Put young children on DNA list, urge police

[torledo]

@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).

[jcollings]

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.

[witch]

 

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)

[localzuk]

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.

[jcollings]

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.

[witch]

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

[jcollings]

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.

[budgester]

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 :-)

[jcollings]

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?

[budgester]

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.

[localzuk]

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.

 

A police officer can only demand your identity in the following circumstances:

 

1. You are the driver of a car

2. An order has been made to cover a certain area under the terrorism laws of the last few years.

3. The officer believes you have or are engaged in criminal activity. Even then, they can only arrest you and hold you in order to find out who you are - there is no criminal offence involved.

 

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.

 

Yes, and we are saying that the introduction of these systems is a step towards those oppressive regimes. People are no longer able to protest at will - I just explained the legislative changes to the law covering protest above. Ignoring it seems a bit strange.

 

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.

 

Sorry, but you don't seem to know the law. Both Witch and myself have shown that you don't, so it is not patronising.

 

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

 

Huh? That's a contradiction.

 

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.

 

You may spend a lot of time in politics, but you seem to have some very strange views. Accepting systems and ideas which simply don't have any evidence to support them (eg. ASBO law, ID cards and CCTV) seems strange too. Have you read any of the laws involved here? Seen the bits of them that can be and are widely abused?

[jcollings]

Giving your name and address - generally the police don’t have the right to demand your name and address apart from in certain circumstances. For example if they have reason to believe you are or were acting in an antisocial manner. If you then refuse to tell them, you are committing an offence and could be arrested, and they could go on to search you.

 

And yes - I have read ASBO laws etc. Do I want the police to be able to move on groups of boozed up kids terrorising neighbourhoods - dead right I do. Of course in your view it would infringe their civil rights but what of the civil rights of the folks in that area - should they have to put up with anti-social behaviour. I think not.

Edited April 6, 2008 by jcollings

[localzuk]

Giving your name and address - generally the police don’t have the right to demand your name and address apart from in certain circumstances. For example if they have reason to believe you are or were acting in an antisocial manner. If you then refuse to tell them, you are committing an offence and could be arrested, and they could go on to search you.

 

Not even in an anti-social manner. PACE only provides for demanding details from those engaged in an actual criminal offence. But this is in a very specific set of circumstances.

[witch]

That's it - I'm out of here. I can't discuss anything with someone who makes a statement like this!

 

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

 

 

Please note this definition of 'freedom of speech'

"Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment."

 

If you break a law then you WILL be punished, won't you? So if the law states that you cannot protest then your right to freedom of speech has been broken.

[jcollings]

FAQs and Myths - Identity and Passport Service

 

Item 2 - Myth: The police can demand to see your card

 

Answer: The police have no new powers associated with the scheme and they will not be able to stop you and demand to see your card.

[localzuk]

FAQs and Myths - Identity and Passport Service

 

Item 2 - Myth: The police can demand to see your card

 

Answer: The police have no new powers associated with the scheme and they will not be able to stop you and demand to see your card.

 

Yes, I already know they won't be able to initially. But that is not how legislation works. The progressive introduction of powers reduces liberties. An example being the progressive increase in the time the police can hold you when arrested.

[jcollings]

Yes, I already know they won't be able to initially. But that is not how legislation works. The progressive introduction of powers reduces liberties. An example being the progressive increase in the time the police can hold you when arrested.

 

Agreed but there isn't a huge amount you can do to stop it is there. If the government decide they want a law passed they will pass it. We can only deal with the here and now and right now an ID card doesn't give the police any more power than they already have which is what I've said all along.

 

To change things needs mass protest where so many people object there is no choice but to change the law e.g poll tax riots.

[torledo]

Giving your name and address - generally the police don’t have the right to demand your name and address apart from in certain circumstances. For example if they have reason to believe you are or were acting in an antisocial manner. If you then refuse to tell them, you are committing an offence and could be arrested, and they could go on to search you.

 

And yes - I have read ASBO laws etc. Do I want the police to be able to move on groups of boozed up kids terrorising neighbourhoods - dead right I do. Of course in your view it would infringe their civil rights but what of the civil rights of the folks in that area - should they have to put up with anti-social behaviour. I think not.

