which is the most civilsed nation on earth?

[Famine]

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.

Out of interest, is there any non-ID card country which has "You must provide your true identity to a police officer when asked, for any reason" on the statute books?

 

[Arwin]

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.

And again: 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.

Do you see? By not saying anything at all I'm breaking no law.

And again: 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.

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.

It makes as much sense as you complaining about the option a police has to check your identity. Me, jmr, Rotty and Hugo Boss were lost in the middle of Frankfurt one night, driving around in jmr's beamer in the neighbourhood of an Audi dealership, trying to figure out why the navigation system was showing us this shady part of Frankfurt. Kind of exciting, because I was driving, the only one having drunk next to nothing, but I just had my licence for 3 weeks and it was 3:30am.

Anyway, we were spotted by a police car, were pulled over, and had to show our hands, with one cop keeping us under the supervision of his gun, and the other checking my fresh Dutch driver's licence and the car's registration through the computer. We explained our situation, and after we checked out they helped us figure out that we had entered the street name for the main city, where we should have been looking in one of the 'banlieus'.

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.

They're not normally allowed to just randomly check people, at least not here. You were obliged to give your name and address anyway, and it's perfectly understandable that they'd want to proceed to the point where it's actually the correct one. At the same time, you have nothing to gain by hiding your identity unless you're a criminal in some way or another, so the sooner you can get that confusion out of the way, I say the better. A teacher of mine (15 years ago) was arrested and detained for a while because he fit the description of a criminal. If he'd had an ID on him, the issue would have been cleared a lot sooner.

While I do respect that there is a chance of something like this being abused, if you allow yourself to become governed by people who intend to abuse you like that, your country is already doomed. This does not make things worse in that respect at all. It just makes the life of policemen, who are generally ok people under normal circumstances - and if not, should be dealt with and I'd say you have something better to whine about than IDs.

(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?)

Because it closely resembles cruising around for a criminal opportunity. You pose as and are considered a clever guy here, Famine, and although I agree you can be and usually are, your mind seems to have taken an early holiday lately.

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

Delusional, paranoid, whatever you want to call yourself. I already carried one ID on me simply because I need to have one all over the place, and since I got my drivers licence I'm carrying around two. You need an ID here for so many things already. Pick up a package from lik-sang or play.com at the post-office? Need ID. Become member of video rental? Need to show ID plus a bank-statement with my address on it. Etc.

If the police ask me to produce one, I'll gladly do so. If I don't trust them, I'll ask him his. If I'm not happy with how I was treated, I'll report him. If I'm not happy with how that report was treated, I'll put him online. I'm allowed to take his picture with my mobile or camera, if I so desire. If he's a bad-ass cop, he'll find a way to make my life a pain, I'm sure, but that never really changed because of this law and is a different matter.

I hope and trust this will be enough to cover my only concern, which is that they'll abuse this power to badger certain racially identifiable members of society (which I'm not btw).

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.

Again I agree that's a high price. But that's probably the expensive biometry solution you're talking about. Ours is 31 euro, and I just discovered that most communities have chosen to compensate poor families that were already exempt from certain taxes. I hope they figure something out, because it does seem too much. Perhaps they should make the first one free, and only require reasonable prices afterwards when you need a new one.

I say the principle is fine, and there are no real legal or moral objections against it, but I definitely accept that the proposal as it currently stands in Britain may be a bad one nonetheless.

 

[Famine]

And again: 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.

I don't live in the USA. That ruling, that precedent, that Constitution and those Amendments to it do not apply to me.

And again: 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.

I don't live in the USA. That ruling, that precedent, that Constitution and those Amendments to it do not apply to me.

I am entitled by MY COUNTRY'S law to not say a word - not even to give my identity. The compulsory ID card tramples on that right. Still

It makes as much sense as you complaining about the option a police has to check your identity. Me, jmr, Rotty and Hugo Boss were lost in the middle of Frankfurt one night, driving around in jmr's beamer in the neighbourhood of an Audi dealership, trying to figure out why the navigation system was showing us this shady part of Frankfurt. Kind of exciting, because I was driving, the only one having drunk next to nothing, but I just had my licence for 3 weeks and it was 3:30am.

