't demand "your
papers please" on any street corner, what value would they have?

For I.d if you open a bank account or for things like that.
According to what we heard, you will not forced to carry the I.D card
anyway, but will have to produce it at a police Station within so many

days.

Post by AD C
Seems a bit daft that, who in their right mind is going to tell a copper
their right name and address?

Thats why, eighteen months after their introductoin, the Home Secretary will
put into place a 'Statutory Instrument' which will make it necessary to
carry one.

You would need provision in the Act for such a procedure to do that. If
there was, it would be made (I think) by an Order in Council. Statutory
instruments are only facilitating instruments.

It is a danger. Even if he does not, it is open to any future
government to do so. RH

Post by Gaz
Gaz

[AD C]

Post by Gaz
Thats why, eighteen months after their introductoin, the Home Secretary will
put into place a 'Statutory Instrument' which will make it necessary to
carry one.

Oh yes, I can see that coming, Blunket is a prat anyway,

I would refuse to carry one unless I need it for a reason, as i said, I
do not even carry my deit card unless I am going to use it on that day.
The same with an I.D card, I will leave it here at home in a drawer.

[Robert Henderson]

Post by AD C

Post by Gaz
Thats why, eighteen months after their introductoin, the Home Secretary will
put into place a 'Statutory Instrument' which will make it necessary to
carry one.

Oh yes, I can see that coming, Blunket is a prat anyway,
I would refuse to carry one unless I need it for a reason, as i said, I
do not even carry my deit card unless I am going to use it on that day.
The same with an I.D card, I will leave it here at home in a drawer.

Wow, what a rebel! And what if it becomes a legal obligation to carry it
at all times? RH

[AD C]

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by AD C
I would refuse to carry one unless I need it for a reason, as i said, I
do not even carry my deit card unless I am going to use it on that day.
The same with an I.D card, I will leave it here at home in a drawer.

Wow, what a rebel! And what if it becomes a legal obligation to carry it
at all times? RH

I will still leave it at home in the drawer. as I said, I do not carry
anythin if i can help it.

[Steve Glynn]

Post by AD C

Post by Mark
If you're not forced to carry them and the police can't demand "your
papers please" on any street corner, what value would they have?

For I.d if you open a bank account or for things like that.
According to what we heard, you will not forced to carry the I.D card
anyway, but will have to produce it at a police Station within so many days.
Seems a bit daft that, who in their right mind is going to tell a copper
their right name and address?

Dunno about anyone else, but I've never had any problems producing
identification when I wish to open a bank account or cash a cheque or prove
my identity to anyone who wishes to know I am whom I claim to be.

What advantages do you say this proposed I.D. card will give anyone in the
UK we don't have already?

Steve

[AD C]

Post by Steve Glynn
Dunno about anyone else, but I've never had any problems producing
identification when I wish to open a bank account or cash a cheque or prove
my identity to anyone who wishes to know I am whom I claim to be.
What advantages do you say this proposed I.D. card will give anyone in the
UK we don't have already?

It will make it easier, do not get me worng, I prefer it if we had no
I.D card, but the fact is, we will have one,
But it should just be a simple one, with no barcode or chip.

[Steve Glynn]

Post by AD C

Post by Steve Glynn
Dunno about anyone else, but I've never had any problems producing
identification when I wish to open a bank account or cash a cheque or prove
my identity to anyone who wishes to know I am whom I claim to be.
What advantages do you say this proposed I.D. card will give anyone in the
UK we don't have already?

It will make it easier, do not get me worng, I prefer it if we had no
I.D card, but the fact is, we will have one,
But it should just be a simple one, with no barcode or chip.

But how, exactly, will ID cards make your or my life any easier? I mean,
if you want to write a cheque you're almost certainly still going to need
your cheque guarantee card. If anything, it'll probably complicate things
since people will likely want to see your ID card as well as your cheque
guarantee card or driving licence or whatever.

I genuinely don't see what the point of the things is. I don't often get
stopped by policemen who are looking for someone whose name they know and
who happens to fit my description (never yet happened, in fact) but, if I
did, I wouldn't have much difficulty proving that I'm Steve Glynn rather
than Paddy O'Semtex or whoever they were after.

Steve

[AD C]

Post by Steve Glynn
But how, exactly, will ID cards make your or my life any easier? I mean,
if you want to write a cheque you're almost certainly still going to need
your cheque guarantee card. If anything, it'll probably complicate things
since people will likely want to see your ID card as well as your cheque
guarantee card or driving licence or whatever.

