Identity Cards Again.

[bossy]

My band's take on it.

 

A National Identity card is never going to stop terrorism, murder, criminality etc It hasn't done such a thing in the USA has it?

I also don't care if I have nothing to worry about from them, my business is no business of those in power. Their business is our business but I don't see them letting us all know what they are up to.

We are sleepwalking into a potentially terrorfying situation. History warns us never to trust those who want to govern us, they always want more power and in this case we are just rolling over and letting them take it.

[havarantagain]

For id cards read poll tax amongst other uses, its sole purpose is for the state to manage your lives in minute detail, good by freedom, hello big brother.

[Remmie]

I can feel them stealing my thoughts already

[G Richards]

Many thanks to Dirk for introducing JS Mill into this. That is most pertinent.

 

The British Government (and associated public sector dependents) is becoming too big, too expensive and too invasive into our everyday lives. I'd much rather see the laws we already have enforced, rather than putting all sorts of extra things onto the statute book to regulate the population, coupled with an expensive (and unnecessary) ID scheme.

 

I don't necessarily want to become an American apologist (because there are many things wrong with that country, just as ours) but it is worth noting that the country was founded because of this sort of interference with the average citizen (specifically taxation, but the point still works).

 

Most of the good that America has contributed has come about by motivated and free citizens (very much in keeping with the kind of thing JS Mill was arguing for). Over there they have a deep-seated sense (whether to the left or right in the political spectrum) that Government should serve the people, and that people should be left to get on with their own lives as much as possible.

 

As I say, there is much wrong, and I don't want to go on a tangent about America's foreign policy etc. but in terms of freedom granted to the average citizen, they have a better set up than here.

[tokyojoe]

Many thanks to Dirk for introducing JS Mill into this. That is most pertinent.

 

The British Government (and associated public sector dependents) is becoming too big, too expensive and too invasive into our everyday lives. I'd much rather see the laws we already have enforced, rather than putting all sorts of extra things onto the statute book to regulate the population, coupled with an expensive (and unnecessary) ID scheme.

 

I don't necessarily want to become an American apologist (because there are many things wrong with that country, just as ours) but it is worth noting that the country was founded because of this sort of interference with the average citizen (specifically taxation, but the point still works).

 

Most of the good that America has contributed has come about by motivated and free citizens (very much in keeping with the kind of thing JS Mill was arguing for). Over there they have a deep-seated sense (whether to the left or right in the political spectrum) that Government should serve the people, and that people should be left to get on with their own lives as much as possible.

 

As I say, there is much wrong, and I don't want to go on a tangent about America's foreign policy etc. but in terms of freedom granted to the average citizen, they have a better set up than here.

 

Good post but the yanks are loosing a lot of personal freedoms due to the patriot act and other such draconian legislation. The government and the supreme court are riding roughshod over the constitution, which as you say, was written to protect the rights of the individual.

 

I know a few who want to leave, but the problem is the IRS taxes an American citizen for ten years after they leave, wherever they go. The only answer is to renounce US citizenship. The're having massive problems with a bloated government (which is in fact financially bankrupt) and it's destroying American competitiveness and business efficiency.

 

Same as here in many ways. If you're thinking of jumping ship, the US is not the answer.

[G Richards]

Thanks for the info TokyoJoe. Maybe Spain? A nice place in Menorca would do me.

[Dirk]

Thanks for the info TokyoJoe. Maybe Spain? A nice place in Menorca would do me.

 

Spain is bad for infringing on civil liberties apparently. The irony is that Germany has the strongest controls against encroaching on civil liberties. It was introduced post World War II to prevent it happening again.

[FortressAnfield]

Very good summary of arguments against the ID card from Dirk. Fully agree with you there.

 

But I also look at it more practically. One of the many reasons (they - the government - keep changing their reasons when people bring up strong arguments against the latest reason) given for the card is that it will help defeat terrorism specifically and crime generally. (Think today's reason is illegal immigration, last week it was benefit fraud, it'll be crime again soon.) It may do that - if it is compulsory to have the card on you at all times. The current line that you would have say 5 days to appear at a police station with your card is laughable.

 

'Excuse me, Mr. bin Laden/Kray/Sutcliffe - do you have your ID card on you?'

 

'No.'

 

'Well, be a good chap, and bring it to the station one day next week, will you?'

 

'Yes, officer.'

 

I suspect Mr. bin Laden/Kray/Sutcliffe may not turn up.........

 

So it must be compulsory.

 

And you, an innocent football fan, forget it when you leave Liverpool one dark Saturday morning for London and the match against Chelsea/Arsenal/Leyton Orient/whoever. And at 2 pm you're asked by the nice policeman if you have your ID card on you. You don't, so you're locked up. You have no ID card - who are you? Maybe a terrorist - we can take no chances. You will be released when you produce your ID card ie when someone can get into your house in Liverpool, find the card and get it to the local London police station. Shouldn't be in the cells for more than a night or two.

 

ID cards? Nothing to worry about, mate - I've got nothing to hide.