Anyway, we were spotted by a police car, were pulled over, and had to show our hands, with one cop keeping us under the supervision of his gun, and the other checking my fresh Dutch driver's licence and the car's registration through the computer. We explained our situation, and after we checked out they helped us figure out that we had entered the street name for the main city, where we should have been looking in one of the 'banlieus'.

So, just for driving around you were held at gunpoint? Nice.

But you didn't address the point - and for some reason you're stuck in car mode. I was talking about just simply walking down the street.

The point was: 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.


The issue is STILL that my country's law (not the US's) says I don't have to say ANYTHING to ANY official. My country wishes to introduce a compulsory ID card system which in itself is contrary to that law by forcing me to carry one and forcing me to present it to any official, when asked, or face criminal prosecution.

If I don't want to tell a cop my name, that's my right (note that giving a false name is NOT my right). Compulsory ID cards take away that right.

They're not normally allowed to just randomly check people, at least not here. You were obliged to give your name and address anyway

Zut alors! That's the point! I'm NOT currently obliged to give them ANYTHING. Compulsory ID cards change that.

While I do respect that there is a chance of something like this being abused, if you allow yourself to become governed by people who intend to abuse you like that, your country is already doomed. This does not make things worse in that respect at all. It just makes the life of policemen, who are generally ok people under normal circumstances - and if not, should be dealt with and I'd say you have something better to whine about than IDs.

Here's the thing. ID cards don't prevent crime or terrorism. Spain has compulsory ID cards. Where was the last large terrorist attack?

It's yet another scheme to screw over normal people and keep them in check. Law-abiding citizens carry their ID card at all times and don't have a gun - because not to carry your ID card and owning a gun are criminal offences. Criminals have guns and carry forged ID cards, because they're criminals...

For reference, nothing in the UK works at all. Why do you expect that there's only a "chance" our ID cards would be abused? It's guaranteed.

Because it closely resembles cruising around for a criminal opportunity.

But it wasn't. He would STILL have been stopped had he got an ID card. As it is, he had his driver's licence on him (which you must, by law, if you're driving). He STILL wasn't doing anything wrong of any variety but the police still chose to stop him. No offences were taking place.

Incidentally, what criminal opportunity can a single male in a Mitsubishi 3000GT "cruise" for at 3am on country roads.

They stopped him because they felt like stopping him.

I'll ignore the irrelevant and unhelpful ad hominem.

Delusional, paranoid, whatever you want to call yourself. I already carried one ID on me simply because I need to have one all over the place, and since I got my drivers licence I'm carrying around two. You need an ID here for so many things already. Pick up a package from lik-sang or play.com at the post-office? Need ID. Become member of video rental? Need to show ID plus a bank-statement with my address on it. Etc.

So... you're comparing simply existing with a variety of lifestyle options you've chosen? Why?

Let me rephrase - compulsory ID cards mean you need an ID card because you exist, not because you've already got three forms of ID, or need to drive somewhere, or open a bank account.

Again I agree that's a high price. But that's probably the expensive biometry solution you're talking about. Ours is 31 euro, and I just discovered that most communities have chosen to compensate poor families that were already exempt from certain taxes. I hope they figure something out, because it does seem too much. Perhaps they should make the first one free, and only require reasonable prices afterwards when you need a new one.

I say the principle is fine, and there are no real legal or moral objections against it, but I definitely accept that the proposal as it currently stands in Britain may be a bad one nonetheless.

You honestly believe that there are no moral objections whatsoever to being FORCED to give over your post-tax wages to the government for something you MUST have - or face criminal prosecution - after you've ALREADY paid them all of the taxes on your salary?

Really?



And you didn't answer the earlier question:

Out of interest, is there any non-ID card country which has "You must provide your true identity to a police officer when asked, for any reason" on the statute books?

 

[TheCracker]

Incidentally, what criminal opportunity can a single male in a Mitsubishi 3000GT "cruise" for at 3am on country roads.

[/i].

Come on, spending good money on a 3000GT in Britain is a crime in itself.

 

[Famine]

You should see the engine in that sucker... It's been in pieces in his kitchen, garage and living room over the winter...

 

[TheCracker]

Uuuummmmm.... I love the smell of Castrol R in the morning

 

[skicrush]

Come on, spending good money on a 3000GT in Britain is a crime in itself.

LOL!! I'm in a better mood today--sorry about being cranky the other day.

