NO2ID

OK, I understand that failing to register won't be a criminal offence, but they will keep on fining you to prevent martyrs.

However is damaging the card a criminal offence?

So if we hold a mass protest and burn our cards, will the gov't imprison us all? I doubt it

Any comments?

Thanks

Goldenballs

Yes; both in itself without a mens rea requirement, and as criminal damage of the Secretary of State's property, if intent be proved.

Under the Bill it is an "offence" to "fail to notify authorities about a lost, stolen, damaged or defective card" - I guess that means destroyed or burnt as well. You would also be charged and fined for "failure to renew a card".

You would have already registered your details on the NIR so as to get id cards to burn in the first place and the home office doesn't really care whether or not you have a copy of the details to use in your every day life (they will make sure that you need this card to live, i.e. buy, sell, work, get paid, put money in/take money out of your bank). They will keep hounding you for the "fine" with regard to "damaging your card and "failing to renew" but at the same time you will be the one who is sufferng as you will have no access to "services" but you will have capitulated to their scheme and registered for the NIR (in order to get the cards).

And, "will the gov't imprison us all". Well the Dutch government seems to be having no problem with that, so the answer is probably "yes"!

Also under the Bill, there will always be a fee for the replacement card. This would include cards that are defective because a person's biometrics have changed.

Not true. Under the bill, there may be a charge. Whether there is, and under what circumstances, will depend on regulations issued by the Home Office.

But surely as ID cards will be the property of the Secretary of State, we should just keep returning them to him. If loads of people repeatedly did that the whole system would become untenable?

Or perhaps we should just ignore requests to attend processing centres where they plan to issue ID cards in the first place?

Stephen

if the cards are the property of the Secretary of State, isnt it law for you to be responsible for your own property , how can you be responsible for somebody elses property, ask to sign a decleration, that you will not be responsible for loss or theft of his property left on your premises, technically you can refuse to have one on the grounds that you will not be responsible for loss of somebody elses property, so whats next, you buy a house, you can live in it, but it remains the property of the home secretary, and your paying for it, yee ok labour.

It is my contention that "your" house which you might have bought and paid for, and might have even been "in your family" for generations, is actually the property of government anyway. You pay "rates" and "land taxes" on "your" property and if you do not pay them the council will seize and forcibly sell your property to get what they are "owed". It is pretty much the same with your car, I believe that government actually "owns" it. Why else do they "have the right" to demand "registration fees" (don't be distracted by thinking that the money you pay for "motor registration" goes to build and maintain roads. You pay amply for this in your ordinary taxes). Now if you find this hard to swallow, why then does the government "have the right" to demand to make the decision even where you place the MOT sticker.

You may have a house, and live in it (at the discretion of the government of course) and can even on-sell it. But what you are actually doing is on-selling the lease. To believe that you actually own it is an illusion.

This is my theory anyway. I also believe that a lot of things that we think we "own" are actually the property of the state. If it wasn't like that at all, no government would have the power to "seize" or "confiscate" things will, nilly (your "driving licence" is another one).

So it doesn't suprise me to learn that the "id card remains the property of the home secretary". The money you would be required to pay is for the use of the card until such time as, either the home secretary decides to "revoke" it, or it is outdated (i.e. you changed your address or something) and to compensate government for the cost of producing the card and entering your data on the NIR.

But all this is pretty irrelevant because it is not "having the card" that matters so much but registering on the NIR. I'm sure government doesn't really care much what attitude you have towards the physical card, as long as they have your details on the NIR. If you send it back to the home secretary or leave it at his office refusing to "take responsibility for other peoples' property" then you will be the only one to be hurt, as you will unable to access all public services without production of the card. Quibbling about who actually "owns" the physical card is going to affect only you. As far as the home secretary is concerned if you lose it, whether or not it is "his" or "yours" is irrelevant, you still have to pay for another one or be "fined" and go without "public services".

Sounds great, or at least it would have been 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago.

However, how about your bank account? Or credit card? Or Driving licence, "road tax" etc? (Though I suppose you could always give a "letter drop" addess for those).

