Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I personally have always been against ID cards on the basis that the minute a country has them; laws mandating their production on demand appear five seconds later. If you go to Germany, to France, to wherever; the police can demand that you show them your ID card.

IDK your experience but in Germany they can't demand it either, there is no legal obligation, its an identification requirement, not a carrying one. Afaik France is the same. What you describe is an abuse of power which has nothing to do with ID. What you use to start of a description of abuse of power is already abuse itself.

You're right; I wasn't specific enough. The police in Germany can demand official identification, which can be in the shape of a passport or ID card. And then insist on detaining you/accompanying you home to view it if you cannot produce either. So yes, the two are not necessarily intrinsically linked or mutually inclusive. You can produce a passport instead.

I think however, we can all identify the obvious link between a law mandating the identification of oneself upon demand, and a law mandating the allocation of a specific ID to every citizen.

 Ketara wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I personally have always been against ID cards on the basis that the minute a country has them; laws mandating their production on demand appear five seconds later. If you go to Germany, to France, to wherever; the police can demand that you show them your ID card.

IDK your experience but in Germany they can't demand it either, there is no legal obligation, its an identification requirement, not a carrying one. Afaik France is the same. What you describe is an abuse of power which has nothing to do with ID. What you use to start of a description of abuse of power is already abuse itself.

You're right; I wasn't specific enough. The police in Germany can demand official identification, which can be in the shape of a passport or ID card. And then insist on detaining you/accompanying you home to view it if you cannot produce either. So yes, the two are not necessarily intrinsically linked or mutually inclusive. You can produce a passport instead.

I think however, we can all identify the obvious link between a law mandating the identification of oneself upon demand, and a law mandating the allocation of a specific ID to every citizen.

They can't demand it if you haven't done anything wrong, again what you describe is abuse of power and not how the German identification duty works. And in Germany the passport is also recognized as a valid ID. That's the way it works, you either get a passport or an ID card...

The obvious link that hasn't been made by the countries you named in question even though the systems have existed for over a decade? There are no laws that mandate you have to identify yourself on demand like that, its a mischaracterization of how the system works.

 Ketara wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Sorry. I have lived in finland 36 years and randomly i have been asked to show drivers licence once in my life.

It must be nice to not appear suspicious for no reason or fault of your own. Sadly, not every person of colour has that pleasure.

Yes but then again id card plays zero part there. If goverment wants you to identify yourself you will do it. Brits have no means they prove yourself somehow? If not then what stops me from taking loan with your name?

Id provides draconian goverment nothing they didn't have before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That coloured people can be subjected to random id check just as well without id card as with it. That issue has nothing to do with id card and all with abuse of power that lack of id card doesn't prevent

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

They can't demand it if you haven't done anything wrong, again what you describe is abuse of power and not how the German identification duty works. And in Germany the passport is also recognized as a valid ID. That's the way it works, you either get a passport or an ID card...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation_of_identification

The German Act on Identity Cards and Electronic Identification (German: Personalausweisgesetz) requires all citizens over the age of 16 to be in possession of an identity card or passport and to be able to present this document to authorities on request, allowing for fines of up to 5000 € in cases of violations.[2] Except for specific circumstances, the act however does not demand carrying such a document at all times; in cases of suspicion of a crime and/or severe doubts as to the identity, police officials may temporarily apprehend persons or accompany them to their homes to produce the document there.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/europe/cologne-police-alleged-racial-profiling/index.html
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/12/15/13952790/racial-profiling-america-germany
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/interview-with-plaintiff-of-racial-profiling-case-in-germany-a-864932.html

I could link more, but it's quite clear that ID laws can be used as a tool of racial discrimination in Germany. All that has to be done is to make up a 'suspicion', and then you can start hassling for ID, followed by arresting them if they can't produce it. I would wager good money that refusing to do so on liberal grounds that it's none of their business would almost guarantee such an outcome.

tneva82 wrote:

That coloured people can be subjected to random id check just as well without id card as with it. That issue has nothing to do with id card and all with abuse of power that lack of id card doesn't prevent

It rather does, actually. If a policeman in the UK wants to hassle a black teenager, he can't do it on the basis of a lack of ID. He can't use their lack of it as an additional basis for arrest either. I'll happily admit that it doesn't always stop these things; but it's one less tool in the arsenal of an official with a prejudice.

tneva82 wrote:
Brits have no means they prove yourself somehow? If not then what stops me from taking loan with your name?