[Dropkick]

I'll bet any of you that questions such as "What's your sexuality" will be on a voluntary basis and not compulsory, too much histrionics on this thread for me, far greater problems going on in my opinion, like the fact that the streets are overrun by wannabe gangsters who are prepared to shoot you or kick you to death if you look at them the wrong way. You can quote obscure extracts from books and such like all you like IMO i just don't see this 1984 scenario everyone's on about....Sorry but that's my opinion, not the popular one on here obviously but there you have it.

 

So on that basis do you advocate cards or not?

[King Emlyn]

So on that basis do you advocate cards or not?

Ambivalent about them to be honest.

[Strontium]

The Pet Shop Boys wrote a song (Integral) on their recent album about ID cards, I think it's a decent summation of the situation:

 

If you've done nothing wrong

You've got nothing to fear

If you've something to hide

You shouldn't even be here

 

Long live us

The persuaded we

Integral

Collectively

To the whole project

It's brand new

Conceived solely

To protect you

 

One world

One reason

Unchanging

One season

 

If you've done nothing wrong

You've got nothing to fear

If you've something to hide

You shouldn't even be here

You've had your chance

Now we've got the mandate

If you've changed your mind

I'm afraid it's too late

We're concerned

You're a threat

You're not integral

To the project

 

Sterile

Immaculate

Rational

Perfect

 

Everyone has

Their own number

In the system that

We operate under

We're moving to

A situation

Where your lives exist

As information

One world

One life

One chance

One reason

All under

One sky

Unchanging

One season

 

If you've done nothing wrong

You've got nothing to fear

If you've something to hide

You shouldn't even be here

You've had your chance

Now we've got the mandate

If you've changed your mind

I'm afraid it's too late

We're concerned

You're a threat

You're not integral

To the project

 

Welcome to 1984.

[Paul]

Paul uses homophobia as a point. I am mentally ill (paranoid, I know), for the next census, supposedly, they are going to ask us to state whether we are mentally ill and what that mental illness is. If this is true I object to giving that sort of information. I was taken aback by some of the new mental health legislation but it's only going to get worse not better. How is me telling the world my intimate details going to help them. The people that matter know e.g my family, my girlfriend and my doctor(s). Nobody else has a right to know that sort of information unless I want them to know. What about innocent until proven guilty? Instead we live in a society which harvests suspicion of its minority groups, be they Muslim or mentally ill, God help the poor sod who is a mentally ill Muslim, they'd be fucked in this modern era of tolerance, love and compassion.

 

What if the results of the census lead to an increase in spending on mental health?

[Dirk]

What if the results of the census lead to an increase in spending on mental health?

 

They won't increase the spending. Traditionally, where a budget deficit exists in the NHS the first services to be cut are mental health. My previous psychiatrist, a New Zealander, created a group consisting of 4/5 of his "well" patients in order to try and campaign against the political tide. He went back to NZ but he had worries about the state of of the service here.

 

For instance, at Clatterbridge, they recently closed a ward because of a budget deficit in NHS spending. This is a disaster. The group was formed because we'll end up with representation on a local implementation team (LIT). The LIT is a body consisting of Psychiatrists, NHS Execs, managers, nurses and user groups which provisions for the implementation of local area mental health care. Dr McMinn formed the group as a means to try and prevent future closures from happening in the future and to ensure that the patients get the best possible care.

 

If the closure of this ward does not plug the budget gap I've heard tentative rumours that they plan to cut care in the community spending (neglect in the community). A piece of paper asking me if I am a "nutter" is not going to improve the service. Epidemiological studies can tell the government how many mentally ill people there and what illnesses they have not a piece of plastic tied to a database. They won't to know who is mentally ill not how many.

[Paul]

They won't increase the spending. Traditionally, where a budget deficit exists in the NHS the first services to be cut are mental health. My previous psychiatrist, a New Zealander, created a group consisting of 4/5 of his "well" patients in order to try and campaign against the political tide. He went back to NZ but he had worries about the state of of the service here.

 

For instance, at Clatterbridge, they recently closed a ward because of a budget deficit in NHS spending. This is a disaster. The group was formed because we'll end up with representation on a local implementation team (LIT). The LIT is a body consisting of Psychiatrists, NHS Execs, managers, nurses and user groups which provisions for the implementation of local area mental health care. Dr McMinn formed the group as a means to try and prevent future closures from happening in the future and to ensure that the patients get the best possible care.

 

If the closure of this ward does not plug the budget gap I've heard tentative rumours that they plan to cut care in the community spending (neglect in the community). A piece of paper asking me if I am a "nutter" is not going to improve the service. Epidemiological studies can tell the government how many mentally ill people there and what illnesses they have not a piece of plastic tied to a database. They won't to know who is mentally ill not how many.

 

Come on, Dave - you can do better than "They won't". It doesn't really matter whether the government wants to, does it? Once the figures are in the public domain, it is then out of their hands. The one thing this government is guaranteed to do is bend with the political wind.

 

Besides, if, as you say, this information already exists, why do they want it again in another form?

[philyhamann]

This reminds of that two part Deep Space Nine episode with the ID cards, people without them couldn't get jobs etc and since the jails wouldn't have been able to hold the amount of people without them they started putting them in a cordoned off section of the city and providing them with three meals a day. The lesson was, that everyone sleep walked into it and before they knew it there was a section in every city. Was about 2025 as well.