If you want to open a bank account you only need one card, you want to
provide i.D for anything, it is just one card, not loads of different
pieces of paper.

Post by Steve Glynn
I genuinely don't see what the point of the things is. I don't often get
stopped by policemen who are looking for someone whose name they know and
who happens to fit my description (never yet happened, in fact) but, if I
did, I wouldn't have much difficulty proving that I'm Steve Glynn rather
than Paddy O'Semtex or whoever they were after.

Just eaiser that all.

But as i said, I am not happy with the way it is happening and I
certainly do not want a card with a chip in, just a plain chip, which I
can use if i want to.

[BlackWater]

Post by AD C

Post by Steve Glynn
But how, exactly, will ID cards make your or my life any easier? I mean,
if you want to write a cheque you're almost certainly still going to need
your cheque guarantee card. If anything, it'll probably complicate things
since people will likely want to see your ID card as well as your cheque
guarantee card or driving licence or whatever.

If you want to open a bank account you only need one card, you want to
provide i.D for anything, it is just one card, not loads of different
pieces of paper.

And if the State wants to track you, screw you ... they
can monitor or revoke the use of that one convenient
card instead of having to pressure a dozen private
concerns to do it for them. The card represents a
concentration of authority - all under the immediate
control of the State.

[AD C]

Post by BlackWater
And if the State wants to track you, screw you ... they
can monitor or revoke the use of that one convenient
card instead of having to pressure a dozen private
concerns to do it for them. The card represents a
concentration of authority - all under the immediate
control of the State.

I can understand your feelings, I got the same feelings as well.
If we had a volentery one that would be fine, then it is up to people if
they use them or not.

[BlackWater]

Post by AD C

Post by BlackWater
And if the State wants to track you, screw you ... they
can monitor or revoke the use of that one convenient
card instead of having to pressure a dozen private
concerns to do it for them. The card represents a
concentration of authority - all under the immediate
control of the State.

I can understand your feelings, I got the same feelings as well.
If we had a volentery one that would be fine, then it is up to people if
they use them or not.

Even 'voluntary' IDs can wind up being 'voluntary'
only in name. For example, you don't HAVE to have
a govt ID/drivers-licence or a credit card in the
USA ... but if you DON'T then life will become very,
very difficult for you.

[Steve Glynn]

Post by AD C

Post by Steve Glynn
But how, exactly, will ID cards make your or my life any easier? I mean,
if you want to write a cheque you're almost certainly still going to need
your cheque guarantee card. If anything, it'll probably complicate things
since people will likely want to see your ID card as well as your cheque
guarantee card or driving licence or whatever.

If you want to open a bank account you only need one card, you want to
provide i.D for anything, it is just one card, not loads of different
pieces of paper.

Not so. In order to open a bank account in the UK you need to provide
proof of identity and address and have done since some time in the late
'80's (it's a legal requirement, brought in as a pretty poor way of dealing
with money laundering). Certainly, if you want to change bank accounts,
that can be done very simply. However, if you look at the terms and
conditions of your application to open an account with your new bank you
will see that there's a clause to the effect that you authorise them to make
the relevant checks about your identity with your previous bankers and
credit reference agencies.

Steve

[Steve Glynn]

Post by Steve Glynn
I genuinely don't see what the point of the things is. I don't often

get

Post by Steve Glynn
stopped by policemen who are looking for someone whose name they know and
who happens to fit my description (never yet happened, in fact) but, if I
did, I wouldn't have much difficulty proving that I'm Steve Glynn rather
than Paddy O'Semtex or whoever they were after.

But if paddy o'semtex had stolen your wallet, he would also have no

trouble

convincing plod he was steve glynn - as long as there was nothing there

with

a photo...

Come off it. Were Mr O'Semtex to pinch my wallet and claim to be me it
would not be at all difficult for the cops to discover he was fibbing within
five minutes even if my wallet didn't contain various things -- like a
driving licence and a security pass from my employer -- that have a photo on
anyway.

'Tell me, Sir. I see you bank with the Halifax. When did you last use
your cashpoint card? Oh look, here's your signature on the back of one of
your credit cards. Would you mind signing this statement that you're
entirely innocent of all charges and wish to see a solicitor? And where
did you say you live? Let's go and see if the keys in your pocket fit the
front door'.

