which is the most civilsed nation on earth?

[Arwin]

Isn't that just what the petrol tax is for? Face it, it's an excuse to get GPS locaters inserted into all cars.

Actually, introducing toll roads around London was a great success. After that, they figured it would be 'cool' to have something like that nation-wide. The most efficient way to do that would be the GPS locaters.

I'm not so sure this is a good idea. It'll probably be easy to mess with and initially very expensive. But the general idea, to make you pay according to your use, is definitely a good idea, from my point of view. First of all, it does help make roads less congested. It has been shown that many companies will, when thus financially stimulated, all of a sudden discover that all employees do not, in fact, have to start at 8:30am, for instance, or that working at home actually sometimes does work very well.

Also, for people who drive little, owning a car is currently very expensive. I pay 50$ a month just to have my car - insurance and tax. But I generally only drive late in the evening or at quiet moments in the weekends, though usually a fair distance then. I would be better off just renting a car most of the time, except that because I only got my licence last september and I can't rent a car at most places before I've held my licence for at least a year. But having a car has a lot of plusses - if you decide you need one in the evenings, it's often impossible to rent one at the last minute (there are some services for this in some of the greater cities where you can book something online 2 hours in advance if you're preregistered, but not in mine, and you're limited to one type of car). Anyway, I don't need to explain on this site, a car can be your own private space and property, and quite enjoyably so.

So the option would be to move all taxes to fuel, or to come up with something different. Moving all taxes to fuel means I'm still paying a lot more than I should for using the roads and my car at times when they are both a lot less expensive to use.

Therefore I think the general idea of paying for use is a good one. But I think it should be set up differently. The country should be setup in different timezone and region classifications which have different taxations applied to them. The only thing that should then be tracked is how many km you've been driving in any of the different zones. You should be able to set up a system that works like this, without actually tracking where you've been driving or where you are at any given time.

Of course, I do see the full GPS system would offer a lot of advantages in that it offers very precise data on traffic that will allow for very precise planning for anything involving traffic. You'd know where each car drives everyday and when, how often it ends up being congested, where, and so on. But privacy is important also.

(I personally don't mind if they connect a fair system to enforcing speed limits, by the way.)

 

[Arwin]

Honestly, I'm trying to figure out how we would do anything in the US without ID and social security numbers. Our entire way of life is linked to them.

The UK, in that respect, has been one of the lesser civilised countries. People haven't been required to even own an ID, let alone carry one around at all times, like we do here now since January 1st.

 

[Famine]

Actually, introducing toll roads around London was a great success.

Oh man... It SO isn't.

As for the rest of it... No way. In the UK there is no viable alternative to the car for 95% of the driving population.


Oh and ID cards? The idea makes me physically sick - not to mention the fact that they'll be compulsory and we'll have to pay £93 for it. That's right - just for being alive you MUST PAY £93.

 

[Arwin]

Oh man... It SO isn't.

You mean you don't like it, or that it isn't a success, or maybe that it isn't a success because you don't like it?

As for the rest of it... No way. In the UK there is no viable alternative to the car for 95% of the driving population.

What does have to do with it? The point is that if you're able to properly quantify the costs, viable alternatives will be sought. Not just to driving, but also in the other terms I mentioned.

Oh and ID cards? The idea makes me physically sick - not to mention the fact that they'll be compulsory and we'll have to pay £93 for it. That's right - just for being alive you MUST PAY £93.

Well they are a lot more expensive than they should normally be, but I suppose that has partly to do with the backlog. Here they are something like 25 quid, though it depends a little on where you live.

I don't understand why the idea makes you physically sick, at all. What makes me sick is jokes like when people don't pay in a train, they use an ex-girlfriends address to send the tickets to, which in one case happened to be mine.

 

[ledhed]

Thank God I live in the US . we have taxes and a few moron leaders...but taxes like they get you on in Europe would most likely get the fools shot intead of elected. I cant believe you would actually accept them Arwin ! Here the first thing we would do is find a way to tear out the GPS and then attack the capital.