The police here have no right to demand I ID myself. They can request it, I can refuse it, and unless they have a genuine reason for thinking I'm about to/have committed a crime (specifically an arrestable offence as opposed to civil) and arrest me? There is nothing that they can do. To quote the .gov website

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

'A police officer might stop you and ask:

what your name is
what you’re doing in the area
where you’re going

You don’t have to stop or answer any questions. If you don’t and there’s no other reason to suspect you, then this alone can’t be used as a reason to search or arrest you.'

That doesn't do anything to back up the argument that they can just ask for your ID, even wikipedia specifies its an identification requirement. We have moved from "they can just demand it" to police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, which happens regardless of specific rules.

In both Germany and the Netherlands I can simply refuse to ID myself as well. Unless they have a genuine reason. This is no different, you seem to assume its a carrying requirement.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That doesn't do anything to back up the argument that they can just ask for your ID, even wikipedia specifies its an identification. We have moved from "they can just demand it" to police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, which happens regardless of specific rules.

Errr....Mate, I conceded at the top of this page that it was 'ID card or Passport'. Seriously, go look. I also acknowledged that those abuses can happen regardless, but also stated that it gives one less tool to those who would do so.

Given that not everybody owns a passport though (some people don't travel), a law requiring identification would be physically unable to function if it relied entirely upon passports. In other words, a law requiring people identify themselves on demand is unable to function without a 'National ID card' scheme (or a horse by any other name). By rejecting the law mandating I should have an ID card, I am thus able to reject any subsequent law (which most countries with ID cards inevitably slip in alongside the former) requiring I identify myself on demand by state officials.

Does that clear it up for you?

In both Germany and the Netherlands I can simply refuse to ID myself as well. Unless they have a genuine reason.

According to the link above, actually, you can't refuse in Germany. You don't get to decide what counts as a 'genuine reason'. You are legally obligated to present your ID, be it on the spot, or at your house. And if you do not, the police are able to count that against you as a reason to detain you further; whereas in Britain you are not legally obligated to produce it, and they cannot use your denial as an additional motivation for arrest.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That doesn't do anything to back up the argument that they can just ask for your ID, even wikipedia specifies its an identification requirement. We have moved from "they can just demand it" to police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, which happens regardless of specific rules.

In both Germany and the Netherlands I can simply refuse to ID myself as well. Unless they have a genuine reason.

But that's his point - police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, so surely the better option is to give them less rules to abuse. Also given the fact that police will abuse the rules, even a loosely worded "requirement" like the German one will, in practice, lead to lots of people carrying the ID cards at all times and producing them on-demand just to avoid the hassle, and once that precedent is established people who still refuse to do it even if perfectly within their legal rights to do so will be seen as "troublemakers".

Look at how the debate on online privacy has evolved over the years, where we're now at the point where merely expressing a preference to remain anonymous or pseudonymous because what you're doing online is nobody else's bloody business any more than what you're doing in the street or in your home is will have the tabloid crowd speculating you're a paedophile and the rabid end of identity politics advocates speculating you're a racist misogynist troll, with lots of people now firmly in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mindset.

Give an inch and they will take a mile.

 Cruxeh wrote:


Even if only because it implies you think that the government would not get to know about your mortgage. Now I am not entirely certain about the british system, but I'dd wager the government gets to know at least: when you bought your mortgage, what you used for colleteral (particularly if said colleteral happens to be a house or some other form of real estate, though planes and ships could also be used), how high your mortgage is, and at which bank you bought said mortgage. So do tell, how exactly do you think you'll be anonymous when buying a mortgage? Short of wearing a Guy Fawkes mask during the entire process, of course.

No, the government doesn't find out about the individual details of a specific mortgage. They know how much is due in tax. The local government get to know your address for tax purposes, vote registration, bin collections etc. The land registry for who owns the land gets updated (but wouldn't apply for a flat for example). However the details of the specific mortgage aren't transferred to any UK government database. Overall statistics are collated and provided by the industry. I think there must be a fundamental difference in how it operates, because it all happens through estate agents, banks and legal firms. Please if you can find a UK government department that knows specifically everyone's mortgage details then I'm quite happy to stand corrected.

I have still to find any valid reason being argued for a national ID database. The argument seems to swing from it prevents fraud (but it still happens in those countries with IDs) to I've only ever been asked once for such an ID - which raises the question as to why you should log all a persons details as part of a mandatory registration if you only have to display it once in a lifetime?