I think it's instuctive to note that Famine is perfectly OK with the police hauling him down and chucking him in jail until they can determine who he is without his help. I likewise fail to see the point of ID cards. If your ID card is going to get you in trouble because you're a criminal, don't you think they'll just get fake IDs? Why carry something that is going to incriminate you? By and large, owning a gun isn't a crime here, and we have a saying that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." There are cities where they HAVE outlawed guns, and guess what? They're places like Washington D.C., which has one of the highest crime rates in the country. Likewise, convicted felons are prohibited from having guns, but how often do you think they re-offend? Make a fake ID, and you can get a gun again. Measures that restrict your freedom in this manner are merely expensive inconveniences. They do not accomplish their true objective, assuing there was an obbjective in the first place, and not merely a bright idea that $180 ID cards would be so cool everyone should be REQUIRED to have them.

 

[Arwin]

I don't live in the USA. That ruling, that precedent, that Constitution and those Amendments to it do not apply to me.

Hey, I didn't start citing the fifth or Miranda.

So, just for driving around you were held at gunpoint? Nice.

For being a suspicious group driving around in an industrial area with car dealerships full of very expensive Audis, I presume.

The point was: 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.

By not giving your ID card you're obstructing the normal course of law. A jumped-up traffic warden who is trying to catch you without an ID so he can fine you is not the normal course of law. That kind of thing happens in the U.S. in the form of traffic traps too even though IDs aren't required. That kind of things happen in lots of places where the law is corrupt. Different matter.

The issue is STILL that my country's law (not the US's) says I don't have to say ANYTHING to ANY official. My country wishes to introduce a compulsory ID card system which in itself is contrary to that law by forcing me to carry one and forcing me to present it to any official, when asked, or face criminal prosecution.

So now it's just your country. Fine, I haven't looked at its laws yet. But I've been talking principle. Now if we reached the point where the principle is now limited to Britain, then fine, at least we're making some progress.

Here's the thing. ID cards don't prevent crime or terrorism. Spain has compulsory ID cards. Where was the last large terrorist attack?

For the record, I never supported ID cards for anything related to terrorism. But like a police officer I know once said, it'd be mightily useful for when he meets someone late at night with a crowbar. All he can do at that point is ask his name. But ok, if everyone can get a fake id that easily ... except they can't. Not all of them. It's like prohibiting guns. Some criminals who really want one and have resources can still get one, but the guy who gets angry with his neighbour upstairs and shoots him has one extra barrier (and at least a fake id can still sometimes be tracked).

It's yet another scheme to screw over normal people and keep them in check. Law-abiding citizens carry their ID card at all times and don't have a gun - because not to carry your ID card and owning a gun are criminal offences. Criminals have guns and carry forged ID cards, because they're criminals...

In check for what?

For reference, nothing in the UK works at all. Why do you expect that there's only a "chance" our ID cards would be abused? It's guaranteed.

But you don't really care about that, do you? I mean, enough to become politically active.

But it wasn't. He would STILL have been stopped had he got an ID card. As it is, he had his driver's licence on him (which you must, by law, if you're driving). He STILL wasn't doing anything wrong of any variety but the police still chose to stop him. No offences were taking place.

Incidentally, what criminal opportunity can a single male in a Mitsubishi 3000GT "cruise" for at 3am on country roads.

They stopped him because they felt like stopping him.

Lets assume there is no reason whatsoever to stop someone in a 3000GT at night, and there couldn't possibly be one. So, let's abolish the drivers licence and registration then.

I'll ignore the irrelevant and unhelpful ad hominem.

Thanks for that.

So... you're comparing simply existing with a variety of lifestyle options you've chosen? Why?

Let me rephrase - compulsory ID cards mean you need an ID card because you exist, not because you've already got three forms of ID, or need to drive somewhere, or open a bank account.

You also need to be registered for being born.

You honestly believe that there are no moral objections whatsoever to being FORCED to give over your post-tax wages to the government for something you MUST have - or face criminal prosecution - after you've ALREADY paid them all of the taxes on your salary?

Really?

Well, the money has to come from somewhere. They either relocate it from medical research subsidies, or make you pay for it. In your case, with that amount, I'd say take it out of the law-enforcement/justice budget - if they believe its worth cutting from some other part of that, then I say it is worth it. But the public seems to be always happy for higher jail sentences, tougher on crime, and so on, so its a matter of descretion in this case. I'd say that PR wise, taking it out of existing tax-budget would be smarter.