 

[Famine]

You mean you don't like it, or that it isn't a success, or maybe that it isn't a success because you don't like it?

I meant exactly what I said. It SO isn't a success.

What does have to do with it? The point is that if you're able to properly quantify the costs, viable alternatives will be sought. Not just to driving, but also in the other terms I mentioned.

Okay, let's run this for you.

The AVERAGE person doing their normal journeys as they do now will get billed FOURTEEN THOUSAND POUNDS each year. Average salary is £22,500 - less income taxes gives the average person £3,100 a year to live on. That's for food, bills, mortgage payments and so on.

So, the average person stops using their car to get to work. What can they use now instead? The answer is nothing at all, because there are no viable alternatives to the car for 95% of the driving population. That's somewhere in the region of 20 million people removed from the workforce at a stroke because they cannot get to work.

This is a scheme which they intend to implement in 2010. How much do you think you can develop a public transport infrastructure in 5 years to serve 20 times as many people as it does now? It won't and can't happen.


And it gets better - train companies currently charge a 15% premium for people travelling at rush hour. It cost me £3,500 a year just to and from get to work when I was working in London - and I never got there on time. Ever. Even with the celebrated London public transport (which blows).

The scheme is implausible, not viable, not practical, not fair and nonsensical. Yet in 2010 we'll have it. This makes no sense.

Well they are a lot more expensive than they should normally be, but I suppose that has partly to do with the backlog. Here they are something like 25 quid, though it depends a little on where you live.

Out of interest, you don't see anything wrong with charging your citizens anything for something which they must own by law? I find this fascinating.

I don't understand why the idea makes you physically sick, at all. What makes me sick is jokes like when people don't pay in a train, they use an ex-girlfriends address to send the tickets to, which in one case happened to be mine.

I assume this is a Dutch thing? In the UK you pay before you get on, a conductor checks the ticket and if you don't have one you must either pay for one (if that franchise has that facility) or you are put off at the next station.

What this has to do with ID cards is beyond me.

 

[Arwin]

I meant exactly what I said. It SO isn't a success.

Fine. It's just not what I read in the papers, and you're not giving me anything to believe otherwise. Probably it's a two sided bill - it's considered a success because the congestion and pollution have been reduced considerably (again, that's what I've read), but it's not or you probably don't consider it a success because it bars too many people from getting there in the first place.

Okay, let's run this for you.

The AVERAGE person doing their normal journeys as they do now will get billed FOURTEEN THOUSAND POUNDS each year.

Ok. If that's the real figure, it won't work and quite obviously so. If that is true, and that's how it works out, and it gets implemented in that form, then fine - as far as I am concerned you can line up those responsible and shoot them.

And it gets better - train companies currently charge a 15% premium for people travelling at rush hour. It cost me £3,500 a year just to and from get to work when I was working in London - and I never got there on time. Ever. Even with the celebrated London public transport (which blows).

We get a 40% rebate if we travel (by train) outside of morning rush hour. Makes perfect sense, if you ask me - stimulate people to spread their travel a bit more over the day. It works for me. I work from 9:45 till 18:15 now because of it, saves me a fair bit of money, and its fine with my boss also, he needs people around from early till late, and as long as the whole day is covered, he's happy.

Out of interest, you don't see anything wrong with charging your citizens anything for something which they must own by law? I find this fascinating.

Where should the money come from otherwise? The things cost money. If they take it out of taxes, you're paying for it. If they give it out to a commercial company, you're paying for it. Either way, anything that's decided by the government that costs money, you're paying for it.

I assume this is a Dutch thing? In the UK you pay before you get on, a conductor checks the ticket and if you don't have one you must either pay for one (if that franchise has that facility) or you are put off at the next station.