 Ketara wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

They can't demand it if you haven't done anything wrong, again what you describe is abuse of power and not how the German identification duty works. And in Germany the passport is also recognized as a valid ID. That's the way it works, you either get a passport or an ID card...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation_of_identification

The German Act on Identity Cards and Electronic Identification (German: Personalausweisgesetz) requires all citizens over the age of 16 to be in possession of an identity card or passport and to be able to present this document to authorities on request, allowing for fines of up to 5000 € in cases of violations.[2] Except for specific circumstances, the act however does not demand carrying such a document at all times; in cases of suspicion of a crime and/or severe doubts as to the identity, police officials may temporarily apprehend persons or accompany them to their homes to produce the document there.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/europe/cologne-police-alleged-racial-profiling/index.html
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/12/15/13952790/racial-profiling-america-germany
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/interview-with-plaintiff-of-racial-profiling-case-in-germany-a-864932.html

I could link more, but it's quite clear that ID laws can be used as a tool of racial discrimination in Germany. All that has to be done is to make up a 'suspicion', and then you can start hassling for ID, followed by arresting them if they can't produce it. I would wager good money that refusing to do so on liberal grounds that it's none of their business would almost guarantee such an outcome.

tneva82 wrote:

That coloured people can be subjected to random id check just as well without id card as with it. That issue has nothing to do with id card and all with abuse of power that lack of id card doesn't prevent

It rather does, actually. If a policeman in the UK wants to hassle a black teenager, he can't do it on the basis of a lack of ID. He can't use their lack of it as an additional basis for arrest either. I'll happily admit that it doesn't always stop these things; but it's one less tool in the arsenal of an official with a prejudice.

tneva82 wrote:
Brits have no means they prove yourself somehow? If not then what stops me from taking loan with your name?

The police here have no right to demand I ID myself. They can request it, I can refuse it, and unless they have a genuine reason for thinking I'm about to/have committed a crime and arrest me? There is nothing that they can do. To quote the .gov website

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

'A police officer might stop you and ask:

what your name is
what you’re doing in the area
where you’re going

You don’t have to stop or answer any questions. If you don’t and there’s no other reason to suspect you, then this alone can’t be used as a reason to search or arrest you.'

Okay, so your problem is that police officers in Germany stop people of colour? And exactly how is an ID a problem in that? A racist cop stops you, asks for ID, you show it and then the cop has no choice but to let you go. In the UK, this problem already exists in exactly the same way: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/oct/26/stop-and-search-eight-times-more-likely-to-target-black-people, except they can't ask you for an ID (but they can still ask for your personal details anyway and arrest you if you give false information, and if there are plenty of scenarios where you are obliged to stop and answer their questions (such as when you are driving a vehicle or they have a reasonable suspicion you are doing or have done something illegal). I don't see the problem with showing your ID to a cop. So now he knows what your name is and how old you are. So what? That is not sensitive information in any way. All there is on an ID card is information is mostly public knowledge already anyway. All that an ID card does is prove you are speaking the truth, just like a passport or driving license (which not everyone has) so that the cop doesn't have to take you to the police station to confirm your identity, which saves you ages of time and inconvenience.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Okay, so your problem is that police officers in Germany stop people of colour? And exactly how is an ID a problem in that?

You've got it literally the wrong way around.

My problem is that state officials have the ability to stop you and harass you on the pretext of checking for ID, and then count it against you if you refuse to/cannot produce it (going so far as to being able to arrest you as a result). And them having that power in turn means that they have an additional tool by which to hassle and detain people; be it because of colour, protesting for animal rights, or whatever.

As someone who believes my business and identity are my own, I see no reason for state officials, be they police or council workers, to be able to demand something of me. If there is a genuine suspicion that I have committed an arrestable offence, then arrest me. Otherwise, leave me be.

 Ketara wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That doesn't do anything to back up the argument that they can just ask for your ID, even wikipedia specifies its an identification. We have moved from "they can just demand it" to police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, which happens regardless of specific rules.

Errr....Mate, I conceded at the top of this page that it was 'ID card or Passport'. Seriously, go look. I also acknowledged that those abuses can happen regardless, but also stated that it gives one less tool to those who would do so.

Given that not everybody owns a passport though (some people don't travel), a law requiring identification would be physically unable to function if it relied entirely upon passports. In other words, a law requiring people identify themselves on demand is unable to function without a 'National ID card' scheme (or a horse by any other name). By rejecting the law mandating I should have an ID card, I am thus able to reject any subsequent law (which most countries with ID cards inevitably slip in alongside the former) requiring I identify myself on demand by state officials.