Steve

[Joe Hutcheon]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:41:38 +0100, "Steve Glynn"

Post by Steve Glynn

Post by Steve Glynn
I genuinely don't see what the point of the things is. I don't often

get

Post by Steve Glynn
stopped by policemen who are looking for someone whose name they know

and

Post by Steve Glynn
who happens to fit my description (never yet happened, in fact) but, if

I

Post by Steve Glynn
did, I wouldn't have much difficulty proving that I'm Steve Glynn rather
than Paddy O'Semtex or whoever they were after.

But if paddy o'semtex had stolen your wallet, he would also have no

trouble

convincing plod he was steve glynn - as long as there was nothing there

with

a photo...

Come off it. Were Mr O'Semtex to pinch my wallet and claim to be me it
would not be at all difficult for the cops to discover he was fibbing within
five minutes even if my wallet didn't contain various things -- like a
driving licence and a security pass from my employer -- that have a photo on
anyway.
'Tell me, Sir. I see you bank with the Halifax. When did you last use
your cashpoint card? Oh look, here's your signature on the back of one of
your credit cards. Would you mind signing this statement that you're
entirely innocent of all charges and wish to see a solicitor? And where
did you say you live? Let's go and see if the keys in your pocket fit the
front door'.

You'd be well stuffed if he'd pinched your house keys as well.

'Oh, sorry, Sir, this clearly *is* your house.'

'No problem officer' (Mr O'Semtex bids the PC farewell then calls his
mates round for a house-clearing party).

[Steve Glynn]

Post by Joe Hutcheon
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:41:38 +0100, "Steve Glynn"

Post by Steve Glynn

Post by Steve Glynn
I genuinely don't see what the point of the things is. I don't often

get

Post by Steve Glynn
stopped by policemen who are looking for someone whose name they know

and

Post by Steve Glynn
who happens to fit my description (never yet happened, in fact) but, if

I

Post by Steve Glynn
did, I wouldn't have much difficulty proving that I'm Steve Glynn rather
than Paddy O'Semtex or whoever they were after.

But if paddy o'semtex had stolen your wallet, he would also have no

trouble

convincing plod he was steve glynn - as long as there was nothing there

with

a photo...

Come off it. Were Mr O'Semtex to pinch my wallet and claim to be me it
would not be at all difficult for the cops to discover he was fibbing within
five minutes even if my wallet didn't contain various things -- like a
driving licence and a security pass from my employer -- that have a photo on
anyway.
'Tell me, Sir. I see you bank with the Halifax. When did you last use
your cashpoint card? Oh look, here's your signature on the back of one of
your credit cards. Would you mind signing this statement that you're
entirely innocent of all charges and wish to see a solicitor? And where
did you say you live? Let's go and see if the keys in your pocket fit the
front door'.

You'd be well stuffed if he'd pinched your house keys as well.
'Oh, sorry, Sir, this clearly *is* your house.'
'No problem officer' (Mr O'Semtex bids the PC farewell then calls his
mates round for a house-clearing party).

But hang on. If Mr O'Semtex has managed to make away with both my house ke
ys and my wallet, how on earth has he managed to miss my identity card
(which he may well have thrown in the canal later on discovering that he
doesn't look anything like me, a dissimilarity my next-door-neighbour or the
milkman will readily confirm)?

I genuinely don't see the use of the damn things. I've managed perfectly
well without an identity card for the last several decades on this planet
and I do not understand why suddenly I need one now.

Steve

[Richard Gregory]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:01 +0100, "Steve Glynn"

Post by Steve Glynn
I genuinely don't see the use of the damn things. I've managed perfectly
well without an identity card for the last several decades on this planet
and I do not understand why suddenly I need one now.

Well, me neither. In fact, I expect this particular attempt to
introduce ID cards will fail. It would be useful, however, before the
dust settles, to get the Tories to state publically that they are
against ID cards and will not introduce them if they win the next
election.

It seems obscene to me that the Treasury are freezing budgets for the coming
year while the Home Office plan to raise and spend at least £1.5bn on
Blunkett's Folly. Hands up anyone who thinks that any such project would come
in under budget, on time, or would work - like the fingerprint system for
refugees does...I think any such scheme would fail to delivery tangible
results and would be an expensive flop.