Yeah, that put off at the next station really works great. Especially for people who need to get exactly there. You can buy one on the trains currently, but if you don't have the money, you can ask to have a bill sent to your house, just once.

What this has to do with ID cards is beyond me.

To make sure that you are really the person you say you are. That's the whole point. There's a myriad of situations in which that is key.

 

[Famine]

Fine. It's just not what I read in the papers, and you're not giving me anything to believe otherwise. Probably it's a two sided bill - it's considered a success because the congestion and pollution have been reduced considerably (again, that's what I've read), but it's not or you probably don't consider it a success because it bars too many people from getting there in the first place.

Try it.

In London it just doesn't work. It doesn't work because:

1. No-one but the very rich live in London - and few of them work at all, so they don't have to commute. Everyone else MUST commute into London.
2. The train in costs more than the car.
3. The public transport is appalling:

• Buses (exempt) share the roads with lorries (same fee as cars), taxis (same fee as cars) and all the other cars. Unless car use was reduced to zero, buses are not a viable alternative.
• The Underground is cramped, smelly, slow, never on time and always always always overcrowded to the point of stupidity. People barge their way on in a huge wave (not letting anyone off first, which would seem logical). Many's the time I've had to miss three consecutive trains to get one I could actually get on - and that's 20 minutes of standing about.

4. London is a 16th Century city with roads as wide as 16th Century protocol warranted. Fitting 8 million employees into it isn't easy.
5. Once you've got off the Tube you STILL have to get a bus on the same roads.

It hasn't reduced congestion or pollution in the slightest because everyone gladly pays the £5 on the grounds that they know exactly how long it takes to get to work, they don't have to sit next to an old woman who smells of wee and someone with a Walkman with the volume set to 10 and it's still cheaper than paying for the train/Tube/bus.

We get a 40% rebate if we travel (by train) outside of morning rush hour.

We get charged full price all the time and full price +15% at peak time.

And it gets better still...

The train companies are now having to deal with their own congestion (because they run sh***y dilapidated slam door crap) and are thinking of introducing a 50% penalty for running at peak hour. Coincidentally for 2010.

So the government is pricing you off the roads and the train companies are pricing you off the trains. Presumably everyone will have to go by moped or teleport.

Where should the money come from otherwise? The things cost money. If they take it out of taxes, you're paying for it. If they give it out to a commercial company, you're paying for it. Either way, anything that's decided by the government that costs money, you're paying for it.

Again - you work hard. You pay your taxes like a good citizen. You have a wage you know you can live off. Then the government swoops in and says "You MUST have this or face prosecution. You MUST buy it yourself."

Why does this make sense?

Yeah, that put off at the next station really works great. Especially for people who need to get exactly there. You can buy one on the trains currently, but if you don't have the money, you can ask to have a bill sent to your house, just once.

To make sure that you are really the person you say you are. That's the whole point. There's a myriad of situations in which that is key.

Obviously ID cards don't work in that case. If people can have their train fare bills sent to your house instead...


If I do something wrong and compound the problem by lying to the police about my identity that's my fault. I'll get found out and charged with obstructing the course of justice. However if I'm not doing anything wrong at all I should not be required to volunteer any information to any official - in fact this is my constitutional right and is covered by the Miranda Rights:

"You do not have to say anything. Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law."

Now let's introduce ID cards. It's an offence not to show your ID card to the police. It's an offence to not carry your ID card. Whoops, there's my constitutional rights gone - I'm now guilty of the offence of failing to confirm my identity when, according to the Miranda Rights, I don't have to confirm squat.


It. Feckin. Stinks.

 

[Swift]

Now let's introduce ID cards. It's an offence not to show your ID card to the police. It's an offence to not carry your ID card. Whoops, there's my constitutional rights gone - I'm now guilty of the offence of failing to confirm my identity when, according to the Miranda Rights, I don't have to confirm squat.


It. Feckin. Stinks.

Famine, there are times, however scarce, that you post sheer brilliance. I had never looked at it that way. Scary thought.