And you didn't answer the earlier question:

I did, twice.

 

[Swift]

My goodness, I find myself agreeing with Famine on this topic. Man, it must be a leap year, on the last day of February with a solar eclipse!

Arwin, BTW, isn't it tough to quote famine with his bold and color changes to the text?

 

[Famine]

By not giving your ID card you're obstructing the normal course of law.

Oh my...

Why can't you grasp this?

1. It is my right to not give any information to anyone.
2. Introduction of compulsory ID cards denies this right.

I'm not objecting to the fact that the NEW LAW will say I have to give my ID Card. I'm objecting to the fact that the NEW LAW tramples all over my rights.

So now it's just your country. Fine, I haven't looked at its laws yet. But I've been talking principle. Now if we reached the point where the principle is now limited to Britain, then fine, at least we're making some progress.

Ummm, what?

This has always BEEN about introducing ID cards in the UK.

For the record, I never supported ID cards for anything related to terrorism. But like a police officer I know once said, it'd be mightily useful for when he meets someone late at night with a crowbar. All he can do at that point is ask his name.

An ID card will prevent the policeman being beaten to death with a crowbar... how?

But you don't really care about that, do you? I mean, enough to become politically active.

I vote.

Lets assume there is no reason whatsoever to stop someone in a 3000GT at night, and there couldn't possibly be one. So, let's abolish the drivers licence and registration then.

Wow... engage warp drives and take a leap of faith, Arwin. Where did THAT come from?

Care to explain the logic behind it, because I can't see it?

If a man chooses to drive around at night because he likes driving around and, while doing so, breaks no laws what right do the police have to stop him from legally enjoying himself and call him a liar?

The only relevance this has to the ID card issue is that you said police don't randomly stop people for no reason and so the ID cards won't be abused on the level danoff mentioned. This example shows that they do and it can.

The driver's licence and registration shows that someone has chosen to buy the car and is choosing to drive it legally, in a legal fashion around an area local to it and that the vehicle hasn't been reported stolen. Who chooses to be born? Why does a person who is just "alive" need to be filed in this way? Will he run away from the police at 140mph, or be thrown through a shop window in a ram-raid?

You also need to be registered for being born.

Difference being you don't have to pay £93 for doing it, a birth certificate doesn't contain your photograph, current address, occupation, fingerprint data and DNA profile. Hell, it doesn't even contain your blood group.

You also aren't required by law to present a birth certificate when asked your identity by a Napoleon complex jobsworth who has, currently, no right to expect any answer.

Well, the money has to come from somewhere. They either relocate it from medical research subsidies, or make you pay for it. In your case, with that amount, I'd say take it out of the law-enforcement/justice budget - if they believe its worth cutting from some other part of that, then I say it is worth it. But the public seems to be always happy for higher jail sentences, tougher on crime, and so on, so its a matter of descretion in this case. I'd say that PR wise, taking it out of existing tax-budget would be smarter.

Precisely.

The government wants it, so they should draw it from their existing massive tax surplus sitting in the Exchequer - and don't kid yourself they'll need to cut any budgets for it. The UK Treasury has £30 billion doing squat.

If the government wants it and wants to make it compulsory they have no right to FORCE people to pay for them, after having already deducted all of their taxation at source.

As an example, I have a neighbour who has three young-ish kids. Come the big day (1984-Day), she'll have to pay £372 for her ID card, and her kids' ID cards.


You're born, you're registered free. You choose to go abroad, you pay for a passport. You choose to drive, you pay for a driving licence. You choose to get married, you pay for a marriage licence. You choose to watch TV, you get a television licence. You die, you're registered free.

Living, it seems, is the only involuntary action the UK Government thinks that people must pay for.

I did, twice.

Lest we forget:

Out of interest, is there any non-ID card country which has "You must provide your true identity to a police officer when asked, for any reason" on the statute books?

I've not seen one example of a non-ID card country where it states clearly in law that you MUST provide your identity to a police officer when asked, for any reason.

You have mentioned precedent which shows that varying Amendments to the US Constitution don't give you the right to withhold it, but that's not quite the same as being legally required to state it.