Somehow I think you won't be alone. If Nu-Labour get their id cards/NIR there will be a lot of people living like this.

Horsedrawn transport might be the way to go. Government hasn't found a way to "confiscate and crush" horses yet, as I see they are doing with "cars found to be travelling on our roads with no insurance" (I was horrified to see it on TV the other day, they showed pictures of a car with a baby sitting in the back in a baby seat. And the family was ordered out of the car so it could be towed away to be "crushed". So, presumably the family was left by the side of the road - and they could have lived miles away and had no money and no credit card - with a small baby and a "demand for money", and no car). I found it really hard to accept what the reporter said about it being all for "road safety".

I don't know whether or not "gypsies are exempt". I rather doubt it, but shouldn't comment. Does anyone know what the law with regard to that is?

The mind boggles when I try to imagine the chaos that UK society will be if the NIR/id card scheme ever gets a grip.

I do already. I'm an IT contractor and work all over the country. I find that living in a caravan is much more enjoyable and practical than living out of a suitcase in a hotel (and much cheaper). I joined the Caravan Club and move around caravan club CL sites depending on what contract I am working on. I am from a farmers family and value the outdoor life enormously hence why I find this way of life so enjoyable. I get to stay in some of the most beautiful country locations, silence and no light pollution etc. I do have a fixed address but I am hardly ever there.

It really is a nice way of life, I just hope that I can continue to live like this if the NIR becomes law.

I have so many questions about this, here it is pretty simple, almost exactly like what Rob described. We lived in a caravan for quite some time a couple of years ago now and it didn't pose any great problems, though even then I was reading about all sorts of new "proposals" to make this sort of thing impossible. However, I realise that laws in UK are probably very different, so:

Is it compulsory to insure your caravan?
When Alistair Darling's "scheme" comes into being, will your caravan be required to be "tagged" as well as the vehicle towing it?
Do you always have to go to a "camp site" or can you "park up" beside a river, or somewhere?
If you go to a camp-site do you have to "show some form of id" (as it stands now - let alone when/if the id card/NIR comes into being)?

Well, this way of life will be made illegal unless you are fully registered, taxed, insured, MOTed, RFid tagged etc etc.

You think you won’t be found? Think again. There are already many cameras on roads all across the country and these will multiply in the future. These cameras will track your movements and any “suspicious activity” reported to the police. The police will find you, arrest you if you are not “legit” and take your DNA, fingerprints etc and enter you onto the database. If you have children they’ll probably be taken off of you, as you cannot possibly be making sure they are schooled properly and “as you’re on the fringes of society, you’re probably abusing them anyway”.

Under the last Tory government, things have already been made almost impossible for travelling people. Do you know it’s an offence to camp or stay anywhere on or next to a highway? Many other new powers against travelling people were also given to the police at that time. Of course, no-one cared, because the media was full of reports about the damage and inconvenience wrought by travelling people, or “gypoes/hippies” as they liked to dehumanise them. First they took away the gypsies, but I wasn’t one of them….

A while back I remember there was a case of someone who wanted to live in a caravan ON THEIR OWN LAND. The local council told them they couldn’t, so it went to the EU court, but the EU court sided with the local council!

Then of course there’s the question of what you would do if you needed medical services…

Successive governments have been waging war on travelling people. Civil servants really don’t like people that can’t be pinned down.

I can't believe that people generally let this happen. Are people generally so concerned that others might have the freedom to travel and actually not have to check in with civil servants about their every move? So concerned, and envious that is, that they are willing to let "laws" like these be put in place.

"There are many cameras on roads all across the country and these will multiply in the future". I can understand, even condone, cameras on private businesses as people usually have a choice as to whether or not to enter private property, but there is absolutely no excuse to have cameras on public roads. They only stay there because people have been conditioned to accept them.

I believe there are many, many travellers who regularly travel and camp throughout UK and have for a thousand years. Why all of a sudden is their lifestyle no longer acceptable? Now it seems that everybody has to be categorised and put in little boxes where they can be counted, the role taken, guards (or cctvs) posted everywhere to make sure nobody steps out of line and tries to escape into the country side (or camps by a road). Next, entire cities will be under curfew and before you know it the police will come round in the evening to make sure everyone in a house is accounted for and the doors locked for the night.

