+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 80
IT News Thread, Put young children on DNA list, urge police in Other News; Originally Posted by jcollings This is where I have an issue - ID card or not oppresive reigemes flourish. I ...
  1. #46

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,847
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,480 Times in 1,923 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by jcollings View Post
    This is where I have an issue - ID card or not oppresive reigemes flourish. I don't think there is a relationship. If a government wants to impose itself it will do it regardless of card carrying as China, Zimbabwe and Iraq to name but a few show.
    You miss the point - the ID card will aid in the creation of a more restrictive system of control. Sure, it isn't a given that oppressive regimes have ID cards, but providing one to a country which is already removing people's human rights is just providing one more way to remove privacy and freedoms.

    The key thing with these new ideas is there is no evidence to show that their introduction will actually reduce crime. To blindly accept the argument that they will reduce crime and prevent terrorism is just plain stupid. We need evidence *before* the systems are introduced, rather than simply accepting rhetoric and hype.

  2. #47

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kendal
    Posts
    1,555
    Thank Post
    112
    Thanked 177 Times in 144 Posts
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    You miss the point - the ID card will aid in the creation of a more restrictive system of control. Sure, it isn't a given that oppressive regimes have ID cards, but providing one to a country which is already removing people's human rights is just providing one more way to remove privacy and freedoms.

    The key thing with these new ideas is there is no evidence to show that their introduction will actually reduce crime. To blindly accept the argument that they will reduce crime and prevent terrorism is just plain stupid. We need evidence *before* the systems are introduced, rather than simply accepting rhetoric and hype.
    I think you miss the point - it will make no difference to restrictions. If a government wants to oppress/remove human rights (and I'm not sure I see where this is already happening) it will do it full stop - it has happened so many times card or no card.

    My privacy or freedom is no different than it was 20 years ago.

  3. #48

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,847
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,480 Times in 1,923 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by jcollings View Post
    I think you miss the point - it will make no difference to restrictions. If a government wants to oppress/remove human rights (and I'm not sure I see where this is already happening) it will do it full stop - it has happened so many times card or no card.

    My privacy or freedom is no different than it was 20 years ago.
    The thing is, most, if not all, oppressive regimes in the past have came into force in quite a short time period, over a year or 2. What we have at the moment is a slowly but surely increasing amount of control over the population. Allowing this government to introduce systems that can be used to control the population may not mean we enter an 'oppressive regime' now but aids the introduction of such a regime in the future.

    And yes, you have a lot less privacy than 20 years ago. Your face is recorded all day long by cameras, your purchased in supermarkets are tracked, most things are tracked about you in fact.

    Also, your freedoms in general are a lot more restricted now. You can no longer have a march through a city without permission. You can't protest outside parliament without permission. You can't contact different people in a business to express your displeasure at their practices. Protests can be controlled to such a level that they are pointless (ie. the police can give time limits, number limits, restrict the use of loud-halers etc...) There are many more examples.

    The thing is, you don't seem to actually have any experience of these losses so you don't think they are actual losses. They are major threats against our freedoms, and unless it directly affects you, you don't seem to notice.

  4. #49

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kendal
    Posts
    1,555
    Thank Post
    112
    Thanked 177 Times in 144 Posts
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    The thing is, most, if not all, oppressive regimes in the past have came into force in quite a short time period, over a year or 2. What we have at the moment is a slowly but surely increasing amount of control over the population. Allowing this government to introduce systems that can be used to control the population may not mean we enter an 'oppressive regime' now but aids the introduction of such a regime in the future.

    And yes, you have a lot less privacy than 20 years ago. Your face is recorded all day long by cameras, your purchased in supermarkets are tracked, most things are tracked about you in fact.

    Also, your freedoms in general are a lot more restricted now. You can no longer have a march through a city without permission. You can't protest outside parliament without permission. You can't contact different people in a business to express your displeasure at their practices. Protests can be controlled to such a level that they are pointless (ie. the police can give time limits, number limits, restrict the use of loud-halers etc...) There are many more examples.