I'd also like to know, Arwin. Are you in favour of a National DNA Database, with DNA taken from every child as/before/just after they are born? I suspect you'll say you are.

 

[Swift]

I'd also like to know, Arwin. Are you in favour of a National DNA Database, with DNA taken from every child as/before/just after they are born? I suspect you'll say you are.

It's been my experience, that people will choose security over privacy everytime.

 

[Famine]

It's been my experience, that people will choose security over privacy everytime.

Currently the system is that criminals have their DNA taken and profiled, along with prints and mugshots. That's their problem - they strayed outside their society's rules. The proposal is that every child should have their DNA taken and profiled.

Extraction of biological material is illegal without consent or, in special cases where doctors cannot obtain consent and it is deemed necessary for the patient's survival, medical necessity. Forced DNA profiling of every newborn is thus illegal - the parents cannot give consent because they are forced into it by law.

This stinks BADLY - especially since the proposed ID cards will have this data ON them.

 

[Swift]

Currently the system is that criminals have their DNA taken and profiled, along with prints and mugshots. That's their problem - they strayed outside their society's rules. The proposal is that every child should have their DNA taken and profiled.

Extraction of biological material is illegal without consent or, in special cases where doctors cannot obtain consent and it is deemed necessary for the patient's survival, medical necessity. Forced DNA profiling of every newborn is thus illegal - the parents cannot give consent because they are forced into it by law.

This stinks BADLY - especially since the proposed ID cards will have this data ON them.

No argument here. I'm just telling you what the public will lean towards should it come to anykind of fruition.

 

[skicrush]

Please tell me you're joking about the TV license? I mean, I think you're just being sarcastic, right? PLEASE TELL ME YOU'RE JUST BEING SARCASTIC! Because, if not, I can totally see where the ID card thing is coming from.

 

[Famine]

We pay about £150 a year (it's been a while. I forget) in order to receive television transmissions. You need one per household. It is how the BBC gets its funding.

 

[Swift]

We pay about £150 a year (it's been a while. I forget) in order to receive television transmissions. You need one per household. It is how the BBC gets its funding.

That's for broadcast as well?

 

[Duke]

But they'd be ignored, because the system of taxation is a proven, valid, civilised and efficient system to finance dealing with national issues.

Then why have two people living in Germany right now claimed that Germany is broke?

 

[skicrush]

Wow. So, what if you don't own a TV? Do they come check on you and stuff?

And, you can get cable for less than that. What if you don't want broadcast? In that case, I think it would still make sense to pay for it, if that's how you do things.

 

[Famine]

The licence covers any television-receiving equipment. If it is used to receive television signals you must have a TV licence for that property. This includes computers.

Anyone can get the "Terrestrial" channels - BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4 - with any television receiver. Channel 5 is also a terrestrial channel, but its coverage is patchy at best. Anyone who buys a "Freeview" box (about £30) gets another 30 channels, subscription free.

You can also buy cable/satellite TV in varying degrees. I get Sky, which has about 400 channels, most of which are crap, but it can be quite pricey.

However, even if you do not watch BBC channels - which the TV Licence pays for - you MUST have a TV Licence to receive broadcast TV signals of any variety.

And yes. They have vans with antennae on the roof. They can pinpoint active TV receivers to within 5 feet.

 

[Arwin]

Oh my...

Why can't you grasp this?

1. It is my right to not give any information to anyone.
2. Introduction of compulsory ID cards denies this right.

I'm not objecting to the fact that the NEW LAW will say I have to give my ID Card.

Again, hopefully the UK law too specifies that this is only allowed to happen in circumstances where knowing your ID is important for solving or preventing a crime other than not having your ID card on you.

I'm objecting to the fact that the NEW LAW tramples all over my rights.

If you're right about the UK law, you have little to worry about, I suppose. Generally, a law that is not compatible with a more primary law is easily overturned, unless that primary law is also amended.

This has always BEEN about introducing ID cards in the UK.

I know it has, but your argument hasn't, by virtue of you talking about Miranda and the Fifth. And rightly so - this is an argument that we can look at from a larger perspective. It's a world-wide issue.

An ID card will prevent the policeman being beaten to death with a crowbar... how?

