ID cards rethink to be unveiled

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Pretty sure it was down to there no longer being a state of emergency, therefore no legal requirement for ID cards.
Had the government been able to show there was still a state of emergency, then ID cards would have continued to be legally required.

The protests started because there was no state of emergency. To its credit, the government of Winston Churchill scrapped the cards soon after winning the 1951 General Election.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by freezin

The protests started because there was no state of emergency. To its credit, the government of Winston Churchill scrapped the cards soon after winning the 1951 General Election.

Scapped due to a judge deciding that there was no state of emergency, and therefore no requirement for ID cards, not because of public protests.

It's like saying the governments decision to allow the first 2500L of biofuel to be tax free was due to public protest, not due to it otherwise breaching the Kyoto treaty or costing HMRC too much to process tiny sums of duty payments.

[THESHAOLIN1]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

THESHAOLIN while you are entitled to your opinion so is everyone else so maybe bear that in mind for a more pleasant forum experience. As for the information that an ID card would hold 95% of it is already out there anyway and if as you say you run a business well more of your info is out there already. An ID card is not an automatic step towards implanting RFID chips as some have suggested and in a way i feel sorry for this and any other government as people want security they say they want control over immigration but a national ID card oh my god no my privacy it's stupid you want something you have to give a little.

you must be in a dream if you think a card gives you security.

The only threat to any of our lives is the ones who control us. They are creating the division, the segregation.

And before 9/11 which led to the war in iraq the world was a much better place and i can clearly visibly see this.

As for the passports they've already got the RFID chips in, i wouldnt be surprised if these cards have the same its not about tracking with me, its the fact i know its a stepping stone.

And no you dont give a little to tyrants who have murdered over 50,000 people in just iraq alone. You dont give anything to them.

People on this forum lack so much information about what the governments in history have been known for doing.

Even in roman times governments have never worked they abuse power and its not because they abuse it, its because there not working for us and the people who own them have very different agenda's.

I bet most of you would line up to get microchipped.

---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The state wasn't the servant of the people back in the 50's, nor before.
Don't forget, in the 50's there were ID cards...

yes they were are you for real?

Governments job is for the people they are there for us.

If you want a dictatorship off to china you go.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by THESHAOLIN1

Governments job is for the people they are there for us.

You keep believing that, I hope it makes you feel warm and cosy.
Personally, I'll stick with looking at the evidence, which clearly shows that most governments are in it for themselves and their "friends" but not the people.
Sure, sometimes their actions benefit people, but that's normally just a happy coincidence.
Take the HMRC decision on removing tax from biofuels up to 2500L a year.
Your warm and fuzzy view of the government being for the people would suggest they did it to help reduce people's fuel bills and encourage carbon neutral energy production.
In reality it was because it cost more per duty payment than the payment itself for non-professional biofuel producers (like myself) and the government was in breach of the Kyoto treaty by making renewable fuels more expensive than fossil fuels.
So the government introduced the 2500L limit to exclude non-professional biofuel producers and thus save money, and also bring it's policies in line with the Kyoto treaty.
The happy coincidence is that the action saves me approx £1000 a year in fuel costs.

[THESHAOLIN1]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You keep believing that, I hope it makes you feel warm and cosy.
Personally, I'll stick with looking at the evidence, which clearly shows that most governments are in it for themselves and their "friends" but not the people.
Sure, sometimes their actions benefit people, but that's normally just a happy coincidence.
Take the HMRC decision on removing tax from biofuels up to 2500L a year.
Your warm and fuzzy view of the government being for the people would suggest they did it to help reduce people's fuel bills and encourage carbon neutral energy production.
In reality it was because it cost more per duty payment than the payment itself for non-professional biofuel producers (like myself) and the government was in breach of the Kyoto treaty by making renewable fuels more expensive than fossil fuels.
So the government introduced the 2500L limit to exclude non-professional biofuel producers and thus save money, and also bring it's policies in line with the Kyoto treaty.
The happy coincidence is that the action saves me approx £1000 a year in fuel costs.

thats the truth corse there not in it for the people, that is what governments were created for, i think someone missed a few history lessons.

but what i mean is there original purpose was exactly that, to be there for the people.

They are defying that n thus they must be removed

and stop waffling on about some bullshit aswell n be relevant.

i'm more against the governments in control than im sure anyone on this site.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by THESHAOLIN1

thats the truth corse there not in it for the people, that is what governments were created for, i think someone missed a few history lessons.

but what i mean is there original purpose was exactly that, to be there for the people.

They are defying that n thus they must be removed

and stop waffling on about some bullshit aswell n be relevant.

i'm more against the governments in control than im sure anyone on this site.

Yes, it does appear that you missed a few history lessons.
Perhaps you should take another look at the history of British governments, specifically who's government it is.
From your other posts, you won't like the answer.

[THESHAOLIN1]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Yes, it does appear that you missed a few history lessons.
Perhaps you should take another look at the history of British governments, specifically who's government it is.
From your other posts, you won't like the answer.

clearly not, im talking about back in rome, the purpose of a government leading all the way upto the modern day has been twisted.

We have been made to look upto authority as god of our reality while believing and being told we have freedom while they slowly take it away from us.

I assure i know history better than most. If you cant speak to me about sumeria i suggest its you who gets the history lesson.

As my understanding of history reaches way past 1 million years of this planet.