Schools can't buy books. Patients wait on trolleys. The Government "can't
afford" care for the elderly. But we'll all have to get an ID card.


Blunkett seems obsessed with the damn things and is ignorning the evidence
from other countries who have virtually identical levels of benefit fraud,
illegal labour etc (he's even back on the old "fight against terrorism"
despite admitting in the House that ID cards don't). Last nights Asylum
program showed how easy it is to obtain fakes of supposedly "secure" European
ID's (the one on camera looked like the French "carte de identite national").
He ignored the results of the consultation. Most benefit fraud, according to
the Benefits Office 95%, is people using their real identities but lying about
circumstances - they don't have the staff or means to investigate.

Interestingly, there was to be a debate in the House of Commons in the last
weeks of Parliament on "entitlement cards" which didn't happen (it was
announced after a Tory raised the question of ID cards); nor did Blunkett
announce his scheme as was expected. I don't think he's gonna let this one
drop though. Maybe the Treasury will save us. What a thought!

Methinks the Home Secretary's "overwhelming case" for ID cards stems from the
fact that they will considerably increase the importance of the Home
Secretary.

[Joe Hutcheon]

Post by Richard Gregory
Interestingly, there was to be a debate in the House of Commons in the last
weeks of Parliament on "entitlement cards" which didn't happen (it was
announced after a Tory raised the question of ID cards); nor did Blunkett
announce his scheme as was expected. I don't think he's gonna let this one
drop though. Maybe the Treasury will save us. What a thought!

I'm sure Gordon Brown will insist on these cards being financed on a
cost-recovery basis. By the time the true cost has established, the
mooted £39 charge will look a little on the low side.

[Richard Gregory]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:01 +0100, "Steve Glynn"

Post by Steve Glynn
I genuinely don't see the use of the damn things. I've managed perfectly
well without an identity card for the last several decades on this planet
and I do not understand why suddenly I need one now.

Well, me neither. In fact, I expect this particular attempt to
introduce ID cards will fail. It would be useful, however, before the
dust settles, to get the Tories to state publically that they are
against ID cards and will not introduce them if they win the next
election.

I wouldn't bank on the Tories saying that. Their proposed benefits fit quite
neatly with the blue rinse brigade that the Tories need to keep sweet.

I believe that the Tories do indeed oppose the proposal. The LibDems and SNP
actively oppose it. After all, ID cards was to be one of their flagship ideas
for the Major election but got dropped as a hot potatoe when it became obvious
that it would cost a fortune and wasn't a vote winner.

[Steve Glynn]

Post by Richard Gregory

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:01 +0100, "Steve Glynn"

Post by Steve Glynn
I genuinely don't see the use of the damn things. I've managed perfectly
well without an identity card for the last several decades on this planet
and I do not understand why suddenly I need one now.

Well, me neither. In fact, I expect this particular attempt to
introduce ID cards will fail. It would be useful, however, before the
dust settles, to get the Tories to state publically that they are
against ID cards and will not introduce them if they win the next
election.

I wouldn't bank on the Tories saying that. Their proposed benefits fit quite
neatly with the blue rinse brigade that the Tories need to keep sweet.

I believe that the Tories do indeed oppose the proposal. The LibDems and SNP
actively oppose it. After all, ID cards was to be one of their flagship ideas
for the Major election but got dropped as a hot potatoe when it became obvious
that it would cost a fortune and wasn't a vote winner.

I think I recall Robert Henderson reproducing on UK Politics Misc a couple
of weeks ago an exchange of letters he'd had with Conservative Central
Office on this very topic. IIRC, Central Office's response was equivocal,
to say the least.

Steve

[Richard Gregory]

Post by Steve Glynn
I think I recall Robert Henderson reproducing on UK Politics Misc a couple
of weeks ago an exchange of letters he'd had with Conservative Central
Office on this very topic. IIRC, Central Office's response was equivocal,
to say the least.
Steve

I think their decision would be based entirely on how much damage they think
they could do by opposing rather than any committment either way.

I take it your position is similar to mine: Blunkett can take his cattle-tags
and shove 'em where the sun don't shine?

[BlackWater]

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

In the 1960s ... young American men would gather by the
hundreds in public places or near government offices and
set fire to their military draft cards in full view of
authorities and media. It was a crime - and a powerful
political statement.