By knowing who is walking around with the crowbar, the policeman will know where to look first after that nights burglary. And from there, the burglary won't happen at all. Of course, the guy could just be about to help someone who locked himself out. But if a burglary does happen that night, some questions can be asked.

I vote.

Not always enough. You can do more, if you really care. But politics is something for really uncool people, I see that now. (actually never mind me, I'm just starting to see that I need to get into politics and contribute, because all the other people with half a brain choose to use it to make tons of money instead).

Wow... engage warp drives and take a leap of faith, Arwin. Where did THAT come from?

Care to explain the logic behind it, because I can't see it?

If a man chooses to drive around at night because he likes driving around and, while doing so, breaks no laws what right do the police have to stop him from legally enjoying himself and call him a liar?

You mean you couldn't follow the part where even if the police do something stupid, that has nothing to do with whether or not something like drivers licences or car registrations make any sense? Because the way you present it, it almost seems you believe it does.

The only relevance this has to the ID card issue is that you said police don't randomly stop people for no reason and so the ID cards won't be abused on the level danoff mentioned. This example shows that they do and it can.

Which is precisely how I understood it. And I'm saying that such abuse, if it happens, is a failure of the police that needs to be dealt with, not of the ID card. Your friend should have kindly asked for the police's ID, because in just about all countries I've heard of they're required to give that when asked. Pricks exist. They could also smash your taillight and then book you. I'm sure they'll get away with that once or twice too.

The driver's licence and registration shows that someone has chosen to buy the car and is choosing to drive it legally, in a legal fashion around an area local to it and that the vehicle hasn't been reported stolen. Who chooses to be born? Why does a person who is just "alive" need to be filed in this way? Will he run away from the police at 140mph, or be thrown through a shop window in a ram-raid?

On the other hand, I don't choose to live in this country with the other 16.500.000 people in my country either. There's pros and cons there, but generally, we don't have a big problem with those who stick to certain basic rules. Those that do, however, have agreed on a fair way of dealing with those who don't. Since all of us law-abiding citizens are basically already carrying an ID around anyway, its a small thing we can do to make law-enforcement a slight bit more efficient. As someone who has traveled by train almost all his professional life, there alone I've head enough experience with that nuisance. In both directions I might add, because train staff have to be a lot more of a nuisance to the regular costumers as a consequence of the group that like to play the system and not pay.

Difference being you don't have to pay £93 for doing it, a birth certificate doesn't contain your photograph, current address, occupation, fingerprint data and DNA profile. Hell, it doesn't even contain your blood group.

We've had the money issue. The DNA profile is definitely questionable. I'm not sure what to make of that, and without having put too much thought on that, I am very much inclined to oppose that.

You also aren't required by law to present a birth certificate when asked your identity by a Napoleon complex jobsworth who has, currently, no right to expect any answer.

That's because right now he's having to rely on trusting that the punishment for lying is enough to deter you from doing so.

Precisely.

The government wants it, so they should draw it from their existing massive tax surplus sitting in the Exchequer - and don't kid yourself they'll need to cut any budgets for it. The UK Treasury has £30 billion doing squat.

For me, it's a different matter. But, again, I'm more than happy to concede to you that this doesn't look like a smart way of dealing with it. I'll skip the rest of your arguments on the money aspect, conceding that twice should be enough.

You're born, you're registered free. You choose to go abroad, you pay for a passport. You choose to drive, you pay for a driving licence. You choose to get married, you pay for a marriage licence. You choose to watch TV, you get a television licence. You die, you're registered free.

I agree that only a replacement fee seems fair. Over here, at least they're charging you about what it costs.

You have mentioned precedent which shows that varying Amendments to the US Constitution don't give you the right to withhold it, but that's not quite the same as being legally required to state it.

Not quite? This should be interesting.

I'd also like to know, Arwin. Are you in favour of a National DNA Database, with DNA taken from every child as/before/just after they are born? I suspect you'll say you are.

Not before I am satisfied that such a system is safegarded from abuse. See, if the ID stuff is abused, we can collectively flush them. But your DNA, that's a different matter. You can't get rid of it.

 

[ledhed]

And again: 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.



And again: 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.