[Druchii]

Originally Posted by THESHAOLIN1

clearly not, im talking about back in rome, the purpose of a government leading all the way upto the modern day has been twisted.

We have been made to look upto authority as god of our reality while believing and being told we have freedom while they slowly take it away from us.

I assure i know history better than most. If you cant speak to me about sumeria i suggest its you who gets the history lesson.

As my understanding of history reaches way past 1 million years of this planet.

Mmmhmm, go study it some more them. Xaccers is onto something you are not going to like.

Oh, and 1 million years? I'd not hesitate in saying things were not recorded back then, and as such any events are open for interpretation.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Scapped due to a judge deciding that there was no state of emergency, and therefore no requirement for ID cards, not because of public protests.

Not quite. In 1951 Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard ruled that the police could not demand that individuals show their ID cards if it was not relevant to the purposes for which the card was adopted. Widespread discussion of the ruling led to the repeal of the National Registration Act in 1952 and the end of ID cards until now. Public protest played a big part.

[BBKing]

Public protest played a big part.

So, IIRC, did direct refusal to show the card by members of the public. The lesson to learn is that the existence of ID cards alters the relationship between the public and police in a thoroughly un-British way.

Originally Posted by shawty

Because we live in a Country where big brother type things will not happen. In 25 years time, in 50 years time, we will find ourselfs (well not me) saying the same thing. Im also afraid to say if the NHS know if I do or dont smoke/drink and they know what my diet is like, I dont care if the gorverment know or not. Im telling you now, the goverment dont care what car I drive, why would they be bothered about it, if they were, they would have to be bothered on everybodys cars, how many is that? They are only bothered about cars that are being used illegally and such things like that. They dont care Im jumping in my Ford to drive to tesco, why would they.

If drinking alcohol ever became illegal, I wouldnt blame the gorverment, Id blame the people who cant control themselves on a night out. Middlesbrough isnt the best of places at the best of times, on the night time its horrendous due to the drug takers/drinkers not being able to handle themselves and the prostitutes.

Its time we stand up and stop blaming the goverment for everything, sure they are the cause of somethings, the only thing I see with this Country though is people cant lay the blame on themselves or their friends.

I bet, given the chance of running this Country, most people wouldnt know where to stand or what to do and even if they did, does not mean its going to be succesful.

Ive always said that for the 'average' person, they (the different paties trying to get in to run the country) are all as bad as each other. We would be know better/worse off either way because they always find another way to gain money from us.

I think some people need to sit up and all though we are not the best Country in the world, we are certainly not the worst, not by a long shot and some people need to think themselves lucky that we can sit here and actually talk about and maybe do something about the policies the goverment want to bring in.

You actually really do think all future British governments will be trustworthy? Sorry, but I find your attitude incredibly complacent. We are already living in an evolving big brother state, but you're obviously a good little citizen who will never do anything the state doesn't approve of. But if any of your descendants ever do, there might be no one left to speak up for them.

I'm not blaming the government for everything, but one thing I do blame them for using the tax system against everyone instead of dealing effectively with the people causing the problems. We're not politicians; it's not our job to run the country, but nevertheless imo our parliamentary politicians have become arrogant and remote from those they are supposed to serve.

You're wrong. All parties are not all as bad as each other. Don't judge them all by the standards employed by the parties with bodies on green benches. And when the countries someone can compare us favourably to are "Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Zimbabwe or, whisper it, Russia" you know how low we have sunk.

[BBKing]

As my understanding of history reaches way past 1 million years of this planet.

I suggest you look up the etymology of the word 'prehistoric' sometime, if we're going to be sharing knowledge so liberally.

[lostandconfused]

Originally Posted by THESHAOLIN1

I assure i know history better than most. If you cant speak to me about sumeria i suggest its you who gets the history lesson.

As my understanding of history reaches way past 1 million years of this planet.

Those books again eh?

[tweetypie/8]

Originally Posted by Sirius

So the Government has decided to put even more data at risk and package it in a small easy to lose device. No doubt the Lib Dems will sit on the fence over this one as well, Lets face it just like Europe this is important enough to require a vote in the house.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7280495.stm

Problem with the unelected pretender Brown is that he says one thing and then does the opposite. Therefor the fact he hinted this



Does not fill me with a warm feeling of trust

i cant understand what all the fuss is about,here in n.ireland we have always had photographic id on our driving licences and in the bad old days of bombings were asked regularly for id and were subject to body searches and had no choice in the matter.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by THESHAOLIN1

...I bet most of you would line up to get microchipped.....

I'd be first in the queue. By the way, you seem to be confusing "wanting to live in a dictatorship" with "making good use of technology".

Originally Posted by tweetypie/8

i cant understand what all the fuss is about,here in n.ireland we have always had photographic id on our driving licences and in the bad old days of bombings were asked regularly for id and were subject to body searches and had no choice in the matter.

Well I wouldn't want to be asked to show my ID every time I took a walk in Hyde Park, but there are many instances where the technology can be put to good use. When I've been pulled over by the police while driving, they've asked to see my driving licence, which I never carry around. In London you can make small purchases just by swiping a card over a reader in a shop - no need for a PIN or a signature. What a brilliant idea! I have to carry around lots of keys, which is simply archaic. Swipe cards are useful, but again you have to carry them around and there is a risk you might lose them.

An implanted microchip would be much more convenient.