you been served
Serves her right for volunteering for something that was obviously doomed and pointless. I am sure I can set up an online identity project if she insists on dropping 30 quid on every doomed if project
Angela Epstein, the Manchester-based columnist and ID cards poster girl, has written a furious lament for the scheme - and she's so angry she's started a Facebook group. "I never wanted to be a poster girl for the ID project," Epstein rages in her latest treatise for the Manchester Evening News. "I never had any kind of …
While I agree with the general sentiments entirely, which I think could be neatly summed up as: Ha-ha!
Nevertheless... "obviously doomed"?
Do you really believe that a majority conservative government would have scrapped them?
'Cos... given who tried to introduce them in the first place, 20-odd years ago... I don't!!
How dare David Laws try not to be ousted as a homosexual because there are so many openly gay politicans in the upper echelons of power and the media wouldn't at all try and undermine him at every opportunity... O wait, that's exactly what they have done.
It isn't theft it's like knowingly buying a cheap knock off piece of kit and being suprised when it doesn't work correctly.
I really couldnt care less what he does in the privacy of his own home, or anyone elses for that matter.
And yes it is shamefull that he feels he has to hide his feeleings. not just from the press and parliament, but from his own familly too.
what I object to is the fact the basterd stole 40 grand of my hard earned, for no good reason.
and what I'm REALLY pissed off about it that it was a lib dem caught with his hand in the till.
Sorry, Naughtyhorse, but you've been drinking the kool-aid: the 40 grand figure is the total paid to his partner, not the portion paid since renting from one's partner became inappropriate. So there is no question that the figure is less than 40K.
And more important: had Laws rented on the open market (as he was 100% entitled to do), he'd have spent more for the accommodation. Which we would have paid.
So Laws got slimed for actually saving us money.
Good dea! Thank you, The Telegraph. Nice work!
"I really couldnt care less what he does in the privacy of his own home, or anyone elses for that matter."
You may not, but a good 30%+ of the British population still views homosexuality as wrong.
"what I object to is the fact the basterd stole 40 grand of my hard earned, for no good reason."
He didn't steal 40 grand from you. That's pretty decrepit thinking.
As to no good reason, he had a pretty good reason, if he declared the man he was renting from as his lover then his career would more or less be over, a rather good reason not to announce it.
How many MPs renting from a hetrosexual lover get away with this? I suspect a fair few and they wont be found out unless they're having an affair because there's no story in it. Nailing the man as homosexual was a double win for the media and did us out of a man who (rarely in modern politics) actually had a firm understanding of his portfolio.
he made claims that were against the rules, that is why h elost his job
and we all know that making claims against the rules is what mp's do when the rest of us steal.
He CHOSE to keep his sexuality secret. AND he CHOSE to enter public life.
and then he chose to stel my money. and for that he deserves to loose his job.
There is no denying that the man broke the rules, but if you look aty what he actually did, it is not really that bad.
The man was entitled to claim for rent, just not from a spouse or partner, a rule which was introduced only a few years ago. Since he was already claiming for rent for a property owned by his lover, he was then put in the situation where he could stop claiming the rent (which correctly, he should have done) or continue. Because he didn't want to be outed, since it would put a serious damper on his career, he didn't stop claiming, since if he had, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the question of why would arise.
As has been noted above, if he had been openly gay, then he would have been entitled to claim other benefits. His mistake was to try to protect his private life from the gutter press.
Do you know what, most people CHOOSE to keep their sexuality secret, although most people's sexuality doesn't attract ire from morons.
And one more thing - he didn't 'stel' anyone's money, he claimed money which it turns out he wasn't entitled to, so he is paying it back. Yes, he deserves to 'loose' his job because he broke the rules, but not for the reasons you give.
*Apologies for the pun on your name, but it just works so WELL...
He made claims that were within the rules but not within what was retrospectively decided to be the spirit of the rules.
Retrospective judgements are all well and good, and what he did was certainly unethical, but he wasn't short of a few quid to start with and here's a thing about people who are successful with money: They play the rules. They follow the letter of the rules and use any loopholes or wriggle space in that to maximise their own benefit.
Now on the one hand I would rather my politicians were ethical and upstanding in all matters. On the other, I would really like to have someone who can recognise loopholes and wriggle space in financial rules to be writing those rules...