Also, thinking of the ID card thing. That is mostly linked to driving and/traveling. But yeah, the first thing a cop will ask you for is your ID when they decided to stop you for any reason(even when not driving). Legally, I should be able to just stare at him and say nothing. But, I don't believe that'll fly.

 

[Arwin]

Try it.

In London it just doesn't work. It doesn't work because:

1. No-one but the very rich live in London - and few of them work at all, so they don't have to commute. Everyone else MUST commute into London.

London is one of the top-five expensive cities in the world. Wages in London take these costs into account. Our company has its European Headquarters in London, which I've visited in sept 2003. I know the subways, and for a tall guy like me they don't feel too pleasant. But then, they're ancient and have never been revised, unlike in some other countries.

Recently, we've been moving operations to Amsterdam, because they are cheaper. This is something that is happening all the tame. Simply too many things want to be in London, and with its current infrastructure, there's no room. Choices have to be made. The charge is one way of making such a choice. I'd like to hear some alternatives.

2. The train in costs more than the car.

And you can wonder why.

3. The public transport is appalling:

• Buses (exempt) share the roads with lorries (same fee as cars), taxis (same fee as cars) and all the other cars. Unless car use was reduced to zero, buses are not a viable alternative.

• 
  
  Yet those with the least amount of money are the ones driving the buses. With the congestion fee decreasing traffic, busses can run a better schedule, and those with the lowest wages benefit. Or am I wrong?
  
  http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/032Spring/13london.html
  
  

  [*] The Underground is cramped, smelly, slow, never on time and always always always overcrowded to the point of stupidity. People barge their way on in a huge wave (not letting anyone off first, which would seem logical). Many's the time I've had to miss three consecutive trains to get one I could actually get on - and that's 20 minutes of standing about.

Yes, like I said, I know it's ancient. It's sometimes downright scary, to be honest. I felt a giant among insects, being 6'4" / 1m93

4. London is a 16th Century city with roads as wide as 16th Century protocol warranted. Fitting 8 million employees into it isn't easy.

I remember when 15 years ago I took a stroll through London for 15-30 minutes, picking my nose, and turning up black snot. I have never had that experience before or since. The congestion charge though, has already positively affected the air in the city now. Or is that a lie?

5. Once you've got off the Tube you STILL have to get a bus on the same roads.

Sure, if you're a cripple. By the way, I recommend the Brompton bike.

It hasn't reduced congestion or pollution in the slightest because everyone gladly pays the £5 on the grounds that they know exactly how long it takes to get to work, they don't have to sit next to an old woman who smells of wee and someone with a Walkman with the volume set to 10 and it's still cheaper than paying for the train/Tube/bus.

Only if you already own a car and don't factor in the costs of purchasing and owning one.

We get charged full price all the time and full price +15% at peak time.

Yes, you told me. A matter of bad PR, I reckon. The trains have been ****ed up in your country. It's a textbook lesson and nightmare scenario and we studied it a lot when we privatized ours.

The train companies are now having to deal with their own congestion (because they run sh***y dilapidated slam door crap) and are thinking of introducing a 50% penalty for running at peak hour. Coincidentally for 2010.

Except that apparently there isn't actually any evidence that their traffic increased. It smells like they see an opportunity to price up, apparently they consider themselves competing with cars, and with car-prices going up, they think they can now too. They would have had more cred if they did this earlier, but it is understandable, since after all they are a commercial company not primarily concerned with serving the public.

So the government is pricing you off the roads and the train companies are pricing you off the trains. Presumably everyone will have to go by moped or teleport.

But experience teaches us that a solution will generally be found. In the meantime, London has been pricing itself off the market for anything but high-priced tourism and large business, banking and trading.

Again - you work hard. You pay your taxes like a good citizen. You have a wage you know you can live off. Then the government swoops in and says "You MUST have this or face prosecution. You MUST buy it yourself."