    The thing is, you don't seem to actually have any experience of these losses so you don't think they are actual losses. They are major threats against our freedoms, and unless it directly affects you, you don't seem to notice.
    Erm - you don't actually know me so don't assume what I have and haven't experienced.

    So your face is recorded - big deal - I don't do anything wrong so it doesn't matter. Ditto supermarket.

    This "civil liberties are infringed" is so much Sun and Daily Mail reader.

    Bottom line - if you want to protest and enough people agree you can do it - we are policed by consent.

    To be honest I'd quite like to infringe the rights of some people eg. the BNP - the rise of nutters like that is more frightening than anything this government has introduced.

  5. #50

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,847
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,480 Times in 1,923 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by jcollings View Post
    Erm - you don't actually know me so don't assume what I have and haven't experienced.
    Well, from your views and your attitude, I can make a damn good guess about you. Tell me I'm wrong.

    So your face is recorded - big deal - I don't do anything wrong so it doesn't matter. Ditto supermarket.
    What? That makes no sense. Why does it matter if you don't do anything wrong. You don't have to do anything wrong to be targetted!

    This "civil liberties are infringed" is so much Sun and Daily Mail reader.
    Nope, I don't read crap like that. My views are based on hours of research, speaking to people who have had their freedoms restricted at the whim of the police abusing the powers they have been given and from my own experiences. I don't just read a paper and believe everything it says.

    Bottom line - if you want to protest and enough people agree you can do it - we are policed by consent.
    Sorry, but that has got to be the most ignorant statement I have read, ever. Women's rights started out as a fringe protest. Black rights the same. So you are saying that protests are ok to be restricted if they don't have a certain number of supporters? Who are you to say whether or not their complaint is valid?

    To be honest I'd quite like to infringe the rights of some people eg. the BNP - the rise of nutters like that is more frightening than anything this government has introduced.
    I don't like the BNP either, but they have a right to say what they want. Anyone who buys into it is an idiot in my view, but they are entitled to their views - so long as they don't infringe on my freedoms.

  6. #51
    torledo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,928
    Thank Post
    168
    Thanked 155 Times in 126 Posts
    Rep Power
    48
    @jcollings

    i don't know what the sun's stance on ID cards is, but judging by previous form editorially they're not a great defender of our personal freedoms, plus they're a notorious flag waver of b&b's 'war on terror'....

    So i would imagine they actually support ID cards. Don't forget that in the beginning ID cards was all about preventing terrorism....when that began to be questioned we now get govt. ministers talking about it preventing benefit fraud and about the convenience of carrying something small that can identify you. The goalposts have moved, not unlike the original WMD arguments that led us into war. This govt. has a habit of forcing things through despite massive public objection. And believe me jcollings there is massive objection to this scheme.

    As for Daily Mail, they have this imigration agenda and seeing as this scheme is already going to create the documenting of people that Witch describes, although not quite to the same extent as in other countries, but nonetheless with foreign nationals outside the eu FORCED to have one before the end of the year. So they'll have it for years whereas i won't have to get one until my passport expires several years from now. And you'll never need to have one jcollings as you seem to be doing alright without a passport. I feel that's downright unfair, it's like saying this group of people are a problem, they must carry a card so that our authorities know who they are.

    serious criminals won't give a toss about the ID cards, these are the people who operate in an underworld that doesn't need photo id. They're already get away with carrying guns and dealing drugs - ID cards will not make a blind bit of difference. I

    You've got it the wrong way around...the people who are complaining about infringement on personal freedoms aren't the ones scaremongering - it's the govt. who started it all off by insisting we needed these cards to combat terrorism. Just like they scared sun readers witless by insisting Saddam was threat to us with his long range chemical warheads.