It makes as much sense as you complaining about the option a police has to check your identity. Me, jmr, Rotty and Hugo Boss were lost in the middle of Frankfurt one night, driving around in jmr's beamer in the neighbourhood of an Audi dealership, trying to figure out why the navigation system was showing us this shady part of Frankfurt. Kind of exciting, because I was driving, the only one having drunk next to nothing, but I just had my licence for 3 weeks and it was 3:30am.

Anyway, we were spotted by a police car, were pulled over, and had to show our hands, with one cop keeping us under the supervision of his gun, and the other checking my fresh Dutch driver's licence and the car's registration through the computer. We explained our situation, and after we checked out they helped us figure out that we had entered the street name for the main city, where we should have been looking in one of the 'banlieus'.



They're not normally allowed to just randomly check people, at least not here. You were obliged to give your name and address anyway, and it's perfectly understandable that they'd want to proceed to the point where it's actually the correct one. At the same time, you have nothing to gain by hiding your identity unless you're a criminal in some way or another, so the sooner you can get that confusion out of the way, I say the better. A teacher of mine (15 years ago) was arrested and detained for a while because he fit the description of a criminal. If he'd had an ID on him, the issue would have been cleared a lot sooner.

While I do respect that there is a chance of something like this being abused, if you allow yourself to become governed by people who intend to abuse you like that, your country is already doomed. This does not make things worse in that respect at all. It just makes the life of policemen, who are generally ok people under normal circumstances - and if not, should be dealt with and I'd say you have something better to whine about than IDs.



Because it closely resembles cruising around for a criminal opportunity. You pose as and are considered a clever guy here, Famine, and although I agree you can be and usually are, your mind seems to have taken an early holiday lately.



Delusional, paranoid, whatever you want to call yourself. I already carried one ID on me simply because I need to have one all over the place, and since I got my drivers licence I'm carrying around two. You need an ID here for so many things already. Pick up a package from lik-sang or play.com at the post-office? Need ID. Become member of video rental? Need to show ID plus a bank-statement with my address on it. Etc.

If the police ask me to produce one, I'll gladly do so. If I don't trust them, I'll ask him his. If I'm not happy with how I was treated, I'll report him. If I'm not happy with how that report was treated, I'll put him online. I'm allowed to take his picture with my mobile or camera, if I so desire. If he's a bad-ass cop, he'll find a way to make my life a pain, I'm sure, but that never really changed because of this law and is a different matter.

I hope and trust this will be enough to cover my only concern, which is that they'll abuse this power to badger certain racially identifiable members of society (which I'm not btw).



Again I agree that's a high price. But that's probably the expensive biometry solution you're talking about. Ours is 31 euro, and I just discovered that most communities have chosen to compensate poor families that were already exempt from certain taxes. I hope they figure something out, because it does seem too much. Perhaps they should make the first one free, and only require reasonable prices afterwards when you need a new one.

I say the principle is fine, and there are no real legal or moral objections against it, but I definitely accept that the proposal as it currently stands in Britain may be a bad one nonetheless.

This is all moot... BEFORE a person can even be questioned the Police MUST show / have and be able to PROVE reasonable cause . You cant just walk up to someone and demand ID . most Americans would laugh in your face if you walked up seemingly for no reason and started checking ID . If you forced them they would laugh all the way to bank with the big check after the law suit .
if asked for ID at a traffic stop you are required to prove you are licensed to operate a car and that you own it. most Americans would rather grab a rifle and head for the hills than be giving up DNA and submit to national ID cards .
Thank GOD for the second amendment .

Arwin your veiw of what happens in the US is insane at times . Its as if I am reading about this mythical place . WTF makes you think the cops can set up a road block and check ID's without a very compelling reason ? drunk blocks are set up to LOOK at people driving to see if they are impaired . I have never been asked to show ID at one ! A suspect cant refuse to give his name as a statement of his rights..but a person walking the streets ? Bwaahahahahahaha are you NUTS ! Mandatory ID cards ....hehehe ....sure ...mmmhmmm yea right...gimme a break. Ohhh and you have to pay for it ....bwaaahahahahahahaaha thats funny say it again...I'm tearing up here...

 

[Arwin]

Arwin your veiw of what happens in the US is insane at times . Its as if I am reading about this mythical place.

Ledhed, if you've been reading carefully, you're accusing me of the things Famine said. I have said nothing in this thread that goes against anything you say in your post, rather the opposite I think. So I'm a little confused.