Perhaps Brits need to start holding their own little
public bonfires ? When *enough* people do it so that
the system is corrupted and undermined, policy will
have to change - maybe for the better, maybe for the
worse. Either way, you'll then know whether parliment
holds its citizens in high esteem, or in chains.

[Robert Henderson]

Post by BlackWater

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

In the 1960s ... young American men would gather by the
hundreds in public places or near government offices and
set fire to their military draft cards in full view of
authorities and media. It was a crime - and a powerful
political statement.
Perhaps Brits need to start holding their own little
public bonfires ? When *enough* people do it so that
the system is corrupted and undermined, policy will
have to change - maybe for the better, maybe for the
worse. Either way, you'll then know whether parliment
holds its citizens in high esteem, or in chains.

The problem would be if the card is necessary to get a whole range of
necessary items such as medical treatment or a job. RH

[BlackWater]

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by BlackWater

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

In the 1960s ... young American men would gather by the
hundreds in public places or near government offices and
set fire to their military draft cards in full view of
authorities and media. It was a crime - and a powerful
political statement.
Perhaps Brits need to start holding their own little
public bonfires ? When *enough* people do it so that
the system is corrupted and undermined, policy will
have to change - maybe for the better, maybe for the
worse. Either way, you'll then know whether parliment
holds its citizens in high esteem, or in chains.

The problem would be if the card is necessary to get a whole range of
necessary items such as medical treatment or a job. RH

They must show-up without the card and refuse to
leave until they get their services - or until the
police break their heads and drag them off in full
view of the TV cameras.

Freedom isn't entirely *free*, you know ... the
Orwellians WILL push back. However, the People
outnumber them by about a million to one. If
Brits cannot persevere even when the odds are
so overwhelmingly in their favor then they
*deserve* Big Brother.

[Robert Henderson]

Post by Robert Henderson
The problem would be if the card is necessary to get a whole range of

Post by Robert Henderson
necessary items such as medical treatment or a job. RH

They must show-up without the card and refuse to
leave until they get their services

So, that's a protest group of one outside the hospital, school etc. RH

Post by Robert Henderson
- or until the
police break their heads and drag them off in full
view of the TV cameras.

What confidence you have in the media. RH

Post by Robert Henderson
Freedom isn't entirely *free*, you know ... the
Orwellians WILL push back. However, the People
outnumber them by about a million to one. If
Brits cannot persevere even when the odds are
so overwhelmingly in their favor then they
*deserve* Big Brother.

[BlackWater]

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson
The problem would be if the card is necessary to get a whole range of

Post by Robert Henderson
necessary items such as medical treatment or a job. RH

They must show-up without the card and refuse to
leave until they get their services

So, that's a protest group of one outside the hospital, school etc. RH

Geez ... be a little creative whydontcha ... organize a
delegation of 20/50/100 young lily-white all-English
good protestant mothers with babies in tow, all showing
up at the hospital at the same time for something simple
like innoculations. Make sure at least one TV reporter
and one newspaper reporter are present. When the mothers
are refused, they sit down on the floors and won't be
moved until they get their service or get forcibly
expelled.

The point isn't to simulate a 'typical experience' but
to force the issue of the ID cards with enough people
to have propaganda value. Alternatively, get 20/50/100
decidedly NON-lily-white mothers down there and then
scream about racial discrimination if they don't get
immediate service. It doesn't matter whether lily-white
native Brits would have been rejected as well ... we
are talking about creating *impressions*.

More difficult, but perhaps even more useful, would be
to get the medical staff to render assistance even IF
the patients have no ID cards. Doctors have a lot to
lose, career-wise, and thus their defiance of the ID
system would carry a lot of weight.

In any event, this is how politics is done. The little
people have to make use of their superior numbers and
do what they can to make the politicians look like
monsters. Politicians tend to take the path of least
resistance - so if they get enough resistance from
the common folk they will find another path. If they
do NOT get much resistance from the people, they will
continue on the path they are already walking - towards
an increasingly Orwellian state. The further along that
path they travel, the greater their committment and the
more difficult it becomes to steer them elsewhere.

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson
- or until the
police break their heads and drag them off in full
view of the TV cameras.

What confidence you have in the media. RH

If it bleeds, it leads ... same rules for the media in
every semi-free country in the world. Coppers dragging
off screaming women clutching babies, hell YES that
will make the news.