[Dirk]

Come on, Dave - you can do better than "They won't". It doesn't really matter whether the government wants to, does it? Once the figures are in the public domain, it is then out of their hands. The one thing this government is guaranteed to do is bend with the political wind.

 

Besides, if, as you say, this information already exists, why do they want it again in another form?

 

Because they want to know "who" is mentally ill i.e. they want to be able to tie the mental illness to the identity of the individual. For instance, the only people who can refuse to adhere to the centralised medical health records are those that can show that it would cause them mental distress. Immediately, people will know that they are mentally ill by the fact they are not on it.

 

I don't wish to condescend you, Paul but mentally ill people are treated like third class citizens. It's something, thankfully, you have no experience of. The information is already in the public domain. They are cutting mental health services not making them better, the government's motive is not to improve mental health when it comes to this particular issues. It already knows the state of the mental health system and yet it continues to cut the budget despite rising instance of mental health. What is its motive if it isn't to improve mental health?

 

My psychiatrist would show me what letters he'd written to other doctors about me, what my records would say etcetera but he always said to me "These are for you, read them and then destroy them, they are nobody else's business."

 

This legislation is going to destroy the slowly improving doctor-patient relationship. People will be less likely to tell people and doctors of their problems due to the fear of it going on their records which, in future, will be centralised and open to lots of agencies. These aren't just my fears but the fears of the mental health professionals, of which I hope to become one.

[King Emlyn]

This reminds of that two part Deep Space Nine episode with the ID cards, people without them couldn't get jobs etc and since the jails wouldn't have been able to hold the amount of people without them they started putting them in a cordoned off section of the city and providing them with three meals a day. The lesson was, that everyone sleep walked into it and before they knew it there was a section in every city. Was about 2025 as well.

In all seriousness, do you HONESTLY think that that would happen?

[tokyojoe]

In all seriousness, do you HONESTLY think that that would happen?

 

With a collapsing economy, quite likely.

[Remmie]

With a collapsing economy, quite likely.

Extremely likely. Ideally, the government would like 10 agents per bedroom carefully analysing all sex to make sure it fills quotas and ticks boxes. They want to know your every thought and steal it as their own. They want to buy your clothes for you, eliminate the poor and the french and destroy all that is good. And they would do it all if you wouldn't stop predicting it in Internet forums, dagnammit!

[FortressAnfield]

In all seriousness, do you HONESTLY think that that would happen?

 

I'm sure that many people making wild political speculations were asked that question by their far more sensible friends in Germany in the early 1930s.

[Stu Monty]

Do you HONESTLY think they'll cordon off a part of the city and put all the Jews there. Then kill them all.

 

Imagine how handy a big Jew register would have been.

[Paul]

Do you HONESTLY think they'll cordon off a part of the city and put all the Jews there. Then kill them all.

 

Imagine how handy a big Jew register would have been.

 

As opposed to the names, hats and beards, you mean?

[Paul]

Because they want to know "who" is mentally ill i.e. they want to be able to tie the mental illness to the identity of the individual. For instance, the only people who can refuse to adhere to the centralised medical health records are those that can show that it would cause them mental distress. Immediately, people will know that they are mentally ill by the fact they are not on it.

 

I don't wish to condescend you, Paul but mentally ill people are treated like third class citizens. It's something, thankfully, you have no experience of. The information is already in the public domain. They are cutting mental health services not making them better, the government's motive is not to improve mental health when it comes to this particular issues. It already knows the state of the mental health system and yet it continues to cut the budget despite rising instance of mental health. What is its motive if it isn't to improve mental health?

 

My psychiatrist would show me what letters he'd written to other doctors about me, what my records would say etcetera but he always said to me "These are for you, read them and then destroy them, they are nobody else's business."

 

This legislation is going to destroy the slowly improving doctor-patient relationship. People will be less likely to tell people and doctors of their problems due to the fear of it going on their records which, in future, will be centralised and open to lots of agencies. These aren't just my fears but the fears of the mental health professionals, of which I hope to become one.

 

You didn't - although you are wrong. I deal with mental health constantly in my job.

[Dirk]

You didn't - although you are wrong. I deal with mental health constantly in my job.

 

It's not the same as experiencing it, though. Nor is it the same as being subject to the mental health system and being subject to a different set of laws and rules compared to normal people. You have experience of kids who experience mental illness not mental illness itself, I think there's a difference.

[Stu Monty]

As opposed to the names, hats and beards, you mean?

 

I think you'll find that the Nazis weren't just rounding up those who were going round shouting "Oy vey" all the time. There were thousands of people trying to hide their history.

 

The point is Paul that this database of information will hold your whole being. It will be on this data your civil life will live or die.

 

You know when someone stole your details and bought some stuff a while back; imagine if they stole you. That is the information that defines who you are with regards to all civil activity. You'd go to the bank to get your money and they'd tell you that it wasn't yours. Your Iris was wrong you see...and how can you dispute that; it's indisputable, you can't change your eyes can you.

 

Unless you get into the system. Then you can do whatever the fuck you want.