 

generally the police don't have the right to demand you're name and address apart from in certain circumstance, eh ?

 

Like for example if you happen to be black. That seems to be a very good 'reason' the police are particularly fond of. So much for each individuals rights being protectedd by the authorities you so admire.

 

You mean to say the police weren't able to move teenagers on before asbo's ? I'm no expert on ASBO's and they're effect good or bad....i happen to suspect 'cos they're a pet project and the only idea the govt. have thought of to mend anti-social behaviour they'll gloss over any failings,

 

but it appears persistent offenders have scant regard for ASBO's just like they have scant regard for police, PCSO's and the community. And no doubt scant regard for carrying ID cards. But wait will they have to carry one, and at what age ?

[localzuk]

Agreed but there isn't a huge amount you can do to stop it is there. If the government decide they want a law passed they will pass it. We can only deal with the here and now and right now an ID card doesn't give the police any more power than they already have which is what I've said all along.

 

To change things needs mass protest where so many people object there is no choice but to change the law e.g poll tax riots.

 

Yes, we can oppose the introduction of these systems. Protest in the public. Complain to our MPs (they do worry about being re-elected and will change their views if enough of their constituants complain).

 

There is a lot we can do. We can take the government to european courts etc...

 

We don't just sit there and say 'but what can we do?'...

[localzuk]

And yes - I have read ASBO laws etc. Do I want the police to be able to move on groups of boozed up kids terrorising neighbourhoods - dead right I do. Of course in your view it would infringe their civil rights but what of the civil rights of the folks in that area - should they have to put up with anti-social behaviour. I think not.

 

What about those who aren't being 'anti-social'? ie. The majority. They all get affected by these things. The thing is, the police could move groups of kids who were breaking the law on before the ASBO legislation came in.

[jcollings]

Like for example if you happen to be black. That seems to be a very good 'reason' the police are particularly fond of. So much for each individuals rights being protectedd by the authorities you so admire.

 

You mean to say the police weren't able to move teenagers on before asbo's ? I'm no expert on ASBO's and they're effect good or bad....i happen to suspect 'cos they're a pet project and the only idea the govt. have thought of to mend anti-social behaviour they'll gloss over any failings,

 

but it appears persistent offenders have scant regard for ASBO's just like they have scant regard for police, PCSO's and the community. And no doubt scant regard for carrying ID cards. But wait will they have to carry one, and at what age ?

 

I'm not suggesting the police are perfect by nay means - there is racism in the police just as anywhere but I don't think they are as bad as painted. On the whole I think they do a good job.

 

ASBO's aren't a cure all or magic formula but they give some leverage and it is part of a process.

 

So do you not want them to be able to remove undesirables from the street? Do you not see youth antisocial behaviour is a major issue at the moment?

 

My son's friend was kicked and beaten to death a while back in what police described as one of the most horrendous attacks they had seen - why? Because the lads didn't like what she was wearing! Now said gang of lads had been running wild for a long time but the police struggled to nail them cos their "civil liberties" were protected - with more power a lovely young woman could have still been enjoying her life but hey it's ok - the lads civil liberties weren't infringed so it's doesn't matter.

[jcollings]

What about those who aren't being 'anti-social'? ie. The majority. They all get affected by these things. The thing is, the police could move groups of kids who were breaking the law on before the ASBO legislation came in.

 

By that logic we don't need most legislation - after all the majority don't do it.

Legislation only exists to act against the minority!

[localzuk]

I'm not suggesting the police are perfect by nay means - there is racism in the police just as anywhere but I don't think they are as bad as painted. On the whole I think they do a good job.

 

Like the Manchester police being described as 'institutionally racist'?

 

So do you not want them to be able to remove undesirables from the street? Do you not see youth antisocial behaviour is a major issue at the moment?

 

Not if it means the police have the power to move on *all* groups regardless of whether or not they have actually done anything wrong. And no, I don't see youth anti-social behaviour as a major issue. I see it as a normal issue that has been the same for the last several generations. I see it as an issue which the media is blowing out of proportion and is scaring people more than reality.

 

My son's friend was kicked and beaten to death a while back in what police described as one of the most horrendous attacks they had seen - why? Because the lads didn't like what she was wearing! Now said gang of lads had been running wild for a long time but the police struggled to nail them cos their "civil liberties" were protected - with more power a lovely young woman could have still been enjoying her life but hey it's ok - the lads civil liberties weren't infringed so it's doesn't matter.