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson
Freedom isn't entirely *free*, you know ... the
Orwellians WILL push back. However, the People
outnumber them by about a million to one. If
Brits cannot persevere even when the odds are
so overwhelmingly in their favor then they
*deserve* Big Brother.

[Paul Hyett]

In uk.politics.misc on Mon, 21 Jul 2003 at 13:50:17, Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by BlackWater
They must show-up without the card and refuse to
leave until they get their services

So, that's a protest group of one outside the hospital, school etc. RH

Post by BlackWater
- or until the
police break their heads and drag them off in full
view of the TV cameras.

What confidence you have in the media. RH

Never mind the media - they could get their mates to come along with
camcorders to film what happens. In fact that would be better, since any
footage they filmed would be free of the 'editing' local & national
media would inevitably make.

A few seconds footage of police roughing up some 80yo grannies would be
worth months of behind-the-scenes campaigning!

[Robert Henderson]

Post by Paul Hyett
In uk.politics.misc on Mon, 21 Jul 2003 at 13:50:17, Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by BlackWater
They must show-up without the card and refuse to
leave until they get their services

So, that's a protest group of one outside the hospital, school etc. RH

Post by BlackWater
- or until the
police break their heads and drag them off in full
view of the TV cameras.

What confidence you have in the media. RH

Never mind the media - they could get their mates to come along with
camcorders to film what happens

You have your film. How do you persuade the Quisling media to show it?
RH

Post by Paul Hyett
. In fact that would be better, since any
footage they filmed would be free of the 'editing' local & national
media would inevitably make.
A few seconds footage of police roughing up some 80yo grannies would be
worth months of behind-the-scenes campaigning!

[Paul Hyett]

In uk.politics.misc on Tue, 22 Jul 2003 at 19:22:41, Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by Paul Hyett
Never mind the media - they could get their mates to come along with
camcorders to film what happens

You have your film. How do you persuade the Quisling media to show it?
RH

Should be no problem - they'll sell their souls for a good scoop.

Alternatively, you could post it on the internet.

[Robert Henderson]

Post by Paul Hyett
In uk.politics.misc on Tue, 22 Jul 2003 at 19:22:41, Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by Paul Hyett
Never mind the media - they could get their mates to come along with
camcorders to film what happens

You have your film. How do you persuade the Quisling media to show it?
RH

Should be no problem - they'll sell their souls for a good scoop.

But what if the story attacks those of whom they basically approve? RH

Post by Paul Hyett
Alternatively, you could post it on the internet.

[Solon]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:22:41 +0100, Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by Paul Hyett
Never mind the media - they could get their mates to come along with
camcorders to film what happens

You have your film. How do you persuade the Quisling media to show it?

Tell them they are not allowed to show it.

[Joe Hutcheon]

Post by Solon
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:22:41 +0100, Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by Paul Hyett
Never mind the media - they could get their mates to come along with
camcorders to film what happens

You have your film. How do you persuade the Quisling media to show it?

Tell them they are not allowed to show it.

Better still, tell Channel 4 that the BBC have exclusive rights to the
footage.

[Robert Henderson]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:52:23 +0100, Robert Henderson

Post by Solon
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:22:41 +0100, Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by Paul Hyett
Never mind the media - they could get their mates to come along with
camcorders to film what happens

You have your film. How do you persuade the Quisling media to show it?

Tell them they are not allowed to show it.

They say, OK , and go away. RH

Then tell them, is as pompous a voice as you can manage, that you are
a personal friend of their employer and that you will make it your
business to have them sacked if they dare to show it.

They say, you and whose army? RH

[Solon]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:59:16 +0100, Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by Solon

Post by Robert Henderson
You have your film. How do you persuade the Quisling media to show it?

Tell them they are not allowed to show it.

They say, OK , and go away. RH

Then tell them, is as pompous a voice as you can manage, that you are
a personal friend of their employer and that you will make it your
business to have them sacked if they dare to show it.

They say, you and whose army? RH

And will be so indignant that they will move heaven and earth to make
sure it is shown.