Why does this make sense?

Well, I do agree that 93 quid seems an aweful lot. By the way, over here, a drivers licence is also considered an ID. Certainly in your country that means relatively few people need something at all. Isn't that the case in the U.K.?

Obviously ID cards don't work in that case. If people can have their train fare bills sent to your house instead...

Ah, but you see, that was before ...

If I do something wrong and compound the problem by lying to the police about my identity that's my fault. I'll get found out and charged with obstructing the course of justice.

Except that you almost never are. The costs of tracking you for that offense outweigh the benefits, generally, and the police have better things to do. It's like your police complaining that they have to prosecute harmless recreational joint smokers when they have more urgent things to take care of.

"You do not have to say anything. Anything you do say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law."

Since when does that include your name and occupation? Finger prints? Mug shot? You can refuse all that? I never realised it. I don't see why its a good thing though, at all, unless you're a criminal.

As for the maze that is called Miranda, know what you're getting yourself into ...

For example, in Michigan v. Tucker,8 the Supreme Court held that a Miranda violation that resulted in the identification of a witness did not preclude the government from calling that witness to testify at trial. The witness in question was named in an alibi provided by the defendant during an interrogation session that followed an incomplete advice of rights.9 When contacted by the police, the witness not only failed to corroborate the defendant's alibi but also provided additional damaging information. The defendant subsequently sought to have the witness' testimony excluded at trial on the grounds that the identity of the witness was discovered as a result of the violation of Miranda. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that although statements taken without benefit of full Miranda warnings generally could not be admitted at trial, some acceptable uses of those statements exist.10 Identification of witnesses is one such acceptable use.

Just a tiny example of its complexity.

 

[Famine]

With the congestion fee decreasing traffic

The congestion charge though, has already positively affected the air in the city now. Or is that a lie?

It's hogwash, I'm afraid.

Well, I do agree that 93 quid seems an aweful lot. By the way, over here, a drivers licence is also considered an ID. Certainly in your country that means relatively few people need something at all. Isn't that the case in the U.K.?

No. At the moment when ID is required we can present a driving licence, passport, National Insurance Card or any of those things. But when the ID card comes we all MUST have one and we all MUST pay for it.

And I can't wait until people start moving houses and applying for their ID card address to be changed...

Again the government says you MUST have an ID card. You MUST carry it at all times. You MUST present it when asked by a law enforcement official. You MUST pay £93 out of your post-tax wages for this privilege.

How is that not daylight theft?

Except that you almost never are. The costs of tracking you for that offense outweigh the benefits, generally, and the police have better things to do. It's like your police complaining that they have to prosecute harmless recreational joint smokers when they have more urgent things to take care of.

If your identity cannot be confirmed you are plonked into a custody cell until it can be. No costs.

Since when does that include your name and occupation? Finger prints? Mug shot? You can refuse all that? I never realised it. I don't see why its a good thing though, at all, unless you're a criminal.

You are allowed BY LAW to refuse any information to the police. The police cannot BY LAW take fingerprints or mug shots unless you are arrested and then charged with a specific offence.

But you miss the point.

Here I am, going to work. I'm doing nothing wrong. A policeman pulls me over and questions me as a routine stop and search. I am not required to present him with any information whatsoever. By doing so I am not committing any offence. He can scrutinise my car until the cows come home and will find nothing wrong with it. I go on my way with no offence committed.

Now we have our compulsory ID cards. Here I am, going to work again. I'm doing nothing wrong. A policeman pulls me over and questions me as a routine stop and search. The law still states that I do not have to give any information to any official - yet I MUST carry an ID card with that information on it and I MUST present it to the policeman. If I do not then I am within my legal rights, yet am now committing an offence of "Failing to produce an ID card" - a criminal offence. Now I can be hauled off to the nick, fingerprinted and have mugshots taken.


