non-person ?
If I remember my Orwell aright, the term is 'unperson'.... :-(
Multiple travel firms refuse ID cards as passport alternative
The supposed usefulness of UK ID cards has been called into question by news that major travel companies are telling would-be passengers that ID cards are NOT valid travel credentials for travel in Europe. Around 1,736 people in Greater Manchester have voluntarily paid £30 for biometric-based ID cards since a pilot programme …
-
-
-
Thursday 24th December 2009 18:59 GMT Another One
re: And the problem is?
John
Thank you
"our" council registration is centralised - and we alseo have checks made against that database for instance if you wish to become a teacher or such like. The check is basically to check you aren't a mass murderer or anything like that.
I don't know the cost of ID cards here - we only use our passports or drivers license. I do know that some folks use the ID card.
What I fail to understand - and yes - I may just be being blond and dense here is what is the difference between ID card and passport. Passports cost more than ID cards but allow you into more countries. All travel is logged regardless of possport or ID card so that can't be it.
A drivers license is a valid EU identification document - so this should be sufficient. The ID card is just another document that you don't need unless you want one.
The database idea I can well understand but then again - you are on that database whether you like it or not. You pay tax, you have NI number etc etc. You are in there. We are all in there.
I wonder if this really is just a reaction to things appearing to change and a government that lies so badly?
-
Monday 28th December 2009 23:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
More reasons.
I can prove who I am, I have plenty of forms of ID, some government issued (they seem happy that I'm not about to go bang on a train) , some not.
It's not about fear of change, it's about mistrust.
Whilst there may be 'strict rules' and formal procedures around access to the data they hold on me, I still don't trust them any further than I could throw them. Let's face it, if our elected representatives can so comprehensively milk the system and wheedle their way around the rules covering their expenses what makes you think they deserve our trust?
If the public facing leeches are that bad, exactly how corrupt are the ones that don't have to answer to the press?
I'm not a criminal, I'm not 'shady' or trying to evade paying anything but I'm constantly treated as though I'm a criminal. When they start to trust me then I will consider trusting them.
-
Tuesday 29th December 2009 00:19 GMT captain veg
Passport not an ID document
You could try reading what it actually says inside the front cover. Mine states "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."
So it's a travel document, not an ID token. It states your nationality and/or immigration status and asserts your right to cross boundaries with the backing and protection of the British state. It is ID only in so far as it can be matched to the bearer, but is not strictly evidence of who the bearer actually is (though in practice it is often treated as if it were).
It is utterly outrageous that aquisition of a passport is being made conditional on enrollment in the NIR. We have a right of free movement within the EU, and ought to be able to obtain the means to exercise that right without "volunteering" to subject ourselves to the government's authoritarian aspirations.
-A.
-
-
-
Friday 25th December 2009 00:42 GMT peter_dtm
@Another One
UK - Common Law
you can call your self anything you wish to (as long as it is not with criminal intent) - this is a basic common law right
you are free to come and go without let or hindrance (well until Blair illegally subverted the 1869 Bill of Rights).
You may do anything not specifically made illegal
The rest of the EU is Napoleonic code/Roman-Dutch law. Where you are permitted to do things - you may ONLY do those things which have been made legal
The two jurisprudences are incompatible - hence the need for the removal from our (UK) legal system of the Bill of Rights; Habeas Corpus and the influence of the Magna Carta.
The Maastricht treaty allowed travel within the EU on production of ANY GOVERNMENT issued photo ID; in theory you can travel on your photo id drivers licence........ (in theory....)
Common Law jurisdictions are antithetical to the whole concept of compulsory ID
-
Friday 25th December 2009 00:47 GMT John Dougald McCallum
So There
Another One wrote:-I wonder if this really is just a reaction to things appearing to change and a government that lies so badly? I think you may well have hit the nail on the head that being that if the Gov lied better would anyone know?Personally I do not see the need for one I.D. card that is.
-
Monday 28th December 2009 23:52 GMT lukewarmdog
wtf
"However one ID card pioneer, Norman Eastwood from Salford"
Wait.. I'm from Salford and I've never heard of this person. He isn't so much a pioneer as a complete and utter twonk. I know.. that is a Brum term and I don't use it lightly. Please do not labour under the assumption that this person is in any way representative of someone from Salford. He isn't. He's a cunt. Those of us who know our vernacular will realise that this means he is someone to fuck with which our government has clearly done. Clearly Norman Eastwood is blonde, has large breasts and is in possession of a large amount of contrababand. See that film with Cristian Slater who my cousin looked like when he was younger as proof.
That notwithstandind, there is no call for an id scheme, the pope did indeed poop in a wooded area this weekend (prior to being attacked by a lunatic aslyum seeker) and bears were seen in Rome. Or something.
-
Monday 4th January 2010 20:33 GMT MrWeeble
1,736 - pathetic
There are 645 local government seats and 26 parliamentary constituencies in Greater Manchester. Each one of those will have a labour representative and/or candidate. Total - at least 671 people who stood for or are standing for election on a manifesto to have this scheme.
Logically if they truly believe this (and if they don't they should stand down), they must have all signed up to the scheme and tried to persuade their spouses, relations and friends to so similarly
So by my maths, those 671 people persuaded 1065 additional people to sign up. Less than two per person.
Fucking pathetic.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