    You also haven't answered my origianal question about cost. With 40 billion of public cash sunk into a failed high street bank, do you think it's wise to be contemplating 11 billion pound projects that won't improve education, health or other public services ? (not that 11 bilion with this govt. on public spending ever brings value for money or noticeably imroved service).

  7. #52

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kendal
    Posts
    1,555
    Thank Post
    112
    Thanked 177 Times in 144 Posts
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Well, from your views and your attitude, I can make a damn good guess about you. Tell me I'm wrong.
    Sorry, but that has got to be the most ignorant statement I have read, ever. Women's rights started out as a fringe protest. Black rights the same. So you are saying that protests are ok to be restricted if they don't have a certain number of supporters? Who are you to say whether or not their complaint is valid?
    My point exactly - it doesn't matter what the law says. Both protests were illegal but enough people got behind it and the authorities could do nothing to stop it.

    @localzuk - as I said you don't know me or what I've been involved in. I also don't feel that you need to resort to personal insults as I haven't therefore I think I'm going to ignore your comments from now. I think calling people stuipd and ignorant is way out of line especially when you have no idea what I really believe or stand for.

    @torledo - agreed - I can think of much better ways to spend the money but I can also think of much better ways to spend the billions wasted on sending soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan etc. in a pointless and illegal war which I have spent many hours on the street protesting about. On the whole I probably agree that ID cards make little difference to crime etc and are not going to solve any issues (except mean I don't have to have a passport for ID) but the point is neither are we going to suddenly create a police state if we have them. In truth I don't really care if we have them or not. It's the idea (as with all these things) that introducing X,Y or Z measure suddenly restricts us in some way.

    The great social movements of our time don't care if the law says it's ok to do something - they just do it. The miners didn't say "oh flying pickets are banned - better not do it then" - they carried on.

  8. #53

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    11,368
    Thank Post
    1,399
    Thanked 2,411 Times in 1,695 Posts
    Rep Power
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by jcollings View Post

    It's the idea (as with all these things) that introducing X,Y or Z measure suddenly restricts us in some way.

    The great social movements of our time don't care if the law says it's ok to do something - they just do it. The miners didn't say "oh flying pickets are banned - better not do it then" - they carried on.
    That's the point:introducing these measures doesn't suddenly restrict us - it is a slow and insidious process over time
    And how you can say that you have as much personal freedom as 20 years ago and then agree that cameras etc exist I really don't know. You may not CARE that you are tracked and filmed at every turn, but it does happen and therefore you ARE less free than you were 20 years ago.
    And on the one hand you seem happy with a law that requires you to carry an ID card at all times and produce it on demand or face a fine (or a prison sentence some years down the line?) but on the other hand you are happy that people advocating certain things like votes for women or unions or whatever can break a law they don't agree with and that is OK?
    That doesn't make any sense at all, does it?
    (And it applies to people like the BNP too)

  9. #54

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,847
    Thank Post
    518
    Thanked 2,480 Times in 1,923 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by jcollings View Post
    My point exactly - it doesn't matter what the law says. Both protests were illegal but enough people got behind it and the authorities could do nothing to stop it.

    @localzuk - as I said you don't know me or what I've been involved in. I also don't feel that you need to resort to personal insults as I haven't therefore I think I'm going to ignore your comments from now. I think calling people stuipd and ignorant is way out of line especially when you have no idea what I really believe or stand for.
    I haven't used any personal insults. I have specifically stated that what you said was ignorant. And you have yet to prove me wrong. You have stated a multitude of things which are downright wrong. eg. The sun and daily mail being anti-ID cards, when in fact they are pro. That the protests (note, protests not direct action) for women's rights and black people's rights were illegal. That the scaremongering is coming from people, when in fact it is coming from the government. I just look at what you say.

