NO2ID

As I was saying earlier I did a similar thing when this place tried to ban smoking. What I gained from the experience is that it is all to do with how you present yourself. Don't play the part of the victim is rule number one but instead put a strong case directly at the manager in front of the customers. They will use all the usual psychological tactics like “it's the rules, everyone has to do it” etc. You need strong counter replies to these kinds of responses.

I was saying to them after asked whether I saw the signs by repeating "they are not no smoking signs, they are signs of hypocrisy" and kept repeating this as the person who was banning it was a smoker himself. Then I was going on about saying "you are doing exactly what the government wants", "you are doing the governments bidding for them" & “You know what will happen, once they have got people to conform to these rules they will bring in even more petty and stupid rules until your realise enough is enough". “They have got you people under their thumbs" etc etc. I'll tell you, people were not laughing at me but were completely gobsmaked as to how idiotic the ban really was. The manager and staff were impotent as everyone in the room was in strong agreement with me. After that one guy piped up “have you got a cigarette” I thought it was a perfect ending.

Im not sure by what you have said if you got thrown out or were allowed to stay because you created a fuss.

Thing is you will probably be barred now as a trouble maker.

Also as I have said before most people will not say anything and accept it or not go there.

No because I didn't fall into that category. It's all psychology and if you mimic the characteristic of a troublemaker then their programmed heads will run the troublemaker subroutine and you will be kicked out. Instead I was presenting myself as on the side of the people and protector of their liberty. Now I did this entirely on my own yet I was up against all the staff plus manager and this actually had a far more profound effect, one guy standing up to he authorities on their behalf and winning the argument. That sort of thing freaks people out who are scared to venture outside of the group think mindset. The result was entirely positive, one of the staff actually came up to me a few days later full of admiration and others have said what a farce it all was and the only person who people are laughing at is the guy who introduced the ban. All I say is if you want to do this kind of thing you give it 100% of what you have got and let the best man win.

Are you going to do the same thing again at the same place.

Ah, well that's just it. It won't be necessary because they will know what will happen. I keep an eye on my local venue and help it to stay free of government interference. The kind of people who would have gone along with such a scheme have been kicked out a while back after I exposed some dodgy dealings they were involved with so it's quite safe for now. My motto is prevention is better than cure, the sooner we start talking to the people who run our local places of entertainment the better things will be. Naturally if they did dare to try it on I’d be the first person speaking to them about it.

But that would be the tester.

Any betting they would not even let you in next time.

Any betting that you've got an infinite supply of these "yes but" statements, all designed to prevent people from standing up for their rights.

Keep up the good work BVL. It IS worth it.

No ones rights are infringed actually in these cases.

Companies involved are legally entitled to introduce them and anyone who does not wish to enrol does not have to enter the premises.

I am against ID cards and fingerprinting but I do realise that both legally and technologically, they will become widespread.

The thing I am most against is being summonsed for an interrogation to enrol for an ID card which they may want to make compulsory.

I can decide for myself whether a pub gets my custom and if they want my fingerprints etc. I will not give them my custom.

It looks like you will be staying at home with a 4 pack from Tescos then in five years time. It's either a case of none of the pubs use it because the people objected to it in great numbers or it will be a case of every pub has to have it to keep their licence.

Well time will tell if the people stand for this. If they do then you will be doing the same - 6 pack here we come.

Well personally I think the government have pushed this agenda too quickly. People work hard all week and their pleasure is going out at the weekends and meeting with their friends. When this looks threatened they will kick back on mass. I think complete non-cooperation is the only feasible way. We simply have to draw the line somewhere.

It will indeed. One thing is for sure, people like the Baron make a difference and encourage others to stand up and speak out, while the defeatists amoung us only drag us down, making people feel like the situation is hopeless.

What a load of bullshit.

I have written many letters to my MP and local paper (most published).

I will resist ID cards as much as I can but we must not lose perspective on reality and think that everyone will oppose fingerprinting in pubs because they wont. It does not mean they are any less bolshie either, they maybe just dont mind.

It is much more likely if they are encouraged to stand up for themselves, and made to understand the implications.
It is much less likely if you encourage the belief that there is nothing anyone can do about it, which is NEVER true!

You have got to accept that many people could not care less and dont mind fingerprinting for access.

This is a growing trend and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

It will expand depending on its popularity and efficiency.

Why don't they care and why don't they mind fingerprinting for access? Some of them are simply too stupid, but many of them are simply ignorant of the implications. Or are you arguing that they are ALL too stupid?



There is ALWAYS something that can be done. This is obviously true, and the opposite is NEVER true, as I have already said.



You have inadvertently hinted at something that can be done here. Well done.

I am fed up with people on this forum consistently calling other people stupid simply because they dont mind their fingerprints being taken for accessing some places.

There is nothing illegal and it is their choice to vote with their feet and not use the said premises.




There is absolutely nothing that you can do if people dont mind giving their fingerprints if you tried it is you who would be breaking the law. It is up to you if you dont want to give your fingerprints.




Well spotted. All legal commercial enterprise will rise or fall on its costs, commercial acceptance and viability. This has nothing to do with your opinions about fingerprinting for access.

It is now obvious that you are out to twist people's words and are here with an agenda. Tell Tony he will get what's coming to him when you next see him. LOL

There is a contradiction in this sentence. If something is legally sponsored and or legally created it's rise of fall has nothing to do with a free market as you imply. Intentional doublethink I would assume.

Yawn!

I think you are a little confused.

In a free market something can be made commercial if it is legal.

Fingerprinting for access is legal.

If people reject it or it becomes too expensive or does not offer any advantage to the commercial user it will be withdrawn.

Therefore it will it will succeed dependent on it svialbility and usefulness.

Another contradiction. How can a market be free if something must be legally sanctioned to be made commercial.

If the government withholds licences to pubs that do not fingerprint individuals then it is necessary to fingerprint individuals inorder to obtain a license. Therefore figerprinting's advantage would lie in the ability to legally serve alcohol. A gross perversion of term "free market".

If the government has no involvment (which it false) then figerprinting would be a cost that did not offer any commercial advantage and would therefore not even be considered. Pubs that instigated fingerprinting would loose money and would be at a disadvatage to those that offered free access.

Again you are confused.

I never mentioned legally sanctioning something. A device for entry whether it is a key or biometric device is free to be marketted and used.



Where is the evidence that this has or is going to happen.

Even if it were the case again someone can vote with their feet and not enter the premises. It sufficient numbers did this fingerprinting would rapidly be removed as financially damaging.



I refer you to the comments I made some moments ago.

Well done Winston, you have destroyed his "argument".

He won't change it though. Watch.

I wont change as you both have lost both the argument and the plot.

I am against ID cards and will resist them as much as possible but both of you are rather silly if you think you can stop biometric access - you cant so put your feeble energies into fighting ID cards.

Anyway we shall see how fingerprint access develops, it will be interesting.

I hope it fails as I dont like the idea but I cant legally challenge its development. I can only withdraw my support for it by refusing to take part.