Does that clear it up for you?

In both Germany and the Netherlands I can simply refuse to ID myself as well. Unless they have a genuine reason.

According to the link above, actually, you can't refuse in Germany. You don't get to decide what counts as a 'genuine reason'. You are legally obligated to present your ID, be it on the spot, or at your house. And if you do not, the police are able to count that against you as a reason to detain you further; whereas in Britain you are not legally obligated to produce it, and they cannot use your denial as an additional motivation for arrest.

But the issue is that demanding ID without reason works the same as in the UK. Its both the same step in abuse, then they can fine you on the continent in said abuse. But that is already against the law. The only thing an ID card adds is an illegal fine you can appeal against.

Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.

Again, the link states you can't refuse in case of genuine suspicion

Police checks are not allowed without grounds for suspicion. 

Do you get to decide what counts as genuine suspicion for police in the UK? Demanding your ID based on racial profiling is abuse of power, hence the article on the student also having won his case. You're legally obligated, with genuine reason. The issue is when police are already abusing their power the can arrest you regardless ID law or not.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Mighty plastic card indeed. Just by piece of plastic with zero data goverment doesn't already have you lose all your freedom! The horror!

If you are so worried about freedom against goverment why you would be crazy enough to be here chatting about that? Internet is infinently bigger danger for that than id card

Because that is my choice as to when and where I am anonymous? That is the whole point of civilian rights, to allow you to have the option as to how you present yourself to the world.

Again, how does an ID card enable the government to know where you are if they can't ask you for it unless you have done something wrong which would already result in the police identifying you. Its not a carrying duty. There is no way to track an ID card.

The "Nothing to hide nothing to fear" argument has been proven wrong time and again. Just look at the number of stop and search's that result in nothing. The police could very much stop and ask you to show your ID.

Lets look at it the other way, what is the advantage for the huge implementation cost? What advantage does it have over a passport or drivers licence as a form of ID?

No they can't, again they aren't allowed by law to ask you that, identification duty, not carrying one.
And my passport is my ID! An ID card is just a cheaper option if you don't want a passport.

tneva82 wrote:
Convincing arqument against id card claiming police would do something that's specifically forbidden by law. And before somebody claims law can be changed for tyranny...well yes they can but id card doesn#t allow it. They could just as well change it so police can put you on jail just for fun. If goverment wants to get nasty id card neither helps nor opposes that. It has same data goverment has and if goverment wants you to identify then you identify yourself one way or another. Or if goverment is dictatorship some people here fears they just jail you id card or not

tneva82 wrote:
Ahahahahahahahaahahahaha!!!

Sorry. I have lived in finland 36 years and randomly i have been asked to show drivers licence once in my life.


The minute as well. Anybody claiming that is living in a fantasy world

And any goverment who would do that could just as well randomly demand prove your identity one way or another or straight to jail. Id card or lack of it doesn't help or prevent draconian goverment

As I say, stop and search is only allowed on the basis of there being the same good reasons. In theory this is supposed to be when there is suspicion of a crime. It is a running joke (as Killkrazy says) of the police stopping people for "looking black in a built up area" and the like. Now what would happen to every black teenager that is stopped who does not have their ID but has done nothing wrong, other than having the misfortune of being a black teenager living in an intercity area? Suddenly they would go from having the problem of being stopped, searched and let go to being fined and treated as a criminal for not having a bit of card.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

But the issue is that demanding ID without reason works the same as in the UK.

Er, what?

Scenario 1:- Policeman in Britain asks for ID for baseless reason. I say 'No'. I walk away. Nothing else happens.
Scenario 2:- Policeman in Germany asks for ID for baseless reason. I say 'No'. I walk away. The policeman says 'Hang on a bloody minute, you're legally obliged to do so; now get back here and present it or I'll drag you down the station, forcibly ID you there, and fine you for not showing it to me. By refusing me, you are breaking the law.'

Can you honestly not see the difference here?

Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.

It's not the information on it I have a problem with. To restate (because this doesn't seem to be going across), without a National ID card scheme by whatever name, you cannot have a law mandating people have to show their ID's. It's impossible, because not everybody will have one. If I shoot down any law mandating I need to have a National ID, I automatically prevent any law which can involve me being legally required to show it ever existing.

The core point is, what is the genuine problem that lack of ID cards is intended to solve?

British society (and US and Japanese) has survived for many decades without national ID cards.