> The man was entitled to claim for rent, just not from a spouse or partner, a rule which was introduced only a few years ago. Since he was already claiming for rent for a property owned by his lover, he was then put in the situation where he could stop claiming the rent (which correctly, he should have done) or continue.
Yeah sure there is absolutely nothing wrong with claiming rent to which you are not entitled.
My son is unemployed at the moment and living with me. I'm sure the authorities wouldn't mind if he claimed rent to pay me, after all if he rented a flat he would be entitled to claim more rent than I would charge him. Oh yeah, thats right, the authorities would view that as fraud and prosecute him. It is a pity the MPs dont have to abide by the same rules as us mere mortals.
looking 'aty' what he did...
MP's mis-claiming is stealing
end your internal dialogue, you are wrong.
it's just there is one law for the rest of us schmucks.
and another for our political overlords.
and it fucking stinks.
There is a whole other debate about sexuality, for which I feel a great degree of sympathy for him -although the 30%? who think it's wrong to be gay. (elsewhere in this thread) almost certainly thing being a 'lib dem' is wrong too, so thats not really a defence.
It does seem that this whole gay angle to the story is something that has been rolled out by the spin doctors to try to mitigate the misdeed.
The whole 'repaying' over claimed monies is bollocks too
And I'm not singling him out IMHO (lol) 100's of the theving bastards should be in the dock. I claim expenses as part of my job, and the rule is; if i dont have receipts, or can't otherwise demonstrate that an expense was incurred i don't claim it. I have no problem with that. but i fail to see why anyone else should have a different arrangement. ESPECIALLY when I am footing the bill.
Follow the story and it's pretty clear that he outed himself - and did it to gain sympathy. In other words he thought his sexuality would make people treat him with more sympathy than if he'd been straight. Cynical manipulation by a common thief, but it shows how homosexuality isn't the issue it was 20 years ago.
Like maughtyhorse says, he was a thief. What else does it show when clegg and cameron stand behind this man and call him honourable? They all live on a different planet, and as soon as we realise this, we can start dealing with them properly. Don't beleive a word the shits say. Laws was upset because he got caught stealing our money, no other reason.
There are/were plenty of gay MPs. Kind of ruins the idea that his career would be distroyed by commeing out:
Angela Eagle, Chris Bryant, Chris Smith, David Borrow, Nick Brown to name a few.
It is no longer about how he would be treated, but how he views himself, which is no excuse for brakeing the rules, and not £40k of rule brakeing. I am aware homophobia still exists, and was infact subjected to it myself last Saterday from a taxi driver, but to claime what he has is stupid. Infact I doubt anyone would even have noticed if he did not claim a housing allowence.
The value of fair market rent is nothing to do with it, no more than if someone was claiming rent for a house their husband or wife owned.
> How dare David Laws try not to be ousted as a homosexual because there are so many openly gay politicans in the upper echelons of power...
David Laws did not need to claim rent to keep his sexuality secret. The only reason he has been outed is because he did claim rent that he was not entitled to.
The restriction wasn't that you couldn't demonstrate outside parliament under the previous government - you were perfectly entitled to, but as you say, you had to file the correct paperwork and have ID to hand.
Hopefully the newly branded dictatorship will allow us to once again exercise our democratic right to demonstrate without consent from the police beforehand outside parliament.
You have voluntarily handed over £30 to buy into a scheme which has always been on the cards for cancellation, and you've been exposed to the nation as a retard - if I were you, I'd cut my losses, shut the fuck up, and try and keep your head down unless you also want to be the poster girl for pointless hissy fits. Moron.
And by the way - a Facebook protest group? How old are you, twelve? Grow up.
I agree with your point, but at the moment natural selection would probably somewhat favour the stupid and promiscuous - there's no need for intelligence to survive anymore really (though if you think about it, practicality rather than aptitude for maths is what you'd consider as intelligence in this regard, not that she has either).
And yet back in December she wrote a long article for the Manchester Evening News saying
"I genuinely felt proud and excited when I was finally handed my card. I loved seeing my name, face and the words British citizen on this tiny piece of plastic. That’s who I am, and why shouldn’t anyone know?"
and then followed it up with the classic
"As I’ve said before I understand why people have their reservations, but I personally can’t see what there is to lose if you’re a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide."
and she also drops in the fact that she knows they'll be abandoned if the tories get in.
It's just a shame that they didn't cost more.
Bitching that you lost £30 is fair enough, but bitching that you lost £30 when:
a) you never spent the £30 to begin with, opting instead to photoshop (badly) a specimen card into your hand.
b) you are vocal in your support of ID cards even as you claim you never wanted to be vocal in your support of ID cards
is such monumentally shabby behavior (hounding dead people's relatives notwithstanding) that you ought to be put to work digging ditches with a toothpick until you can offer a sincere apology for what you have done.
"I won’t re-heat my views on the hackneyed, oven-ready arguments that were marshalled in opposition to ID cards. Except to say if you were a law abiding citizen you had nothing to lose and everything to gain from something that carried little more information about you than your supermarket loyalty card."
Yes, sure, nothing to worry about...
"I know I shouldn't be giving her ideas, but I don't think she'll be reading here, do you?"
I hope she does read El Reg - I can picture her now, having read some of the comments here, crying into her latest email from the son of the late, deposed dictator Sani Abacha, her only solace in knowing that shortly, once she's paid this one final demurrage fee, she'll have her 20% of General Abacha's hidden millions.... Stupid, gullible gutter hack.
"If this wasn't a blatantly cynical exercise in tactically doing what most voters wanted" then I don't know what is,"
There, simplified it for you.
And this is bad for what reason Ms Epstein?
It's funny how the use of some unnecessarily obfuscatory words can make it sound like you're saying the exact opposite.
> angry writer's weapons of mixed metaphors and long sentences.
I love that :D
I could be wrong, but I'm reasonably sure that there is nothing she can reclaim in any case - the 30 is for the enrolment, not the card - which if it's on the same basis as a passport (and probably driving licence?) remains the property of the government.
Passport page 2, item 6, 'passport remains property of HMG and may be withdrawn at any time, do not mangle, obliterate or destroy ...' etc.
So she paid 30 for an enrolment and got one and even declared herself a truly satisfied customer shortly afterwards. The card proves that it happened, and presumably successfully, since she was waving it (the real one not the specimen) on the beeb the other day. I really can't see what she's complaining about.
"OK its now useless but then so were beta max videos, BSB Kit and god knows how many other things. Its life - get used to it!"
Betamax videos are just as useful as they ever were, and as useful as VHS is now! You can still play them. BSB kit is useless because there's nothing it can receive.
ID cards were always pointless because if you had the kit to take someone's biometrics you could surely check them against the on-line database. The card itself was irrelevant.
Ok ok so you can still use Betamax videos you have if you have a player but I remember many people bemoaning the fact they had bought Betamax when VHS became the defacto standard in the UK as they could not get films etc any more and were going to have to buy a VHS system as their system was basically obsolete.
I bought VHS but copped for BSB.
P.S. Thats not the R.P. I used to know at N.P is it? Small world if so :)
I remember last year when Oasis played 3 nights at Heaton Park, Manchester. She stamped her feet about 70 000 having a great time, and that they shouldn't be in "her park"
iirc Noel Gallagher called her a ""a ginger whinger from the MEN who has written a couple of shitty little pieces " :D
She's got nothing to hide and she's got a face book group! And she's thirty Quid down! I wouldn't mess with her if I was you! She's a hard hitting hack!
Sell the card on ebay in five years time, it will probably fetch a few bob more than thirty. I'd imagine the museum of fascism* would pay at least £35 for it. And in the mean time, go get a Job on a low profile paper and stop showing yourself up (oh sorry, you already do work for a low profile paper, well it was until you started drawing attention to yourself like a loud mouthed village idiot.)
*If it exists.
Don't know what she's bitching about. She laid down her money (presumably) and had delivered to her exactly what she wanted - a nice, new, shiny ID card. The mere fact that it is now completely useless is somewhat .......er........unfortunate. Wonder what the guarantee is? "Twenty minutes or until you leave the premises, madam, which ever comes the sooner". More fool her for shelling out the dosh but perhaps she could report the government to Trading Standards!
Personally I was prepared to resist having one to the bitter end, even if it meant a court appearance. I detested the idea in the extreme.
Labour's ID Cards can be used to chop fat lines of coke?
Clearly they're in cahoots with the drug dealers! Why else keep the prices artificially high, driving more money into the hands of organised crime and Terrorists?
Any right-thinking person can see that they should be locked up.
See, if she was a good journo she'd be able to come up with something like this and get a _proper_ campaign going...
If she's a Labour supporter (or perhaps just a Stalinist), she's been getting ideologically screwed since at least 1994, so she can't exactly be the brightest journo in the bar if she missed it. Her evident distress will however probably cheer up some of the bereaved she's previously doorstepped. Me too, come to that.
..that the 'seminal' experience akin to the birth of her child is not worth £30 - would she be prepared to have that experience expunged from her memories for a £30 buy-off too - guess so.
Her kid must be chuffed about that.
A phase containing 'fool' and 'money' springs to mind.
As the saying goes, a fool and his money are soon parted. When the ID card scheme was voluntary there was no point having a card, and if it had been made compulsory it would have been difficult to justify having a registration fee without it being classed as a tax.
I already have a passport, work ID and driving licence that I can use if I need to prove my ID, but for most financial stuff a couple of bills and a bank statement are a lot better. If somewhere needs me to prove my age, all they have to do is ask how old I am. Section 146(4) of the Licensing Act 2003 provides a defence for underage sale of alcohol if someone under 18 lies about their age when asked.
Of course the whole point of the ID card scheme was the national ID register, a system which would have brought me no benefits at all and would have actually made life less convenient because of all the pointless admin it would have involved. The text of the Identity Documents Bill is at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/001/11001.1-4.html and makes it very clear that the register must be destroyed and quickly.
If I understand it right, they're not just dropping the whole thing instantly, but letting the issued cards run until EOL. (End Of Life, that's means until they expire, for the acronym impaired)
So, 30 pounds for something that's good for five years, actually sounds like a bargain to me Why all the kvetching?
I think that one's already in general use to describe the National Lottery.
Of course, if she'd used her 30 quid to buy 30 lines on the lottery, she'd have stood a slim chance of getting her money back and an outside chance of making quite a bit more.
So it's targetted at people who are too stupid to fall within the remit of a standard stupidity tax..........Fuckwit tax?........Knuckle-dragging-moron tax?........
"You may not, but a good 30%+ of the British population still views homosexuality as wrong."
That'll be the 30% that likes to watch all girl action movies on Red Hot Kebabs TV, and who are like to see them take the meat up the chuffer.
No double standards, there.
Gay women - good.
Gay men bad.
I wonder why they are so insecure.
David Law's proclivities are irrelevant. Is he a good MP to his constituents, that's what matters.
With a name like Epstein she should be much more wary of ID cards and databases. Has she no sense of history?
A little man with an unusual moustache used ID (with the willing help, by the way, of IBM) to sort out the people he wanted liquidated.
£30? She got off lightly!
This is her article when she got the card
Particularly liked this bit:
"Most significantly, some ventured that as a Jew I must be all too familiar with the sinister wartime echoes of having to prove identity. Why didn’t my skin prickle at the very thought of carrying an ID card?
Personally, I cannot see what there is to lose — and there’s certainly everything to gain. An ID card is a portable, convenient way to prove your identity without having to carry something like a passport with you — which is murder to replace if you lose it."
And i'd just like to add; SuperLOLs
>>"Wow, I figured jewish people of all people would understand the problem seeing as they are the most prominent example of how badly wrong these sorts of ID can become."
Yeah - it's not as if anyone ever got singled out for being Jewish /before/ there were ID cards, and I'm sure in WWII, the forces occupying Eastern Europe always waited to have a fully-functioning ID system in place before packing people off in cattle trucks, or killing them on the spot.
FFS, some hypothetical suddenly-materialising fascist state* which wished to find people of Jewish descent could do a pretty good job just picking on a few geographical areas.
Or using telephone directories.
Or maybe just looking at the last census.
(*why *does* that seem to be the Scary Wet Dream of so many Reg contributors?)
"FFS, some hypothetical suddenly-materialising fascist state* which wished to find people of Jewish descent could do a pretty good job just picking on a few geographical areas."
Perhaps because they saw how far Labour went with what looked *remarkably * like a state that wanted to carry out cradle-to-grave surveillance of *everyone*.
Perhaps they were aware that there are historical precedents for states behaving in this way. Jews (along with the phsically and mentally handicapped, east europeans and homosexuals) were *all* targets of the Nazi regime. But once you've *got* the system all you have to do is set the machinery to the group of your choice. Read it as *any* group an authoritarian (because that's what *all* such states are. Their right/left leaning is pretty much irrelevant).