    You mention you partook in anti-war protests. Were any of these in parliament? Did you happen to meet Brian Haw? Did you see that his once large and effective protest has been taken away by the police? Did you know that the law to prevent protest near the houses of parilament were introduced specifically to deal with Haw? No civil liberties have been taken away there... How about Barbara Tucker? An anti-war protester who has been in and out of court for trying to protest. Even a protest where she just stood there with tape over her mouth resulted in arrest. Another, where her and another man were reading out the list of dead resulted in both their arrests. The police have attempted to section her. Again, no civil liberties lost there...

    How about the introduction of legislation that allows companies to get injunctions against protests? Asahi-Glass, GSK, Oxford University, HLS, the list goes on. All of these companies have had protests, plus illegal activity, and have visited the high court to get injunctions which can be generally applied to any person deemed to be a 'protester'. They prevent them from protesting near their premises, set aside specific places for their protests - usually completely out of public view, set time limts and number limits (for example the Asahi-Glass injunction (for Cleveleys) set a small off-road protest zone, set a limit (IIRC) of 8 people, once a week for (IIRC) 2 hours. It also restricted the use of loud-hailers and took away the right to contact the company to complain about their business practices. All thanks to Timothy Lawson Cruttendon's Protection from Harrassment Act.

    Or the legislation for non-protesters which allows the police to simply tell all young people to disburse in an area, at their whim. Doesn't matter if they've done anything wrong they can just have their freedom of assembly removed.

    The protests for womens rights, and black rights were not illegal. No-one had to get permission to protest. There was no requirement for those wishing to protest to visit a police station and tell them how many people, how long, where etc... and to then have the permission either denied or to have the protest moved to somewhere where it is ineffective.

    The simple fact remains that our civil liberties are being impinged. You just have to look through the law books from the last 20 years to see these restrictions. The Serious Organised Crime Act, The Anti-Social Behaviour Act, The Protection from Harrassement Act, the various public order acts. They all have little bits here and there which prevent us from exercising rights that once existed. Speak to any human rights lawyer, speak to Liberty. They will all agree.

  10. #55

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kendal
    Posts
    1,555
    Thank Post
    112
    Thanked 177 Times in 144 Posts
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    That's the point:introducing these measures doesn't suddenly restrict us - it is a slow and insidious process over time
    And how you can say that you have as much personal freedom as 20 years ago and then agree that cameras etc exist I really don't know. You may not CARE that you are tracked and filmed at every turn, but it does happen and therefore you ARE less free than you were 20 years ago.
    And on the one hand you seem happy with a law that requires you to carry an ID card at all times and produce it on demand or face a fine (or a prison sentence some years down the line?) but on the other hand you are happy that people advocating certain things like votes for women or unions or whatever can break a law they don't agree with and that is OK?
    That doesn't make any sense at all, does it?
    (And it applies to people like the BNP too)
    But you can be asked to prove who you are now or risk fines etc - no difference. You see the assumption is there again that there will be a new law making you produce it on demand.

    Why am I less free just because I am filmed?

    Of course it makes sense - people should and are able to protest at will.

    We live in one of the most liberal countries in the world - spend time in China, Zimbabwe,Iraq, Iran et al - they understand what repression is.

  11. #56

    witch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    11,368
    Thank Post
    1,399
    Thanked 2,411 Times in 1,695 Posts
    Rep Power
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by jcollings View Post
    But you can be asked to prove who you are now or risk fines etc - no difference. You see the assumption is there again that there will be a new law making you produce it on demand.

    Why am I less free just because I am filmed?

    Of course it makes sense - people should and are able to protest at will.
    No you can't be asked to prove who you are or fined. I checked with my friend who is a local Police Inspector- you really don't know your laws, do you? Unless the police have a reason to approach you, it is NOT legal for them to demand ID (unless they reprise the old 'sus' law, which they are hoping to do.) So I revert to my original point which was that I want to be able to walk past a policeman in the street without him knowing, or needing to know who I am.
    Of course you are less free if you are filmed - that's just daft

    How does it make sense to say that breaking laws is fine? And if they ARE breaking a law, then they are NOT able to protest at will, are they as they risk arrest.
    And as I said before, what about the BNP? Can THEY break laws to protest?