 

A terrible situation that shouldn't have happened, but these sort of things happened in the past, and were dealt with without ASBOs, ID cards or DNA databases. (eg. my ex was beaten up quite savagely when she was in school as the attackers saw her as a 'goth'. And this was 12 years ago). The police *could* have done something, if they had put their minds to it, and had the funding, rather than having it directed at pointless pet projects of our government, such as those fake cops who have no real use.

 

By that logic we don't need most legislation - after all the majority don't do it.

Legislation only exists to act against the minority!

 

Huh? I don't understand. The legislation we were discussing gives the police power to move *all* people on, regardless of their behaviour. That is not the same as legislation which, say, could have allowed the police to move on groups who had been reported as having been abusive, or those who were drinking etc...

[GrumbleDook]

I have kept out of this conversation for a number of reasons.

 

Misconceptions, part-truths, clashes of ideology, and many more reasons.

 

There are a number of members here who have already been down that ID card route, including where it is a punishable offence to refused to produced it when asked (please note ... asked) by those with authority to request you to produce it. This was a volountary scheme that was part of our contract of employment. We did not have to be employed by this employer ... but we chose it and all the stuff that went with it.

 

I might even be fairly unique amongst members in being employed to request individuals to produce ID cards and subsequently dealing with those that refuse or prevent others from producing their ID.

 

HM Forces and many sections of Govt employment require you to have an ID card. It is a recognised official form of ID and can be used in replacement of both Driving licence and passport when required. It is linked in with medical, financial and personal records of the holders.

 

The main reasons why this differs from the 'National ID card' is that the latter is not by choice. That is pretty much it ... there are many laws in place already for authorised officials to request your identity. PACE puts the onus on the individual to prove their identity yet on gives the noted authority to pursue it further if there is evidence that activities have taken place, are in the process of taking place or are going to take place (the term 'going equipped' becomes relevant at this point). If there is no evidence that it should not be pursued.

 

The main worries by those against the programme vary. I really do mean vary ....

 

The main issue would appear to be the worry of abuse of data and information ... but this is a bit of a catch all.

 

Let's look at profiling. The activity of identifying 'possible' suspects based on previous activities and 'background' factors. Those background factors vary from country to country but include socio-economic factors, racial factors, academic factors and peer factors (these four factors are usualyl broken down into many sub-factors). These obviously raise many concerns and they are presently used in anti-terrorist investigations and child exploitation investigations to mention just few areas. Whilst we would say that this is reasonable, it can lead to mistakes ... and many regard the risks to those who are innocent to be greater than the risks to potential victims. This analysis of risk is usually done behind closed doors, and if it is done for political reasons then there is always the concern that the executive principle comes into play (ie it is purely one person's decision ... and as we all know, to err is human!)

 

We then move on to fraud.

 

Can we honestly say that the system is not open to fraud. We all know that passports and driving licences are susceptible to fraud. This has not been addressed sufficiently to make many of the detractors feel assured that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that an uber-database will not have the same issues ... or even worse, that it could make the system easier to break.

 

Then we have civil rights. The arguement of if you have nothing to hide then you are ok ... It all depends on what you are hiding. Presently it is not illegal to be a carrier of defective genes that mean you are likely to pass on to your children ... what happens if this changes in the future? To give over *all* of your information (remembering that whilst the human genome may be mapped, we do not know if we are right about what things do with the things we do actually know about) seems a little extreme to some people. When you are applying for a mortgage do you really want the bank to know you had an overdraft as a student? You tend to give over the information that is needed and not a jot more. It is up to those asking for information to get what they need ... and showing need is important.

 

I am sure that this conversation can go on ... and on ... and on .... and on ...

 

For those that are anti-ID card then there are plenty of public groups out there that you can get involved in ... if you are pro-ID card there are also groups that meet your need too ...

 

The only important thing that *both* groups need to remember is that we need to ensure that this is a *public* debate due to the fact that it involves us all ...

[jcollings]

Well I've had enough now - I think Tony's post is excellent and perhaps the right place to lock and end the thread?