 Steve steveson wrote:

As I say, stop and search is only allowed on the basis of there being the same good reasons. In theory this is supposed to be when there is suspicion of a crime. It is a running joke (as Killkrazy says) of the people stopping people for "looking black in a built up area" and the like. Now what would happen to every black teenager that is stopped who does not have their ID but has done nothing wrong, other than having the misfortune of being a black teenager living in an intercity area? Suddenly they would go from having the problem of being stopped, searched and let go to being fined and treated as a criminal for not having a bit of card.

It's not just coloured people. Students doing a political protest? Better hope you brought your ID today, or they've got a reason to take you off the street. Sleeping rough? Better hope the wife didn't take the ID along with the house, or you'll be hit with a fine you can't pay. etcetc.

It hands a massive tool to state officials for harassing people, and frankly, they've got enough of them already. As Killkrazy accurately implies above, there is no pressing situation or need for this additional power that isn't already met by existing legislation.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
That doesn't do anything to back up the argument that they can just ask for your ID, even wikipedia specifies its an identification requirement. We have moved from "they can just demand it" to police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, which happens regardless of specific rules.

In both Germany and the Netherlands I can simply refuse to ID myself as well. Unless they have a genuine reason.

But that's his point - police will abuse the rules and be racist about it, so surely the better option is to give them less rules to abuse. Also given the fact that police will abuse the rules, even a loosely worded "requirement" like the German one will, in practice, lead to lots of people carrying the ID cards at all times and producing them on-demand just to avoid the hassle, and once that precedent is established people who still refuse to do it even if perfectly within their legal rights to do so will be seen as "troublemakers".

Look at how the debate on online privacy has evolved over the years, where we're now at the point where merely expressing a preference to remain anonymous or pseudonymous because what you're doing online is nobody else's bloody business any more than what you're doing in the street or in your home is will have the tabloid crowd speculating you're a paedophile and the rabid end of identity politics advocates speculating you're a racist misogynist troll, with lots of people now firmly in the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mindset.

Give an inch and they will take a mile.

But an argument that if police abuse power then the law is bad can be used against a lot of laws. Its creating a problem based on another issue. This is more an argument against tackling police issues and racism than one against ID cards.

As for the identity politics, I'm pretty sure the tabloid crowd is the other end of that spectrum. But again, where does that end? Because rascism doesn't stop at the ID line. What other laws need to go?

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Oh my good God, do you want me to fold your tinfoil hat for you?? And what cashless society?? We can't even get rid of junky old savings books or cheques yet despite trying. Cash is not going anywhere for decades if not longer, if ever. I'm done, I can't have a serious argument with a conspiracy nut.

Small organisations need cheques - getting rid of them just causes them more problems as they have difficulty with credit cards.

No they don't. No company needs to use cheques now. They only ones that keep cheques do it because of ludditeism.

I am not talking about companies but charities, small violunteer organisations and the like which I deal with.

Good for the bank does not automatically meen good for the indivudal - in fact often the opposite.

 Overread wrote:

Also on the subject of cheques a lot of self employed people still take them. Those in the countryside also make use of them as its much easier than having to go all the way into town to draw out money to pay a repair bill or gardener (self employed). Until the digital age brings 100% free card payments to every single mobile phone chances are the cheque will still exist. Even then it will still linger around for a long while; but it will steadily become more of a pain to use.
Already with many bank branches closing its more of a pain; though thankfully ou can still get them processed in the post office (takes longer though)

Card readers that work with phones are about £30 with a PAYG fee of less than 2%. Immediate payment in to your bank no risk of cheque bouncing, automatically accounted for, no need to bank and can automatically load transactions in to SAGE or equivalent. There is no reason for any company to still insist on cheques. Bank transfers are the other option, especially for charities and small volunteer organisations, now we have same day fastbacs. I cannot see any reason anyone would need to take a cheque. I cannot see any reason why this is the case other than people who like a physical bit of paper, even though that bit of paper is of no advantage (except in one small area, of suing on a cheque for debt recover, but this is a very niche area of law that I doubt crosses anyone's mind). I realy cannot see any reason not to use a PAYG card machine or bank transfers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The core point is, what is the genuine problem that lack of ID cards is intended to solve?

British society (and US and Japanese) has survived for many decades without national ID cards.

Agreed - why do we need it?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.

The function of a passport is to allow travel between different countries. As has been pointed out previously (by yourself?) in the Netherlands the necessary ID (or lack thereof) is also used to prevent people accessing the health care system or education. That is not the function of a passport.