[Gaz]

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by BlackWater

Post by Robert Henderson
Stephen Robinson in the Daily Quislingraph (17 July) reports a number
of readers vowing to refuse to obtain an ID card. This could be easier
said than done because the Government could make a whole range of
services and benefits dependent upon the possession of card.
A very large proportion of British people now receive some form of
monetary benefit, whether it be called a pension, benefit or a tax
credit, from the state. I wonder how many would be willing to forgo the
benefit for the sake of not getting an ID card?
More generally, what if a card is needed to obtain NHS treatment? How
many people will refuse to get a card if their child needs treatment and
they cannot afford to pay for it? Ditto, if taxpayer funded education
was made dependent on it.
Most generally, what if it became necessary to have a card to obtain
employment? How many could resist then?
All these measures could be presented as crime and immigration measures
and fool many into accepting them as a "good" thing.
An ID card is the most degrading thing a state can demand of its
citizens for it is a licence to exist. It needs to be resisted without
qualification. The Tories acceptance of an "entitlement card" will not
do because that would be at best the forerunner of an iD card and at
worst an ID card by another name.

In the 1960s ... young American men would gather by the
hundreds in public places or near government offices and
set fire to their military draft cards in full view of
authorities and media. It was a crime - and a powerful
political statement.
Perhaps Brits need to start holding their own little
public bonfires ? When *enough* people do it so that
the system is corrupted and undermined, policy will
have to change - maybe for the better, maybe for the
worse. Either way, you'll then know whether parliment
holds its citizens in high esteem, or in chains.

The problem would be if the card is necessary to get a whole range of
necessary items such as medical treatment or a job. RH

Quite, think of all the acitivities the state either provides, licenses or
funds. Any of these could be forced to require presentation of ID card.

Buying alchol, no id no booze, "but I'm 83yrs old", no ID no booze....
Using cheques in a public place.
Withdrawing or depositing funds from a bank/post office.
Entering a public building (for health and safety
reasons.......................)
Using public transport
Payment of utility bills
renewance of road tax
etc etc etc etc etc.

Gaz

Post by Robert Henderson
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

[BlackWater]

Post by Gaz
Quite, think of all the acitivities the state either provides, licenses or
funds. Any of these could be forced to require presentation of ID card.
Buying alchol, no id no booze, "but I'm 83yrs old", no ID no booze....
Using cheques in a public place.
Withdrawing or depositing funds from a bank/post office.
Entering a public building (for health and safety
reasons.......................)
Using public transport
Payment of utility bills
renewance of road tax
etc etc etc etc etc.

Yea ... almost as bad as the USA is now .......

Don't think I haven't noticed. Every administration
since WW-2 has done its part to make American more
and more like those countries we used condemn in the
harshest terms and threaten with nuclear obliteration.

The trend in England parallels that in the USA. They've
simply implemented the bits and pieces of the totalitarian
scheme in a slightly different order. In the end, it will
be the same horrorshow ...

[Paul Hyett]

In uk.politics.misc on Mon, 21 Jul 2003 at 06:50:21, Robert Henderson

Post by Robert Henderson

Post by BlackWater
Perhaps Brits need to start holding their own little
public bonfires ? When *enough* people do it so that
the system is corrupted and undermined, policy will
have to change - maybe for the better, maybe for the
worse. Either way, you'll then know whether parliment
holds its citizens in high esteem, or in chains.

The problem would be if the card is necessary to get a whole range of
necessary items such as medical treatment or a job. RH

It would depend on the level of resistance though - if even 3% of the
population refused to co-operate, an ID card would be untenable.

[Paul Hyett]

A new one is the demand for ID when claiming contribution based
jobseekers allowance. All you had to do at one time was turn up with
your P45 and the letter from your employer stating why your employment
was finished. Perfectly adequate and checkable and if you had paid
sufficient insurance cotributions, yours by right. Not any more. Now
they want birth certificates or passports or medical cards.
You want to tell me who will fight against that when the option is
hunger, possible homelessness or freezing if it is winter?

Ordinary middle England people with compassion, or who fear the same
happening to them someday.

Protest marchers.

Civil liberties groups.

[AlanG]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:53:34 +0100, Paul Hyett

Post by Paul Hyett

A new one is the demand for ID when claiming contribution based
jobseekers allowance. All you had to do at one time was turn up with
your P45 and the letter from your employer stating why your employment
was finished. Perfectly adequate and checkable and if you had paid
sufficient insurance cotributions, yours by right. Not any more. Now
they want birth certificates or passports or medical cards.
You want to tell me who will fight against that when the option is
hunger, possible homelessness or freezing if it is winter?

Ordinary middle England people with compassion, or who fear the same
happening to them someday.
Protest marchers.
Civil liberties groups.

I haven't seen any sign of them to date.

--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)