NO2ID

http://www.stv.tv/news/ID_card_proteste ... 0143822101

ID card protesters say Home Office is stifling public debate

Campaigners opposed to the government's controversial plans for national identity cards say the Home Office is trying to stifle public debate.

Today in Edinburgh, protestors attempted to gain entrance to a meeting between a Home Office minister and organisations who will be affected by the introduction of ID cards. One protester was thrown out after he tried to make a statement.

...

Story last updated: Monday, 30 June, 2008, 14:58

A fantastic bit of coverage!

The sound on that link doesn't work properly.

OT: odd that you have to have JavaScript enabled in order to even see the text (unless you turn styles off as well)...

A wonderful bit of frontline action. It seems the vid does not work too well but it was kind of surreal in a way, just think how much worse the NIR will perform.

These government people look like they are sitting up in some ivory tower. I especially like the Stasi uniforms and those bagpipes seemed to make that government person look a little confused I must say. The message is clear; it's an 'us and them' situation. The people vs. their plotters and despots.

Check this quote out!



Did they really say that?!!

Are they implying that the information used by a police state is already acquired and so it is wrong to suggest they are creating one and that the correct position is that they have already created it? Hmm.

It's not just me; I have sent the link to a few people and all said that the first half of the audio appears to be layered over the top of the 2nd half, making all of it inaudible.

Sounds doesn't work for me either... got the gist though!


What were you calling yourself, Geraint? I could have told you that "Meg Hillier" was a bit obvious!

Really? Is the project so far advanced that they are ready "later this year" to start issuing the cards? I didn't think so.

I was "lucky" enough to attend the UK Government consultation event in Edinburgh today. Found out about it late last week through the Equality Network. As I work in the voluntary sector I thought I would go along.

I have to agree with Geraint -
1. when asked about the lateness of notification and why so few people knew of the event, we were told the Minister had it in her diary for months!
2.When asked about wider public consultation, we were told that it was happening today - with the police and other "government" departments.
3. When asked to clarify if thecards will be compulsory, answer - it will be up to another government in the future to make that decision.
4. Question - do you need an ID card to claim benefit, have access to health care, access social services - answer was "No".
5. What IS the benefit of having an ID Card as the UK Government keep telling us it will be of benefit? Well - when you go for a bank loan or to get a mortgage - well I don't have a mortgage, will probably never have a mortgage, and as my bank knows me, I can access a loan at any time - what will the benefit be to me? - this threw them a bit - the fact that I don't have a mortgage! Answer - well it will stop someonne stealing your identity when you are online. Question - I don't buy anything online. Answer - it will prove you are who you say you are if you go for another job. Question - how? Change the subject....
6. When asked about consultation with "hard to reach" people, especially young people - they wanted ideas. Not to keen on young people who are not in further education - the young people who are coming out of care, who have mental health issues, who are already in the criminal justice system, who may have a Learning Disability, who have a sensory impairment - hadn't thought of them. But they hadn't thought of how to provide information generally to people who have a problem with written English and cannot use Braille.
7. Question - how do you know that 60% of the population are for ID Cards. We poll regularly. So if the Q is - we need ID Cards to stamp out "illegal wrokers, terrorism and identity fraud". Do you agree? Many of those polled will say Yes. Ergo people are for them. But is it 60 % of the UK population or is it a statistic or is it a projection?

There were many more concerns raised than people in the room saying go ahead we are behind you.

There needs to be more information available to the general public. There must be meaningful consultation with the public - BEFORE the introduction of any cards.

The UK Government must engage with the most vulnerable in our society, and that includes refugees, asylum seekers, survivors of domestic and other forms of abuse, the young people who have been disenfranchised by Government policy, and those people who believe that the only time you have to give your fingerprints to anyone is if you are picked up by the police for an alleged wrongdoing.

Why is simply asking for more meaningful information so much of a hardship for this government?

Same thing in Cambridge - invitations went out on Thursday for an event on the following Tuesday. When challenged about the short notice in a radio interview, Ms Hillier said "We've been planning to come here today for months".

Conclusion - they're issuing the invitations at short nortice to minimise the amount of time available to protesters to get organised.

Ah, I did better than it sounds. I was in there for 20 minutes watching the video and listening to Meg speak. Then when they asked for questions, I put my hand up immediately and was given the microphone. They worked out who I was when I said my real name and told them I was from NO2ID Scotland, and wanting to know why we and the general public were being excluded.

I suspect it is more than that. What the Home Office is doing is in line with its strategy since the beginning. It is seeking to control and minimise any debate, and to engineer an appearance of legitimacy.

Announcing only days in advance to the participants and only a day or so before to the local media means that neither will have much time to consult alternative opinion, and in the event the Home Office will control the agenda and define the terms. What it was looking for here was to be able, in retrospect, to list all those organisations it had 'consulted', to pre-empt and neutralise their objections during the actual roll-out. The propaganda at the time is a secondary function.

Compare the semi-secret "biometrics roadshow" in 2005 which set out to gather vox-pops from the weekdaytime habitués [unprepared audience] of shopping centrest [controlled environment] with an effectively post hoc announcement in local media [so only their story was reported] and culminating in a final date staged for Labour backbenchers in the Home Office, the week before the third reading of the original Bill [the whole object of the exercise, visitors books and clips of 'ordinary people' being impressed by the technology could be shown to legislators whose votes were required]. Cost of that shameless piece of lobbying of parliament, by government, using taxpayer's money and exploiting a selected naive public? £150,000

In case it helps, a suggestion to the Edinburgh Nine, remember:

One side of this debate comprises hot-headed revolutionaries using lies and deceit to terrorise the population*. That is the government.

