[aldo_14]

This doesn't seem to have hit the internet yet, so no links....this comes from the Metro, which you can pick up from the local rail station or bus for free (which usually means this must have been on a broadsheet over the weekend or something).

Anyways, as part of the small print of a Department of Constitutional Affairs document released sneaked out over the festive period, Town Halls could be given the power to fine households (on the electoral roll) that have not applied for an ID card £2,500; despite the cards not being compulsary.  So you have a choice of paying from £60-300 to sell the government your identity (for tracking use of services and possibly flogging to businesses), paying £2,500 to reserve your right to privacy, or perhaps opting off the electoral register and sacrificing your right to vote for your right to identity.

What a ****ing disgrace this country is..........

[Fineus]

Hang on... exactly what reason do they state when they try and fine you £2500 for not having applied? If it's not compulsery then it's not a crime not to have one. It's a choice. This fine makes as much sense as a town hall announcing they're fining people for now drinking Pepsi instead of water... they simply cannot have a reason for it.

Also, why is there a variation of £60 to £300? I know for a fact I don't want to be tracked, numbered and cattle marketed - I also know I don't have that kind of money to throw away on this either. I definitely don't have £2500 to pay any kind of fine and I'm fairly sure that forcing ID cards on anyone is a breach of human rights acts.

If not.. well it blows big fat chunks. Anyway, I'm off to the Metro after lunch to get a copy of this for myself.

Oh.. a couple of links. They're both old but certainly relevant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3659355.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3127696.stm

[aldo_14]

Hang on... exactly what reason do they state when they try and fine you £2500 for not having applied? If it's not compulsery then it's not a crime not to have one. It's a choice. This fine makes as much sense as a town hall announcing they're fining people for now drinking Pepsi instead of water... they simply cannot have a reason for it.

They don't give a reason for it (in the Metro), just that it's proposed.  I've not found further info on the net about it yet.

Also, why is there a variation of £60 to £300? I know for a fact I don't want to be tracked, numbered and cattle marketed - I also know I don't have that kind of money to throw away on this either. I definitely don't have £2500 to pay any kind of fine and I'm fairly sure that forcing ID cards on anyone is a breach of human rights acts.

The government states it's £60, but independent analysis states it as likely being around £300.  IIRC the government justification makes huge assumptions, such as that everyone will plump for the more expensive passport+id card style option.  Given the track record of astonishing IT incompetence, delay and overpricing, any estimation the gov gives is likely to be complete rubbish.

See http://forms.theregister.co.uk/search/?q=id+card+costs
Especially; http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/02/id_card_video_costs/ (huge waste of money for proganda)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/17/clarke_id_3rdvote_spin/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/22/lse_on_id_card_costs/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/27/idcards_get_more_expensive/

[pecenipicek]

explain please, these ID cards, are they just to prove your age and that **** or something else?

if to prove your age and that, then its mandatory here, starting with the age of 16...


okay, upon reading it...

What information would be on the cards?

The card would contain basic identification information including a photograph of the card holder, along with their name, address, gender and date of birth.

we got that on our ID cards...

But a microchip would also hold biometric information - a person's fingerprints or iris or facial scans, which are unique to the individual.

The biometric details are designed to make the cards more difficult to forge but critics say they are not foolproof and may be more difficult for some groups, such as disabled people, to use.

biometric data... what a load of bull. they take our fingerprints, but apart from that no biometric data is collected or stored on the ID card...


so unless i misunderstood something....

[an0n]

Remind me again why the government needs to know who I am?

[aldo_14]

Remind me again why the government needs to know who I am?

Because we're all evil terrorists determined to bring down the state*?

*i.e. Non labour voters

[vyper]

Remind me again why the government needs to know who I am?

Because we're all evil terrorists determined to bring down the state*?

*i.e. Non labour voters Realisitic Centrists.

[pecenipicek]

Remind me again why the government needs to know who I am?

Because we're all evil terrorists determined to bring down the state*?

*i.e. Non labour voters Realisitic Centrists.

OH NOEZ!!! TEH HUMANITY!!!!1!1!11111!!!!11

[Rictor]

So now only the rich are entitled to privacy. It's actually brilliant now that I think about it. They can't legally exempt the upper classes from requiring to sumbit to their Big Brother-like authority, so they just slap a huge fine on those who don't comply. Like back in the US Civil War, where you could get an exemption for $300, which of course only the rich could afford.

[Flipside]

It's laughable, they don't even try to hide it anymore. And what's more laughable is that we seem less and less inclined to stop it.

I'm going to try and get some more info, it's more than embarassing, it's treating us like morons.....again.

[Fineus]

We are morons though. There was a time when "we" would campaign against this sort of thing. It just wouldn't be allowed because the public at large would shout and scream and say "like hell you're going to do this, we're voting you out of government".

Now we take it. We really are morons for doing so and yes - I include myself in that.

[Flipside]

Exactly, and daring to speak out nowadays just involves a finger being pointed at you and saying 'Oh, so you support terrorism do you?'.

Well, first step, once I get some info is a nice letter to Joan Ryan It's a small start, but a start.

[an0n]

We take it because Labour and the Tories both want it and the Liberal Democrats are too scared to tell them to go **** themselves.

[Fineus]

Radical and unlikely as it may sound... what would happen if "the majority"said "we'll vote for you, but if you do this thing we'll revolt and that's a fact".

After all, these people are only in power because we as a nation put them in power - and you can't arrest a nation that says "no".

[an0n]

Yes, but you can have the army shoot the ring leaders.

[Fineus]

On what grounds?

[Flipside]

National Security, the ultimate excuse for oppression.

[an0n]

If they're rounding people up and shooting them, they don't really need to give a reason.

I mean, who the **** would walk up and ask for one?

[Fineus]

Point taken I suppose.

Ah well.. time to start looking for a one way flight to Australia.

[an0n]

You do that.

In the meantime, I'll be buying some silenced pistols and ninja suits.