The law has required me to incriminate myself. This is, in itself, illegal and, where I wasn't a criminal before I am now.

Having compulsory ID cards is an inherent breach of the rights of someone to maintain their silence. It's also an invasion of privacy and a shocking breach of my civil and constitutional rights.

As for the maze that is called Miranda, know what you're getting yourself into ...

I don't care about information taken from a suspect before full rights are read. All I care about is the first line.

"You do not have to say anything."

That is your right IN LAW.

 

[Swift]

Wow, just wow. Well, it simply doesn't get any plainer then what famine said. You can't have miranda rights AND have mandatory ID cards at the same time. I think that doesn't include driving since driving is a privilege and not a right.

 

[Arwin]

"You do not have to say anything."

That is your right IN LAW.[/color][/b]

In the U.S., the Miranda rights stand below the constitutional rights, so ruled the Supreme Court. There's law, then there's law, and then there's law. Yes, I work at a law firm.

 

[Swift]

In the U.S., the Miranda rights stand below the constitutional rights, so ruled the Supreme Court. There's law, then there's law, and then there's law. Yes, I work at a law firm.

Ok, so how would Famine's examples play out here in the USA?

 

[ledhed]

In the U.S., the Miranda rights stand below the constitutional rights, so ruled the Supreme Court. There's law, then there's law, and then there's law. Yes, I work at a law firm.

You are making absolutely no sense ..do you wish to try again ?
miranda reflects a supreme court decsion . Its a direct interpretation of the constitution as concerns the law .


The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.

Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.

This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized."

Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.

As for Ernesto Miranda, his conviction was thrown out, though he did not become a free man. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976.


Here you go ...sound familiar ?

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?
Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?
If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

 

[Arwin]

Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.

Bingo!

 

[Famine]

Which means that you do not have to be read your Mirandas in order to not volunteer this information.

If this information is given before your arrest - prior to a Miranda - then it still can be used in evidence against you. But the information does NOT have to be vounteered.

 

[livemusic]

Who the hell is this Miranda chick? Is she hot?

 

[Arwin]

Which means that you do not have to be read your Mirandas in order to not volunteer this information.

If this information is given before your arrest - prior to a Miranda - then it still can be used in evidence against you. But the information does NOT have to be vounteered.

That's what you make of it. The way I see it, stating who you are isn't considered self-incriminating. If they were, they'd have been covered by the Miranda Rights. Just like the police can pull you over and ask you for your licence and registration.

 

[Famine]

They can ask, but they won't get it.

Information which is not covered by a Miranda warning can still be used as evidence in a Court before your Rights are read to you. Information which IS covered cannot. The Miranda is only a warning that from that point onwards, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a Court of Law." Before that point you STILL do not have to say anything.

You have a basic right to maintain your silence at ALL TIMES. I believe this is covered, along with trial by jury, in the Magna Carta (though I may be wrong). The Americans have it covered as the Fifth Amendment. It may or may not be present in Dutch law, I don't know. But in the UK you can refuse to give any information asked of you by an official and you will not face prosecution for it. The nature of the compulsory ID card flies in the face of this.

 

[Arwin]

They can ask, but they won't get it.

This is the Fifth:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This is its Wikipedia description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And this is where our discussion ends (for the U.S. anyway):

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 21, 2004 that the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments do not give people the right to refuse to give their name when questioned by police.

The nature of the compulsory ID card flies in the face of this

The only interesting discussion that remains is what happens when the not carrying of your ID is the crime you're suspected of.

 

[skicrush]

Just a note. My dad is a prosecutor, and has been for the last 22 years or so. I remember asking him about the Miranda case, and I got the explanation ledhed gave (nice summary). However, in addition, he mentioned some other things. While the Miranda Rights are certainly important, you'll notice that the police do not have to read you your rights--they just run the risk of having whatever self-incriminating evidence they have against you thrown out if they don't. Moreover, Miranda rights (or the lack thereof) has stopped being such a bulletproof shield. Criminals frequently incriminate themselves before the cops have a chance to read them their rights, and many were getting off because they'd made damaging statements before their rights had been read. It was never intended as a get-out-of-jail-free card. You'll notice that the original reason the rights had to be read was because the guy didn't KNOW he had that right. Today, most everyone does. Most everyone has heard the phrase "you have the right to remain silent."