    I think our main point is - WHY are the government trying to foist ID cards on us - giving us reasons that have NO basis in fact (weapons of mass destruction, anyone?)?
    Why is legitimate protest not allowed these days?
    Can you not see that these are all erosions of our rights?
    If you really can't, then you may be one of those who will sleepwalk into a situation (which may well be some time in the future, I agree) where you turn around and find that all your personal liberties have disappeared

  12. #57

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kendal
    Posts
    1,555
    Thank Post
    112
    Thanked 177 Times in 144 Posts
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by witch View Post
    No you can't be asked to prove who you are or fined. I checked with my friend who is a local Police Inspector- you really don't know your laws, do you? Unless the police have a reason to approach you, it is NOT legal for them to demand ID (unless they reprise the old 'sus' law, which they are hoping to do.) So I revert to my original point which was that I want to be able to walk past a policeman in the street without him knowing, or needing to know who I am.
    Of course you are less free if you are filmed - that's just daft

    How does it make sense to say that breaking laws is fine? And if they ARE breaking a law, then they are NOT able to protest at will, are they as they risk arrest.
    And as I said before, what about the BNP? Can THEY break laws to protest?

    I think our main point is - WHY are the government trying to foist ID cards on us - giving us reasons that have NO basis in fact (weapons of mass destruction, anyone?)?
    Why is legitimate protest not allowed these days?
    Can you not see that these are all erosions of our rights?
    If you really can't, then you may be one of those who will sleepwalk into a situation (which may well be some time in the future, I agree) where you turn around and find that all your personal liberties have disappeared
    I do know law and find you to be patronising.
    How do you know the law will be different with ID cards? They may only be asked for if you are suspected of something.

    Of course the BNP can break laws to protest - it's called freedom of speech.

    I spend a great deal of time in politics so won't be sleepwalking anywhere. Some laws such as ASBO law is very useful and helps control problems.

    Please don't talk down to me in future.

  13. #58
    budgester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Enfield, Middlesex
    Posts
    486
    Thank Post
    4
    Thanked 37 Times in 30 Posts
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by FN-Greatermanchester View Post
    If they could keep the data safe, I would agree with taking everyone’s DNA. If you have got nothing to hide what will be the problem?
    If you've got nothing to hide, I'll expect you to be be walking around naked at the BETT show :-)

  14. #59

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Kendal
    Posts
    1,555
    Thank Post
    112
    Thanked 177 Times in 144 Posts
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by budgester View Post
    If you've got nothing to hide, I'll expect you to be be walking around naked at the BETT show :-)
    That's a plan - gets so damn warm in that place. ;-)

    Could open up a whole new line of freebies - I'm sick of getting pens.
    Microsoft Fig Leaf anyone?

  15. #60
    budgester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Enfield, Middlesex
    Posts
    486
    Thank Post
    4
    Thanked 37 Times in 30 Posts
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by jcollings View Post
    That's a plan - gets so damn warm in that place. ;-)

    Could open up a whole new line of freebies - I'm sick of getting pens.
    Microsoft Fig Leaf anyone?
    Oh no, that'd be hiding something.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Very Young Edugeekers
    By witch in forum Comments and Suggestions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 17th December 2007, 01:54 PM
  2. Do it for the children
    By alexknight in forum Other Stuff
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22nd May 2007, 08:42 AM
  3. Police and Justice Bill 2006
    By Geoff in forum School ICT Policies
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12th November 2006, 08:04 AM
  4. Changes to the Police and Justice Bill
    By Geoff in forum School ICT Policies
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 1st February 2006, 12:47 PM
  5. Why do the good die young?!
    By Dos_Box in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30th August 2005, 08:18 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •