NO2ID

I didn't see any mention at all of NO2ID during or before the local elections. Did you?

Why not?

Probably due to the fact that most people regard it as a 'National' issue and not a local one. I must admit to being rather disapointed by the almost total silence on the subject.

In a way it was an election issue as David Cameron said in an interview this week that he will scrap ID cards.

I'd like to know what the position of the respective councils is, on ID cards, in Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle, as in these three major cities the electorate seemed quite content to return Labour to power and the Tories made no impact whatsoever.

Are the voters in these cities sleepwalking into the totalitarian state about which we have been warning, or have the councils in any of them voted to oppose the implementation of ID cards?

, the councils are Labour (no change), LibDem (no change) and LibDem (no change). Both the latter have passed motions opposing the scheme.

There's been no mention of No2ID in the election coverage for two very good reasons.

1. It is not a political party and not contesting any seats. Did you see any mention of any other pressure-group, Greenpeace, say, in the election coverage?

2. Like it or not, ID is still an issue of marginal interest to voters. It is a subject that a tiny minority of people are yet concerned about, and only the political wonks in the media understand.

Are there actually efforts by NO2ID to appear on the TV?

I haven't seen them once, not once. If NO2ID is serious about wanting to scrap the ID card scheme, then it will have to start appearing on TV and getting the word out.

Regarding the north west: I can certainly vouch that information is not widespread on opposition to ID cards, although, on discussion with people about the issues around the NIR, most people have seriously questioned their original acceptance of the scheme. Part of the problem is that government just ignores the risks and promotes it as a fantastic scheme, and that information to the contrary is not readily available, and sometimes not clear, concise and put in plain English.

I'm organising some activity in St Helens (just next to Liverpool), that will hopefully spill over into Liverpool if I use my contacts properly, so cross your fingers for me.......

Of course, but that is easier said than done.


There have been a few occasions but there is no way to guarantee that they will be seen by everyone.

Have you approached The Gadget Show with a view to discuss the future of surveillance technology, biometrics and their possible future potential for harm - as in science fiction novels and films.

Im sure they could put together quite a show.

Fair enough, but what have you done, how long have you done it for and how is it going? (This is not meant to sound accusative, I am just puzzled that you couldn't even get half an hour on channel 5 or whatever with all this support.)

Me personally, or the campaign as a whole? I haven't had quite as much success with TV as regional radio or newspapers, but have appeared on BBC Scotland's regional news a couple of times. Other local groups have done likewise in other regions. I think Phil Booth has been on national TV a few times; I remember reading about some decent coverage on Sky News recently. Of course, people like Shami Chakrabarti (director of Liberty) are very good at getting our message across on national TV, frequently appearing on current affairs programmes but not specifically there as a NO2ID spokesperson.

Why should the questioner's name matter? I thought we were defending the right to privacy. However, I would prefer it if anonymous posters would at least use a pseudonym to improve the clarity of conversations in tangled threads.

It doesn't really matter even if the poster is from the Home Office. Most of what we do is done entirely transparently and neither I nor any other activists would post any plans on here that we are not happy to reveal to the Home Office in advance. Internet fora are not suitable places for discussing secret plans, no matter how much you may trust the other participants!

I meant the campaign, not any individual.


Well that is encouraging, but what I am getting at is that a programme on TV that will be seen by millions is what is needed. Obviously the people in charge know that, and obviously it is easier said than done. Is there any progress or is there just an acceptance that this will never happen?
NO2ID could very easily organise a petition or something similar, to encourage the production of such a programme.


Yes I have seen her many times on TV and she is extremely good at what she does. It is a shame that there aren't a dozen Shami Chakrabartis spreading the word. It's an even bigger shame that her good work in any given appearance can be undermined by a politician being given the last word and simply saying that she is wrong, or cynical, or anti-Blair or whatever. This doesn't render what she has just said worthless of course, but it does leave the alternative position in the viewer's mind. Making your (NO2ID's) own programme would remove this constraint.

So what have *you* done to help? Plenty of people here seem to be willing to tell NO2ID what it should do--in terms of effects they'd like to see, leaving the small matter of the practicalities to someone else, and completely neglecting the possibility that lots of work can go into doing things without obvious results being forthcoming.

There's absolutely no reason why NO2ID's media negotiations should be public or that Geraint should either know about them or be account for them on a public forum to an anonymous unknown.

But in any case, the same point occurs as in answer to the election coverage: have you seen this done by *any* pressure group of late? NO2ID has made huge impact on informing the media debate, considering it is actually a tiny organisation by comparison with Liberty, never mind Greenpeace or Amnesty.

There is a particular problem, in addition to lack of public interest (without which spending £500,000 an hour on properly reseearched and presented documentary material is hard to justify for a production company). The broadcasting rules in this country would prevent us getting "half an hour on channel 5 or whatever", viz -



Since the Home Office's propaganda can be packaged within news about their policies, then they can get TV time for it as news not editorial. It may be tendentious, but is is not classified as view or opinion. They are spending millions to do so. There is a systematic bias in the code, in that NO2ID could not successfully purport to be neutral as a government department does, even could it afford to match the PR budget.

NO2ID won't get its own programmes. What it will do increasingly - *but if and only if* the people reading this forum actually go out there and campaign to the general public enough for it to be recognised as a real-world movement - is to be asked to comment on other people's programmes.

No it couldn't. Organising such a petition might be easy (though probably not as easy as you think) but the effect would just be to make the campaign look like a bunch of morons. Broadcasters make programmes because they believe they will appeal to audiences of hundreds of thousands or millions, not because they are begged to do so.

What makes you say/think that?


Right well, instead of begging, broadcasters could merely be made aware that a programme detailing all the disadvantages of the ID card and the NIR would appeal to an audience of hundreds of thousands or millions. I think you should think your dismissals through a bit more.

I have done very little compared to most people here. I want a programme on TV detailing the ins and outs of the ID cards and the NIR. This would have extremely positive results unless it was done very badly. Yes it would be hard work, no I won't be doing it and yes that is a wee bit cheeky. What's wrong with asking?


If NO2ID don't want people knowing their business, then I'm willing to accept being told that they don't want to tell me. This doesn't and shouldn't stop me asking questions, nor should it stop you from assuming bad things about me.


Fair point, but that doesn't really affect my opinion about the benefits that would be obtained from a well-made TV programme.


There are ways round these rules.


Excellent point - this should be pointed out in the programme.


Yes, this is probably a more realistic target. "Other people's programmes" could act as a NO2ID production in disguise and invite a NO2ID spokesperson on to confirm what has been said.

There are several independent TV companies pitching ideas to the likes of Channel 4, Channel 5 and the BBC with whole series i.e. half a dozen programmes on various surveillance state / civil liberties issues.

None are quite yet ready for broadcast.

It is perfectly possible for a TV programme on the subject to be done very badly:-

Some of the more sensationalist media people have been asking stupid questions like "how do you hack into the National Identity Register database", which NO2ID would not want to be associated with, apart from the fact that the technical specification for the NIR has not yet been finalised, and nothing has been built yet.