I'll also note that people who invoke their 5th amendment rights are usually in SOME kind of trouble. Someone who won't tell the cops who they are who is COMPLETELY innocent will simply spend some time in jail until they can determine their identity. I mean, you have be in SOME kind of suspicious situation in the first place, or they wouldn't even bother you. They don't arrest people just because they think it's fun. Problem is, that type of behavior is SO suspicious, it can be reason enough in itself to hold you. It shouts "I did something you know about and am too dumb to think up a fake name!" Should you truly wind up being innocent of ANYTHING, they will likeley either tell you you're being an idiot about it, or take the parental approach and tell you it's OK to give the cops your name--they're just trying to protect people,and you will be fine if you didn't do anything.

 

[K_Speed]

Probably Germany aswell, of course except the historian aspect again : We are doing a lot for the environement , for peace in the world and in Europe by supporting the idea of the European Union and we treat our people so good that we will be broke in a few years if we don't stop

you stole my words... I have to agree that germany is very civilized, money for childs, unemployment benefit, money for immagrants, rent etc. etc.

hte country is already broke. they should defenetly get stricter immgration laws here, like the netherlands.....


greets

 

[Danoff]

I have to agree that germany is very civilized, money for childs, unemployment benefit, money for immagrants, rent etc. etc.

Some would call that uncivilized because the money used is ill-gotten.

 

[Arwin]

Some would call that uncivilized because the money used is ill-gotten.

But they'd be ignored, because the system of taxation is a proven, valid, civilised and efficient system to finance dealing with national issues. In fact, some would consider those who think taxes are 'ill-gotten money' are barbarians. At the very least, the level of solidarity that the Germans express towards each other through taxes can hardly be cited as evidence against civilisation.

 

[Danoff]

But they'd be ignored, because the system of taxation is a proven, valid, civilised and efficient system to finance dealing with national issues. In fact, some would consider those who think taxes are 'ill-gotten money' are barbarians.

Who thinks that taxes are 'ill-gotten money'? I don't know of anyone. I was talking about tax money used for the purposes listed above. And just because you choose to ignore morality and wish to hide behind the fact that many countries have chosen to be immoral for decades doesn't make it any more right.

Edit:

At the very least, the level of solidarity that the Germans express towards each other through taxes can hardly be cited as evidence against civilisation.

I can cite the level legislated theft against a minority of the population as evidence against the civilization.

 

[Famine]

I'll also note that people who invoke their 5th amendment rights are usually in SOME kind of trouble. Someone who won't tell the cops who they are who is COMPLETELY innocent will simply spend some time in jail until they can determine their identity. I mean, you have be in SOME kind of suspicious situation in the first place, or they wouldn't even bother you. They don't arrest people just because they think it's fun. Problem is, that type of behavior is SO suspicious, it can be reason enough in itself to hold you. It shouts "I did something you know about and am too dumb to think up a fake name!" Should you truly wind up being innocent of ANYTHING, they will likeley either tell you you're being an idiot about it, or take the parental approach and tell you it's OK to give the cops your name--they're just trying to protect people,and you will be fine if you didn't do anything.

That's all well and good, but if I'm not doing anything wrong at all and am stopped in a routine stop and search, why should I be required to carry a piece of paper and plastic which tells them who I am, where I live, where I work and what my DNA profile is when I am not required under any law to volunteer this information to them, yet will be prosecuted if I do not give them this wondrous piece of plastic and paper?

It's an invasion of my privacy. It's a violation of my right to anonymity. It's a breach of my human rights.