I can see all of this happening with "most people" begging for it to happen, and quickly. So, not only will UK be a prison to those who don't want to surrender their biometric information to get a passport, but at the rate things seem to be going UK people will be treated like prisoners too.
And their jailers - lots and lots of petty civil servants.

Maybe the id card/NIR Bill is just a symptom of this mentality.

Any comments?

Hi Carol Anne, as a Brit who recently spent time in NZ and who knows quite a few Kiwis, I can offer my view.....
There's an authoritarian streak running through this country (UK), but I think it's partly because we're not a very tolerant or cohesive society. People are very ready to blame others for all ills rather than look at their own behaviour. There also seems to a tradition towards sound-bite sloganeering on many issues, so that informed debate and comment is dismissed as "boring". I blame Mrs Thatcher's philistine attitude to anything that didn't make loads of cash for this (but I accept this is part of my personal dislike of her and her followers and is therefore somewhat biased).
Whatever caused it, it means that many people take the view that no-one could possibly object to surviellance by the state unless they were "up to no good"


There is a particular problem with travellers. We are a very crowded island. In the past when we were a more rural society, there was more common land and it was easier to accomodate the needs of travellers without encroaching on the "settled" community. There was also work available in agriculture and related trades. Now space is at a premium and the old trades that provided work are scarce. Non of this is an excuse for the authoritian regime - but some (by no means all of course) travellers do manage to evade the law and take advantage and this can cause resentment.

I don't want to have to travel around in order to evade the state - in fact I don't really want to evade the State - I keep to the law, and therefore I don't feel the need for the State to manage my identity.

Funnily enough I am considering emigrating (I really never thought I would) to NZ.

I'm not so sure about the legality of living in a caravan. I think there has to be a specific bylaw which prevents you from either parking or staying in the caravan on a public highway. I'm not certain about this however.

I spend quite alot of time skiing in France, and I have NEVER had any problems with staying in either my campervan or caravan out there. Indeed, loads of people do the same and the French never have any problem with it. Quite often there are dozens of campervans parked up often for months on end in public car parks while they enjoy the seasons skiing. The french even have facilities for caravans on their payages. The French seem to encourage the active outdoor life. Whereas the UK seems to only encourage conformity.

It is impossible to do the same here in the UK as you will be moved on rapidly by the police. They even have the audicity to try to charge (7 quid I think) for staying more than 2 hours on a motorway service station!

I have never been asked for ID when booking into a campsite. Usually I am asked for my address however.

I think it's more because "most people" simply don't know or care. And certainly back in the 80s, when I lived a couple of miles away from stonehenge, there was a great deal of trouble with so-called travellers. That's from personal experience, not newspapers.

As for waging war on them, I think it works both ways. If you're driving, say, a bus on the road that's in a poor state of repair and are uninsured, is that fair to other motorists? Is it fair to invade someone's land and camp there? Freedom to live outside of society is fine, but you can't have your cake and eat it.

Anyhow, back to the NIDs - yes I'm sure it would be bad for travelling people. I doubt if they even figure as an afterthought in the minds of the lawmakers though. And I can't really see how it'll be any worse for them, than for the rest of us.

I think that the travellers will just carry on as normal and will refuse to comply with the NIR, which is exactly how I, a tax paying individual intend to react to this whole facade.

I agree - and that's why the government's claims about the effects on crime and illegal working are such nonsense (looks around for bouncers) - but for people like you and I who try to stay within the law and operate bank accounts and so on, it will be made very difficult.

It may be illegal to try and repeal Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights Act etc. but it looks like the government have already done so. Or at the very least IGNORED IT!!

And specifically, the Bill of Rights Act, well Charles Clarke's attitude towards this is "in my view the provisions of the Identity cards Bill are compatible with the convenion rights". I take this to mean that he believes that not only has the English Bill of rights Act been superceded by the European convention on human rights, he has also twisted the meaning of the words in the ECHR to mean what he wants them to mean, i.e. absolutely nothing. Perhaps he sees it as a "wish list" for better treatment of people, nohing more.