Perhaps reg readers worked out that even if the Labor governments *intentions* were benign a future administration *could* misuse the nice features that they had *so* carefully built into the machinery of state.
Perhaps they are less trusting of human nature than you.
Perhaps they don't stand to loose a cushy little earner if this goes down the plug.
Back in 2005, Labour won the general election with 33% of the popular vote and assumed it had got itself a solid mandate for the role out National ID cards.
The opposition parties objected, the pressure groups complained, but to no avail, the legislation was passed and the procurement contracts obtained. Five years did pass by dear Angela and the Con-Libs did prevail, with 60% of the national vote, they said it was time for change.
So that's where we stand today. Both Conservatives and Liberals have made it quite clear at least for the past 3 years that were implacably opposed to ID cards and would go to the bother of scrapping them should they be elected back into power. Like the Labour party back in 2005, they assume they have a solid mandate from the electorate to pursue this policy and by the end of the summer, hopefully these wretched things will be history. Form a pressure group for their retention if you will Angela, but Labour's ID card project has come to the end of it's natural life-cycle and a hole is being dug for it's burial.
"Their cards will become invalid one month after the Identity Documents Bill gains Royal Assent, to allow owners to fulfil travel plans. Shortly after the National Identity Register will be destroyed."
The £30 fee was for expenses incurred in the processing of the application (and that's what the Identity Cards Act 2006 states). This would put it in line with similar government issued documents such as passports, driving licenses and visas. Such documents are issued to the holder but remain the property of the government and may be withdrawn under certain conditions (as the Identity Cards Act 2006 makes clear). The application for Epstein's ID card was duly processed and she paid for that processing. More accurately, she paid for some of the processing, with the bulk of the costs dumped onto the taxpayer.
IANAL but if the Identity Cards Act 2006 is repealed, perhaps this woman would be able to get her money back by selling her card as a curiosity.
From her own, earlier blog:
"You may think the £4.7bn scheme is a waste of money and I would admit that the thinking has been flawed in parts. But that’s the beauty of a voluntary scheme and a democratic society. You can choose to have one or not. The Tories have pledged to junk them if they win. And when I had a shmooze with home office minister Meg Hillier on Monday she wouldn’t say whether I’d get my 30 quid back if that happened."
"But that’s the beauty of a voluntary scheme and a democratic society. You can choose to have one or not"
So there you go - nobody put a gun to your head and told you you had to shell out £30 for an ID card. You made the choice, knowing full well that your precious bit of plastic would be worth less than nowt after the election if the Tories got in.
You made a choice which, as it turned out, was the wrong one. That's life - deal with it. Consider your £30 to be your contribution to the moron tax and move on.
In the meantime, cry me a river ...
"I never wanted to be a poster girl for the ID project," Epstein rages.
I don't recall anyone (other than government and those whose wallets would be filled through involvement) banging on about how bloody wonderful the are, all over the place, given any opportunity, and she's still doing it now!
It is indeed amazing that any Jew cannot see anything wrong with ID Card or the NIR database, does not know or has not learned the lessons of history. I was amazed that anyone, Jewish or not, could not see the dangers.
There are 2 groups set up on facebook - muppets!
The wall comments on the 2nd link are particularly amusing.
What happens if you lose money in the real world?
If you purchase a product or service from a company that subsequently goes bust, and you didn't use a credit card to pay, then you would have to get in the queue to claim via the receivers. In all likelihood, you would not get all your money back, and may even lose the lot.
So, Epstein's claim that this is tantamount to theft wouldn't hold water even if she was dealing with a private company rather than a new government elected on a mandate to scrap the cards.
The basic definition of theft is defined in S.1(1) of the Act.
The Act states that: "A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."
The key word here is "Dishonestly".
She paid for a product and service.
The product was provided (plastic ID card), and the service was the processing of her application, which presumably included scanning in her photo, fingerprints, and other biometric data ("please insert your retina into the retina scanner, miss"), which were then transcribed into a datafile which was passed through various means onto the card itself.
Since she was provided with what she asked for, there has been no dishonesty there.
The withdrawal of the card was in accordance with the terms and conditions of its issue, which she agreed to when she signed her application for the card in the first place. So, no dishonesty there either.
No case to answer, then.
In short: She's a muppit of the first order.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019