You are here:   Columns >  Guest Speaker > ONLINE ONLY: ID Cards to be Labour's Final Fiasco?
 

Changes to the Register can be notified by telephone, as can loss or damage to a card and the loss of a card should be notified within three months. Since notifying a change will cost money, as will renewal of a card (cards will only be valid for 10 years), there is likely to be widespread avoidance.

Enforcement of the payment of penalties is also going to be interesting. An objection to a penalty has to be made on a prescribed form 30 days after the penalty notice is received. Many people are ostriches and will do nothing, waiting until the bailiffs arrive to object and not understanding that unless an objection is made early, no one will look at the question of liability. If there is an objection the penalty can even be increased. Any appeal would then have to be to the County Court, and not the magistrates courts with which many people are familiar.

I can remember the Poll Tax, the queues of defaulters that stretched out of the door of our local magistrates court into the street. I can also remember that many people simply did not pay. These were the people who do not officially exist - people who do not claim benefit, who do not pay national insurance, who work cash in hand and who cannot be traced. There are many such people. Personally, I would rather they were living that way than burgling my house. I am not expecting them to sign up for an ID card for which they must pay.

The Book of Revelation, which some people feel does not really belong in the Bible because it is too disturbing, contains a vision of people not being able to buy or sell without a mark branded in their hands. Perhaps it is the intention of this Government to take all our fingerprints before we can be permitted to exist. But perhaps also this will be Labour's version of the great Poll Tax fiasco, and we can look forward to their being voted out by disgruntled families, who suddenly realize that it is not just nasty foreigners who are being asked to give intrusive details.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
December 21st, 2008
4:12 PM
Ref:'Jummy' - 'Irish' commit more crimes. So? 'Blacks' commit lots more still.Just helping your point.

Ivan
December 11th, 2008
4:12 PM
I can see no reason why for reasons of state security citizens should not merely be forced to have ID cards but to carry them with them at all times. Such things are necessary in the state of perpetual terrorism that has now engulfed us, a terror supported by a significant part of the population. The more information it contains the better and this should include religion as well as ethnicity. All our financial affairs have long been subject to surveillance but no one ever protested. It would seem that the state is more concerned to protect its revenues than our safety. I have never seen a human rights case about the level of taxation or the intrusiveness of the collectors or their use of anonymous denunciations. Why should we care about the rights of terrorists ? Are terrorists to be more protected than tax-payers or motor car drivers?

Anonymous
December 8th, 2008
6:12 PM
I think the whole business is appalling and invasive. Surely there's a better way?

Jummy
December 7th, 2008
1:12 PM
The ethnic categories are merely political.They are not useful ones nor do they have any social reality. This is true generally.If you are an organ donor it is useful to have a record of racial ancestry for matching the organ donated to a recipient so it will be accepted. But they ask you whether you Irish or British which is irrelevant.How much do the Irish differ genetically from the Scots? The category Irish is there to placate Sinn Fein not to help the NHS.The reason Irish ought to be a category on police forms is because they commit more crimes ( according to the prison chaplains and a Jesuit report there are twice as many RCs in jail as in the general population) but that is not why it is there.It is there because the Irish are defined as underpriveleged and discriminated against and need government meddling to put this right.

Cjno
December 6th, 2008
2:12 PM
Brianson, I vauguely recall that during the 1930s a one time German chancellor wanted people who his government classified as Jews to carry a form of identifiaction on their person, the better to effect 'social engineering'. However, I can't remember exactly what came of it. You may have better luck & be able to find a book or two about this episode in your local library.

Guy Herbert (General Secretary, NO2ID campaign)
December 6th, 2008
7:12 AM
At present "ethnicity", or perhaps officialdom should be more honest and talk about "colour", is not required, but it was initially required in the Bill before it passed into law..." This is news to me, and I lobbied against the bill at every stage. What is your source. Also there is no longer a requirement to state all your addresses. Not clear. The power remains in place, but the draft regulations for applications appear not to require all addresses. These could just as easily be added later, or even when the actual regulations are laid. The bill was amended by government to encompass all places of residence anywhere in the world, not just all UK places of residence.

Brianson
December 3rd, 2008
1:12 PM
This might worry me if I had ever seen an example of a European gov't using such information against its citizens for the purpose of social engineering in the last hundred years or so... This seems a little over the line. Are your politicians and civil servants that much more trustworthy than ours? Wow, want to share because there is no way Canadians are going to trust the ones we have do this. Not the ones I know anyways. There are no leading roles in a cage.

Dave
December 2nd, 2008
6:12 PM
It was reported recently that the Govt has not ordered any of the scanners required to read the biological data on the cards which are already being issued!

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.