I fail to see why the lack of an ID should prevent these things.

 Ketara wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

But the issue is that demanding ID without reason works the same as in the UK.

Er, what?

Scenario 1:- Policeman in Britain asks for ID for baseless reason. I say 'No'. I walk away. Nothing else happens.
Scenario 2:- Policeman in Germany asks for ID for baseless reason. I say 'No'. I walk away. The policeman says 'Hang on a bloody minute, you're legally obliged to do so; now get back here and present it or I'll drag you down the station, forcibly ID you there, and fine you for not showing it to me. By refusing me, you are breaking the law.'

Can you honestly not see the difference here?

Sorry, I meant that if police is abusing power and demand it without reason, what is stopping police in the UK of arresting you over the same 'genuine' suspicion? They can't arrest you for not producing ID, only fine, if they arrest you its just further abuse that isn't limited to ID laws. Again, you can ask a German officer for their reason, if they don't have a genuine reason they can't say you're legally obligated, because that isn't how the system works.

 Ketara wrote:

Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.

It's not the information on it I have a problem with. To restate (because this doesn't seem to be going across), without a National ID card scheme by whatever name, you cannot have a law mandating people have to show their ID's. It's impossible, because not everybody will have one. If I shoot down any law mandating I need to have a National ID, I automatically prevent any law which can involve me being legally required to show it ever existing.

I'm just stating that for the NL at least there is no functional difference (your ID functions as an EU passport). It is going across, I just have issues with the conclusions you draw based on abuse of power.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Oh my good God, do you want me to fold your tinfoil hat for you?? And what cashless society?? We can't even get rid of junky old savings books or cheques yet despite trying. Cash is not going anywhere for decades if not longer, if ever. I'm done, I can't have a serious argument with a conspiracy nut.

Small organisations need cheques - getting rid of them just causes them more problems as they have difficulty with credit cards.

No they don't. No company needs to use cheques now. They only ones that keep cheques do it because of ludditeism.

I am not talking about companies but charities, small violunteer organisations and the like which I deal with.

Good for the bank does not automatically meen good for the indivudal - in fact often the opposite.

 Overread wrote:

Also on the subject of cheques a lot of self employed people still take them. Those in the countryside also make use of them as its much easier than having to go all the way into town to draw out money to pay a repair bill or gardener (self employed). Until the digital age brings 100% free card payments to every single mobile phone chances are the cheque will still exist. Even then it will still linger around for a long while; but it will steadily become more of a pain to use.
Already with many bank branches closing its more of a pain; though thankfully ou can still get them processed in the post office (takes longer though)

Card readers that work with phones are about £30 with a PAYG fee of less than 2%. Immediate payment in to your bank no risk of cheque bouncing, automatically accounted for, no need to bank and can automatically load transactions in to SAGE or equivalent. There is no reason for any company to still insist on cheques. Bank transfers are the other option, especially for charities and small volunteer organisations, now we have same day fastbacs. I cannot see any reason anyone would need to take a cheque. I cannot see any reason why this is the case other than people who like a physical bit of paper, even though that bit of paper is of no advantage (except in one small area, of suing on a cheque for debt recover, but this is a very niche area of law that I doubt crosses anyone's mind). I realy cannot see any reason not to use a PAYG card machine or bank transfers.

The ones i deal with often haev a cheque to avoid one person having full responsabiloty for the funds - so the cheques require dual signatures. We don;t insist on cheques - we take them to help them - they cna pay by cash credit card or other means but many use the cheques as part of their accounts process - again being all done by volunteers not professionals.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.

The function of a passport is to allow travel between different countries. As has been pointed out previously (by yourself?) in the Netherlands the necessary ID (or lack thereof) is also used to prevent people accessing the health care system or education. That is not the function of a passport.

I fail to see why the lack of an ID should prevent these things.

It is the function of a passport here and the ID is also an EU passport.

Because the ID/passport is official government proof you are who you say you are and holds your unique code to access those government services. People from abroad can use their passport and refugees/migrants get a piece of paper with their own code to access services. Its used as a different form of paperwork, they can't access the database behind issuing the ID/passport.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Sorry, I meant that if police is abusing power and demand it without reason, what is stopping police in the UK of arresting you over the same 'genuine' suspicion? They can't arrest you for not producing ID, only fine, if they arrest you its just further abuse that isn't limited to ID laws. Again, you can ask a German officer for their reason, if they don't have a genuine reason they can't say you're legally obligated, because that isn't how the system works.