The other side of this debate uses scientific evidence and logic to uphold the staid, traditional values of a civilised society. That is NO2ID.

The government may try to get the media and the police to make it look as though the positions are reversed – the Alice-through-the-looking-glass gambit. Keep a grip. You've done nothing wrong. The government have.

----------

* See for example Simon Jenkins, ex-Editor of the Times, writing on the occasion of David Blunkett's second resignation from the government:

The campaign continues. See for example today's Telegraph, 'Terror threat to stay for three decades'

annieg's testimony is invaluable. All of it.

No.4, quoted, is of particular interest. Ensuring that only those entitled to them can benefit from public services is one of the most popular components of the government's case for the NIS. On examination, the looking-glass shatters, the answer is "no".

That is why the government has always refused to engage.

That is why last night's episode is important.

Consultation is the last thing the government want. Consultation shows up the fact that they have no case.

That suggests that the government will try to damp down any publicity for last night's events. Be prepared to be disappointed – all charges dropped, editors asked to relegate coverage to half a column inch on p.17 if that, ...

Another suggestion for the Edinburgh Nine in case it helps:

Someone may ask you, a journalist on a radio show perhaps:

Quote:
If the stated case for the NIS shatters on examination, why do the government want to introduce it?

The answer is:

Quote:
We don't know. We have thought about it hard for years, and it remains a mystery. You must put that question to the government. They're the ones who want to introduce the NIS.

Do not get lured into talking about international conspiracies and manipulation by big business. It is up to the government to provide reasons.

I can confirm annieg's report that the Home Office is trying to stifle discussion on the NIS as they seem to be calling it. To be fair, the Edinburgh meeting was explicitly aimed at staff of local authorities and other organizations which might expect to have to use ID cards. There was indeed much grumbling about the lateness of information - an obvious attempt to keep the meeting as secret as possible.

Much of the afternoon session consisted of trawling for ideas on how to sell the scheme to the public, especially younger people, (but not to debate with them of course). One of the questions was: after airport staff, who should we pick on next? They seem particularly keen on pushing the card as a passport-lite for travel within Europe. Some minority groups, e.g. refugees in the UK, British residents in Spain, are alleged to be actively asking for ID cards.

Fortunately there was quite some scepticism about security and identity theft from the council staff around my table. This was brushed away by McLaughlin saying that the Home Office was in touch with the Information Commissioner and that there was nothing to worry about; after all the ID card was there for the public good. When asked about the HMRC debacle and the weekly stories of data loss he remained stone-faced (as when he physically ejected Geraint) and said things were improving.

T'was I who asked that and I asked 'when', not 'if'. The answer was ten years after the voluntary roll-out, i.e. 2021, but as annieg says, that would be up to the government of the day.

In her presentation Meg Hillier said that 100 people would have access to the data. I asked about the reported 700,000 in local councils, police, etc with access. It turns out she meant 100 would have write access - it was unclear about how many are supposed to have read access.

I also asked about the audit trail of card use - possibly the nastiest part of the whole ID Card Act. She said that the trail might be kept for one year or three years. Who decides that and who is not to say that the time period will be indefinite?

I said to one council official leaving in disgust at lunch time "I think she actually believes all this crap" to which the reply was "I agree, that makes it all the more depressing". However another participant said "No, she's a politician. She can present anything".

One interesting bit of information was that the Home Office is already talking to the Conservatives about what will happen when/if they take over in 2010. Meg Hillier seems to think that most of the scheme will continue unchanged, partly because of "international obligations". Anything to do with David Davies resigning?
David Muxworthy

annieg and David: fascinating reports, thank you for posting them. How about writing to the Herald or Scotsman as well? It would be a shame if the people of Scotland only read the Home Office's spin about how well the meeting went (pesky campaigners aside)!

Any chance someone can complain and get the audio sorted out on there? It's almost pointless otherwise. I can't understand a word of what they're saying.

Couldn't find an appropriate email address.

Next time we do one of these I'd like to suggest Geraint or whoever gets the job of attending the meeting on behalf of NO2ID comes with an absolutely huge bodyguard, and I mean huge. They stand out of the way to avoid suspicion until the time he is getting kicked out and simply come up to one of these government people and says, "Are you asking my client to leave?"/ "I don't think he has given you his permission". They would not look so tough then and it might just give them an idea of what it is they are trying to do to the rest of us. Does anyone know any extreme body builders who like wearing dark glasses etc?

Careful. When they say "you don't need an ID card" they more likely mean "there will be alternatives but we will make these as dfficult and inconvnient as possible".

I'd also be wary of the word "claim".

You can just about get some what is being said if you listen to one channel (left or right) at a time but there's a delayed echo and it's all over by about halfway through.

On the other hand we do see someone being shoved out of a door, none too politely, only to find that it's not some yob but a polite young man who stops to explain why he was there. (but would suggest less animated is better for that kind of close-up)

Then we see that woman from the government smugly telling us what to do again.

No question of who's the baddy in this piece.

I see Meg Hillier more as a Jim Hacker figure being guided (led?) by the Home Office mafia.
David Muxworthy

I'd love to agree but her background is in journalism and London housing-she is fully aware of the lies she is peddling and unlike Jim Hacker she is a career politician who is perfectly happy to do it.

I agree absolutely. That is pretty much the answer I give or just ' very good question, any idea??'

We do not have to have all the answers, just lots and lots of questions.