ID card Bill dropped

Originally Posted by me283

[personal comments snipped]

how do you propose it is tested, and at what cost? And can I please have FACTS and FIGURES, not estimates and possibilities?

Excuse me? I'm not the one who is proposing it be tested, certainly not by spending at least three billion pounds (that's the *government's* own figures!) of tax payers' money.

It seems we're back at logical fallacies again, this time it's Burden of Proof raising its head once more.

If you (or the government) think that this scheme is a good idea and will work and is value for money it is down to *you* or *them* to prove that this is the case.

So far there has been precious little proof or even valid argument that can demonstrate this.
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

And that's one thing that bugs me. Even if this system did exactly what it said on the tin: reduced terrorism, identity theft, made life more convienent, and it was implemented properly and under budget... People would still be against it.

Yes, because it would *STILL* breach basic *RIGHTS* that people in this country have fought *WARS* to protect!!
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

Thank you Andy, you have proven my point. Graham wants proof of what I have said, but it can't be given. Facts and figures will be proof. Let's wait and see.

So again I ask (and you have not yet replied to), what happens if it all goes wrong, it doesn't work and billions of pounds have been wasted?

Would you say "oh well, we thought it was a good idea. Never mind. Sorry. Let's move on"???
__________________

Originally Posted by andyl

Ok, might be speaking out of turn but I'm guessing Graham would like to understand the base from which you can make such an assertion (there doesn't seem to be much historical evidence for example). I can easily make groundless assertions but it won't add weight to my argument.

And if ID cards are introduced, the facts and figures will soon become meaningless; it'll be a done deal. Once those rights are lost, no government will return them.

Andyl, you're not speaking out of turn at all. You have completely grasped the principle of my argument.

I hope now that Me283 will understand the point.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Which countries? The former Soviet Union? The old Eastern Europe? Communist China?

Well, assuming you've done some research into ID cards rather than just reading the anti literature that has been put out in this country, then I'm sure you'll be able to name at least two democracies with ID cards.
Or have you not actually done much research into that?
It's ok, we won't hold it against you.


And again I ask:
Exactly what new information will the database hold that will enable all these abuses which isn't already held by the government?

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh gods, Xaccers, this argument is *OLD* is has been done time and again in these threads and I'm not going to point out the flaws in it *yet* again.

Go and search the old threads where you will find the difference between having a licence to drive (something you *choose* to have) and having a "licence to walk down the street" (something which the government wants to *compel* you to have).

Or you could explain why something which just helps give evidence to show that the information you are giving is true is some how a "right to exist card" rather than dodging the question.

Originally Posted by graham

I suggest you try to convince Me283 of that!

You appear to be one of the people who needs convincing as per your next statement:

Originally Posted by graham

Xaccers, the point is that *ANY* scheme introduced *will* be a government scheme and it will *NOT* be a "well planned and implemented scheme". Ye gods, they can't even get the MI5 system right and that's supposed to protect us from terrorism!!!

So, how about giving some valid arguments against a well thought out and properly implimented ID card system? Or are you unable to think of any?
After all, does there have to be arguments againt it? Would such an ID scheme work?

Originally Posted by Graham

people in this country have fought *WARS* to protect!!

While people at home quite happily carried ID cards!
Oh the irony!


Again, what rights will be lost?
You currently don't have the right to give false information to goverment officials
You currently don't have the right to refuse to give most of the information the goverment is putting in the database
You currently have the right by your existence to be able to walk down a public right of way, that didn't change during WW2, it ain't changing with this proposal

So far no losses...

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well, assuming you've done some research into ID cards rather than just reading the anti literature that has been put out in this country, then I'm sure you'll be able to name at least two democracies with ID cards.
Or have you not actually done much research into that?
It's ok, we won't hold it against you.

Xaccers, in case you hadn't noticed *NONE* of the democracies that *DO* have ID cards have *ANYTHING* like the scheme that this government wants to implement, so your implied argument has no validity.

But don't worry, we won't hold it against you...

And again I ask: Exactly what new information will the database hold that will enable all these abuses which isn't already held by the government?

The point is that there is no *ONE* number that will give someone access to *ALL* that information in one single "transaction".

In the USA if you can get hold of someone's Social Security Number it is possible to gain access to a huge swathe of details about their dealings which actually makes ID theft in America *easier*!!!

Or you could explain why something which just helps give evidence to show that the information you are giving is true is some how a "right to exist card" rather than dodging the question.

Well on the subject of dodging, that *wasn't* the question you originally asked that generated that response, but never mind.

But as to your subsequent question (which has, again, been answered in previous threads) imagine you're a member of an ethnic minority who happens to be walking down the street in a "rich white area", or maybe you're parking a van near an airport with a few friends.

Mr Institutionally Racist Policeman (yes, there *are* some, see the Macpherson report) comes up and thinks "hello, hello, hello, they look suspiciously black/ Muslim, Who are you? What are you doing? Let's see some ID sonny. Oh dear, no ID, you can't prove your answers are true, you're going to have to come down to the Police Station until we can demonstrate that you have the right to be here".

You appear to be one of the people who needs convincing as per your next statement:

You're damn right I need convincing that spending at least three billion pounds on a scheme like this is going to be worthwhile!!

Anyone who doesn't is being incredibly naiive.

So, how about giving some valid arguments against a well thought out and properly implimented ID card system? Or are you unable to think of any?
After all, does there have to be arguments againt it? Would such an ID scheme work?

What on *EARTH* is the point of discussing hypothetical situations when there is *ALREADY* a plan on the table which the government wants to force through and impose on us whether we like it or not???

While people at home quite happily carried ID cards!
Oh the irony!

Irony indeed, Xaccers, but not quite for the reasons you think!