So what happens if they won't (or can't) pay that fine?

I once used my Japanese Alien Registration Card to obtain foreign currency in a branch of Marks and Spencer in central London. I did it simply for amusement, to see if the cashier would accept it.

In general there are many more situations now than 10 years ago in which someone in the UK will need to prove their identity and immigration status. These have been created as part of the "hostile environment".

As a Brit, though, you can navigate through these bottlenecks using your passport, birth certificate, NHS card, driving licence, and so on.

As a foreigner you need your national ID card or passport, and your UK residency card, and NI card. (They don't issue those any more, very amusingly for reasons of cost.)

Given all these other proofs of identity, there doesn't appear to be a good reason to carry a national ID card, except so that you can produce it when asked by an official. It seems to me that creation of an ID card scheme would inevitably be accompanied by a new law to compel people to carry them and show them to the police on pain of a fine.

This is something which the British, for whatever reasons, have always been against.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.

The function of a passport is to allow travel between different countries. As has been pointed out previously (by yourself?) in the Netherlands the necessary ID (or lack thereof) is also used to prevent people accessing the health care system or education. That is not the function of a passport.

I fail to see why the lack of an ID should prevent these things.

It is the function of a passport here and the ID is also an EU passport.

Because the ID/passport is official government proof you are who you say you are and holds your unique code to access those government services. People from abroad can use their passport and refugees/migrants get a piece of paper with their own code to access services. Its used as a different form of paperwork, they can't access the database behind issuing the ID/passport.

So what happens if you do not provide any of these forms of ID?

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Sorry, I meant that if police is abusing power and demand it without reason, what is stopping police in the UK of arresting you over the same 'genuine' suspicion? They can't arrest you for not producing ID, only fine, if they arrest you its just further abuse that isn't limited to ID laws. Again, you can ask a German officer for their reason, if they don't have a genuine reason they can't say you're legally obligated, because that isn't how the system works.

So what happens if they won't (or can't) pay that fine?

You should always appeal against said abuse of power, if you can't pay you should send a letter to the court stating why. Its not obligatory to be present in court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Of course, but in function passport and ID hold the exact same information. The passport just comes in the form of a booklet for when stamps are necesarry.

The function of a passport is to allow travel between different countries. As has been pointed out previously (by yourself?) in the Netherlands the necessary ID (or lack thereof) is also used to prevent people accessing the health care system or education. That is not the function of a passport.

I fail to see why the lack of an ID should prevent these things.

It is the function of a passport here and the ID is also an EU passport.

Because the ID/passport is official government proof you are who you say you are and holds your unique code to access those government services. People from abroad can use their passport and refugees/migrants get a piece of paper with their own code to access services. Its used as a different form of paperwork, they can't access the database behind issuing the ID/passport.

So what happens if you do not provide any of these forms of ID?

Hospitals will still provide care because they can't refuse you. As for education, you won't get admitted to university/college (remember the age requirement means its not used in elementary/highschool). But then don't you need to provide official paperwork to get into a UK university?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
NHS card? That reminds me, doesn't the UK NHS card have a European Health Insurance Card on the back? If you look at that its basically the same info as on our ID minus the picture for reference. We didn't use to have insurance cards for a long time though, mine only started issuing them a decade back. So I need either an ID or passport as official document.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

So what happens if they won't (or can't) pay that fine?
You should always appeal against said abuse of power, if you can't pay you should send a letter to the court stating why. Its not obligatory to be present in court.

What if you simply refuse to pay it out of principles?

But then don't you need to provide official paperwork to get into a UK university?

Not in the form of this type of ID, no (but it's been a few years since I applied). You still obviously have to fill in application forms, but they are all managed through UCAS. The Universities do have to monitor 'foreigners' and that they are attending classes - because, simply there is a proportion of our government and populace that are bigoted and think all foreign students just come here to elope into the country somewhere.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

So what happens if they won't (or can't) pay that fine?
You should always appeal against said abuse of power, if you can't pay you should send a letter to the court stating why. Its not obligatory to be present in court.

What if you simply refuse to pay it out of principles?

You can, its happened before, if your argument is convincing. People have won cases against a fine like that. You can show your driving license too. The ID card/passport is only exlusively employed in a few specific government sectors, law enforcement not being one of them. They have been going back and forth over making the ID free, which they should because service costs are up to the local government, which ends up in a weird situation where its free in some places but not others.