Do you see? By not saying anything at all I'm breaking no law. If they want to detain me and waste their time, that's their problem but I am not breaking any law. If ID cards are compulsory then by simply sticking to my rights I WOULD be breaking the law because I'm not giving a jumped-up traffic warden my ID card. This makes no sense.


I don't want to live in a country where you can be simply walking from one place to the next and have a policeman come up to you and say "Show me your card". I am not doing anything wrong. They have no reason to know who I am and they have no reason to want to know who I am - yet if I refuse their request as it is my right to do so I will be a criminal.

(no word of a lie, an acquaintance of mine got pulled over by the police for "driving in the dark". He was simply driving around a deserted place in the dark because he fancied a drive. They didn't believe he wasn't actually going anywhere and was just driving for fun. Why should these arrogant morons know his identity if he's legitimately engaging in a pastime within the boundaries of the law?)


It stinks to high heaven. Anyone who says "Only those who have something to hide would object to compulsory ID cards." is delusional.

Oh, and once more, for good measure. They will be compulsory by law and you have to pay £93 (possibly more, according to the LSE) to own one, out of your already-taxed salary. Astonishing.

 

[skicrush]

I completely agree with you. It is convenient that your name and such appear on your driver's license, but the issue is whether you have a valid license, not who you are. Now, if you happen to have a warrant out for you, they're smart enough to put 2 and 2 together, but people are not required to carry ID just walking down the street. The day may come when that happens here, but for now, that kind of legislation would have a REALLY hard time getting passed. And to be honest, I'm rather surprised ANY democracy would pass such a Communist Block-type law. It certainly smacks of repression and state control. I'm surprised because it's not MY country. I'd be OUTRAGED if it was. I don't blame you in the least for being pissed.

 

[Arwin]

I completely agree with you. It is convenient that your name and such appear on your driver's license, but the issue is whether you have a valid license, not who you are. Now, if you happen to have a warrant out for you, they're smart enough to put 2 and 2 together, but people are not required to carry ID just walking down the street. The day may come when that happens here, but for now, that kind of legislation would have a REALLY hard time getting passed. And to be honest, I'm rather surprised ANY democracy would pass such a Communist Block-type law. It certainly smacks of repression and state control. I'm surprised because it's not MY country. I'd be OUTRAGED if it was. I don't blame you in the least for being pissed.

Well, the majority of European countries have this law in place, so be surprised. It's not like there are unlimited powers at play here though. You have the right to know the identity of a police officer, for instance. "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" is valid. If the police had no grounds for asking you for your id, you can make an official complaint, put his name on the internet, etc.

 

[Danoff]

I don't want to live in a country where you can be simply walking from one place to the next and have a policeman come up to you and say "Show me your card".

Especially since police officers are not magical objective enforcers of law - they're human beings and subject human flaws. There is a lot of opportunity for abuse when they're allowed to walk up to anyone and hassle them about their ID card.

- Show me your card son
- Here you go officer.
- Is this a fake ID card? Where are you headed?
- I was just going to the store, and that's not a fake card officer.
- Which store?
- The grocery store.
- You're a long way from a grocery store, I think you were going to that porno stand.
- No sir.
- Listen, do you want me to haul you in for having a fake ID card and tell your girlfriend/wife that when I found you you were picking up a porno, or are you going to make it worth my while?

Now if he doesn't have a reason to stop the guy in the first place, this conversation can't happen. If a police officer can't just randomly stop people to check their ID, then they can't hassle just anyone - they can only do this type of thing to someone who has given them a proper reason to stop them in the first place. But this is a small example, the larger issue is that ID cards like this open up a level of control for the state that can be abused in countless ways.

Why not just implant a little devise below our skin that broadcasts radiowaves that identify us at every building we enter and while we drive our car so that we can be tracked and idenfitied at all times.

It might eliminate crime completely, but the costs are too great. I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. I would rather risk crime than live in a prison.