In case you hadn't noticed there *ISN'T* a war on at the moment, *DESPITE* what the government may claim!!

Remember that the last ID card scheme that this country had was discontinued after a Judge ruled that there was *NO NEED* to have such a system in place now that the war was over!!

So why should we, once again, be happy to carry ID cards??

Again, what rights will be lost?

Are you actually *READING* what I am writing, Xaccers?

How many times do I have to repeat "THE RIGHT TO GO ABOUT YOUR LAWFUL BUSINESS WITHOUT LET OR HINDERENCE"???

What about "PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"?

You currently don't have the right to give false information to goverment officials

Straw man. I never said anything about this.

You currently don't have the right to refuse to give most of the information the goverment is putting in the database

Another straw man.

You currently have the right by your existence to be able to walk down a public right of way, that didn't change during WW2, it ain't changing with this proposal

Wrong, as I mentioned above. And before you say "it won't happen, they won't be allowed to do that" I suggest, as, once again, I have mentioned many a time in previous threads, you look at the situation in France where Police aren't allowed to stop minorities (mostly Algerians) just to check their ID, yet, somehow they *still* do this.

So far no losses...

Or, at least, none that you're willing to acknowledge which is an entirely different matter.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Ok, might be speaking out of turn but I'm guessing Graham would like to understand the base from which you can make such an assertion (there doesn't seem to be much historical evidence for example). I can easily make groundless assertions but it won't add weight to my argument.

And if ID cards are introduced, the facts and figures will soon become meaningless; it'll be a done deal. Once those rights are lost, no government will return them.

Andy, much as it pains me to feel like I'm taking a stance anywhere near yours , I am going to unsubscribe as I feel this has run it's course. My feeling is that Graham has no wish to concede any of my points, and that's fine, it's his perogative. I feel that tangible benefits may be gained by the scheme, but of course they are unquantifiable at this stage; and when someone challenges me to "prove" what I am believing, it's a little tough. Historical evidence is hard to find when there is no history; and while Xaccers seems to be more than holding his own here, I can't see my comments adding much weight.

Anyway, here's to the future, and cheers for the "sparring"!

PS for the record, I notice differing figures being bandied about ie £3billi on and £5.5bil lion. Not really interested in challenging it, just pointing it out.

me283, i think the issue arose cos you expressed an opinion as an assertion (from memory)

[Xaccers]

I think I'm going to follow me283 on this one as once again it is very difficult to have an intellectual conversation when participants resort to the textual version of holding their hands up and saying "whatever" rather than explain their arguments.
Anyway andyl, thanks for you input if a little paranoid (of course they really are out to get you)

[me283]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I think I'm going to follow me283 on this one as once again it is very difficult to have an intellectual conversation when participants resort to the textual version of holding their hands up and saying "whatever" rather than explain their arguments.
Anyway andyl, thanks for you input if a little paranoid (of course they really are out to get you)

Off-topic... did you hear about the paranoid man with low self-esteem? He though nobody important was out to get him...

Originally Posted by Xaccers

IAnyway andyl, thanks for you input if a little paranoid (of course they really are out to get you)

Bugger, you know they're after me too. Sh*t.


I have to say though that I, agree with them or not, Graham's posts have been well thought through and evidenced. He's quite an adversary (so glad he's on my side, or thereabouts ).
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

Off-topic... did you hear about the paranoid man with low self-esteem? He though nobody important was out to get him...

Now, that is funny!

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Bugger, you know they're after me too. Sh*t.


I have to say though that I, agree with them or not, Graham's posts have been well thought through and evidenced. He's quite an adversary (so glad he's on my side, or thereabouts ).
__________________



Now, that is funny!

Let's agree on the second point (am I smug now?!)

The first point, lt's agree to disagree

Originally Posted by me283

Let's agree on the second point (am I smug now?!)

The first point, lt's agree to disagree

Hey I don't think i'm smiug (that jist what someone else called me!) But I must admit I do get tired of being right all the time (guess you have the opposite problem so I can sympathise )

Originally Posted by me283

My feeling is that Graham has no wish to concede any of my points, and that's fine, it's his perogative.

And my feeling is that you have demonstrated no points *worth* conceding and this is just one last desperate attempt on your part to salvage some dignity.

I feel that tangible benefits may be gained by the scheme, but of course they are unquantifiable at this stage; and when someone challenges me to "prove" what I am believing, it's a little tough.

Yes, it is tough. If you want to spend billions of public money you're going to have to expect people to ask tough questions about whether it's worth it rather than hope they'll just take your word for it!!

PS for the record, I notice differing figures being bandied about ie £3billi on and £5.5bil lion. Not really interested in challenging it, just pointing it out.

Three billion is what the government claim. Given the inabilty of virtually *any* government project *ever* to come in on time or under budget (let alone working!), is it any wonder that other people are pointing out that it's virtually guaranteed to cost a hell of a lot more?
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I think I'm going to follow me283 on this one as once again it is very difficult to have an intellectual conversation when participants resort to the textual version of holding their hands up and saying "whatever" rather than explain their arguments.

Xaccers, if you want to have an "intellectual conversation" it's a good idea to actually bother to *READ* what people have written instead of trying to dismiss it with this sort of petty comment.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Hey I don't think i'm smiug (that jist what someone else called me!) But I must admit I do get tired of being right all the time (guess you have the opposite problem so I can sympathise )

The opposite problem? Well I suppose you are right, I DON'T get tired of being right all the time

[BBKing]

Three billion is what the government claim.

IIRC that was the original official figure - scope creep and the fact that it was obviously unrealistic mean it's gone up to 5.5. Will it stop there? Nope.

Is everyone taking their ball home? I've just been let out after tea by my mum* and was looking forward to a kickabout.

*Metaphorically.