I get the impression that members of the UK government, if not the people themselves, see things like Magna Carta and the English Bill of rights etc. as being merely window dressing, quaint and of some obscure hisorical importance only, and totally irrelevant to today's society Things that a tour guide can use when showing tourists round the sights of London, saying: "we used to respect human rights but that was ages ago, before terrorism". Would that be a correct assumption?

Tony Blair did say let no-one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing"!! I also take his to mean that he thinks he can do anyhing he likes and doesn't have to pay heed to any "niceties of a by-gone age".

Another thing that concerns me about finding out what is going on in UK at the moment is that the government (and the people also) seem to have lost their spirit, their patriotism. What ever happened to "there will always be an England", "Britons never, never, will be slaves", or "British democracy"? All these things seem to have been thrown out and just deemed to be "old world" and it is sad.

Hi All

Im new to this site however i cant wait for the new ID card scheme to come out all those benefits that are to be had. I mean having my finger prints taken like a common criminal. Having to prove who i am everytime i want a packet of fags etc etc. Great!!!!!! Being sent an instant fine if i dont register or renew for one. It will be just like the road tax adverts except it will be for people not cars. Might as well stamp a bar code on our foreheads and be done with it.

Hey a card is for life not just xmas!

"It's part of being a good citizen, proving who you are day in, day out."

The UK has no written constitution, therefore there are no absolute rules about what can or cannot be done constitutionally. There is no 'higher form of law' than an Act of Parliament. A Bill needs only a simple majority (at each reading) in Commons and Lords to become law. Each and every Act of Parliament is subject to repeal, and implied repeal, that is any new piece of legislation which contradicts an earlier Act is deemed to have repealed that part of it which is contradictory.

The Human Rights Act 1998 [HRA] is simply an ordinary Act of Parliament and can be easily repealed or amended at any time if Parliament has the will to do so. There is also no true separation of powers between executive, legislature and judiciary in the UK, consequently there is no Supreme Court here analogous to that in the US, which has the right to 'strike down' unconstitutional legislation. The best that the Law Lords can do is to make a declaration that an Act is incompatible with the HRA, thus putting pressure on the government to amend the offending legislation.

New Labour intend to set up a Supreme Court, instead of the Law Lords, but this SC will not have the power to strike down unconsitutional legislation, so the change is more cosmetic than anythign else.

The HRA brought parts of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Britain was the first signatory to the ECHR in 1951, but the last European state signatory to incorporate it into its legal system.
It is significant that the HRA omitted Article 13 of the Convention, which is the Article that guarantees the citizen an effective remedy if his/her rights are abrogated. In my opinion this omission significantly weakens the HRA.

Really the HRA is not a substitute for a true Bill of Rights or a written constitution, which would be entrenched, in the sense that they would be protected from repeal, implied repeal, or amendment by special mechanisms, such a requirement for a two-thirds majority in Parliament, and special procedures to be followed, such as extended time periods before each vote took place.

As for Magna Carta, this was a document which the Barons forced King John to sign because he was trying to limit their powers and influence. I don't think it seriously plays a great part in guaranteeing much in the way of rights to the ordinary citizen today.

Prior to the HRA, UK citizens had 'liberties' rather than 'rights'. The difference is that if someone infringes your liberty, then you are the one
who has to fight to uphold that liberty. A 'right' on the other hand, if it is interfered with, empowers the individual citizen to call upon the state (essentially the courts) to upold that right. Hence rights are much stronger than liberties.

It may, at some stage, especially if ID Cards become compulsory, or if they contain RFID chips, to challenge the ID Cards legislation with the HRA. If the challenge was successful, the government of the day would be faced with the dilemma of either amending its ID cards legislation or ditching aspects of the HRA.

It isn't true that the UK has no written consitution, nor does it follow that therefore there are no absolute rules. Such rules could exist without writing.

However, the rest is true. Parliament is sovereign and there is no distiction of status between constitutional and other legislation in our system.