 Whirlwind wrote:

But then don't you need to provide official paperwork to get into a UK university?

Not in the form of this type of ID, no (but it's been a few years since I applied). You still obviously have to fill in application forms, but they are all managed through UCAS. The Universities do have to monitor 'foreigners' and that they are attending classes - because, simply there is a proportion of our government and populace that are bigoted and think all foreign students just come here to elope into the country somewhere.

Yeah I got that when you don't have an ID. But as far as I'm aware from some of my interest you still need to present a birth certificate, driver's license or passport i.e. government issued documents.

You don't need an ID in the UK. Its streamlined a few things but overall it should be mandatory to get one free because of the citizen number which the UK seems to use less or not at all, then you don't have to fine people over it. Its a stupid implementation.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What if you simply refuse to pay it out of principles?

You can, its happened before, if your argument is convincing. People have won cases against a fine like that. You can show your driving license too. The ID card/passport is only exlusively employed in a few specific government sectors, law enforcement not being one of them. They have been going back and forth over making the ID free, which they should because service costs are up to the local government, which ends up in a weird situation where its free in some places but not others.

So really the ID isn't mandatory, you just have to put up with the hassle of appealing. Although I'm interested to find out what happens if you lose the case (or if you didn't turn up?)

 Whirlwind wrote:
Yeah I got that when you don't have an ID. But as far as I'm aware from some of my interest you still need to present a birth certificate, driver's license or passport i.e. government issued documents.

You don't need an ID in the UK. Its streamlined a few things but overall it should be mandatory to get one free because of the citizen number which the UK seems to use less or not at all, then you don't have to fine people over it. Its a stupid implementation.

No you don't need ID to go to University. The confusion arises because the UK government is trying to pass on immigration duties on to schools, universities, doctors and so forth. They are legally required to monitor 'foreigners'. Some universities take the approach that they will check everyone's nationality rather than risk any fines (and accusations of racial stereotyping). So rather than needing ID to go to university, it's more a border agency by the back door. However it's not a necessity to prove who you are to go to university (as a British citizen) and don't need to undertake that check if they are happy with the information they already have (for example references from teachers saying someone has been at their school since X etc). For example when I applied to do a PhD I didn't provide ID evidence of who I was (although again this was several years ago).

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

What if you simply refuse to pay it out of principles?

You can, its happened before, if your argument is convincing. People have won cases against a fine like that. You can show your driving license too. The ID card/passport is only exlusively employed in a few specific government sectors, law enforcement not being one of them. They have been going back and forth over making the ID free, which they should because service costs are up to the local government, which ends up in a weird situation where its free in some places but not others.

So really the ID isn't mandatory, you just have to put up with the hassle of appealing. Although I'm interested to find out what happens if you lose the case (or if you didn't turn up?)

Well legally speaking it is of course, its just that the court can be lenient. We had a big case of a Jewish man who appealed and won. If you lose you just have to pay the fine which is 90 euros, so 75-80 pounds? Same for any other tickets you lose an appeal to really.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Yeah I got that when you don't have an ID. But as far as I'm aware from some of my interest you still need to present a birth certificate, driver's license or passport i.e. government issued documents.

You don't need an ID in the UK. Its streamlined a few things but overall it should be mandatory to get one free because of the citizen number which the UK seems to use less or not at all, then you don't have to fine people over it. Its a stupid implementation.

No you don't need ID to go to University. The confusion arises because the UK government is trying to pass on immigration duties on to schools, universities, doctors and so forth. They are legally required to monitor 'foreigners'. Some universities take the approach that they will check everyone's nationality rather than risk any fines (and accusations of racial stereotyping). So rather than needing ID to go to university, it's more a border agency by the back door. However it's not a necessity to prove who you are to go to university (as a British citizen) and don't need to undertake that check if they are happy with the information they already have (for example references from teachers saying someone has been at their school since X etc). For example when I applied to do a PhD I didn't provide ID evidence of who I was (although again this was several years ago).

Yeah if its not mandatory then needing would make no sense. Although UK universities would also accept a Dutch ID (same as at the airport). But here they ask for ID because we're all supposed to have one anyway. But when you applied for a PhD didn't they just have your file in their system. Looking at the application system you do need some official documentation to apply. Here you apply through a system that works with your unique number on the ID because the universities are public so its all digitally linked. I never had to show my ID, because they knew I had one through the system because of the specific digital identification code I used linked to it (which is basically meant to enable you to use your number without most employees needing to access the true database).