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.

 Ketara wrote:

 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.

Well, then you should have no objection against ID cards, because no state official could use ID cards for such a purpose (in the same they can not use driving licenses or passports for that purpose). In the Netherlands and in the UK as well it is illegal for police to stop someone just to check their ID, unless the area has increased security in which case the police will have a special warrant from the local government. This has never been a problem in the Netherlands or Germany or any European country with ID cards (which is all of them), so it won't be a problem in the UK as well.
Again, in the UK police can still ask you to ID yourself, so there is already no practical difference between the UK and other European countries, except in that in those other European countries IDing yourself is easier for those people that do not have a driving license since they can just show their ID card. Again, in the UK, the police can still arrest you if you can't or refuse to ID yourself if they think you may have committed an offence. It is the same in the Netherlands, where police can only stop you and ask to ID yourself (and arrest if you can't or refuse to show) if they think you have committed an offence (or if you are in an area of increased security). They can't just walk in the street asking random people for their IDs. There is only very little practical difference, because in both places police need to know the identity of people they are dealing with, and in both places there are laws in place that protect the public from unwarranted harassment by the police.

 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.

The obvious question arises as to how a policeman can fine someone who won't identify themselves without arresting them? I mean, it's not my country so I'm not au fait with the specifics, but it wouldn't make much sense to have it be the law for you to produce your ID when demanded, and the police be able to fine you for not producing ID; only for any such attempts to do so being stymied by you turning around and walking away. One assumes that if you refuse to ID yourself, the police have the ability to pull you in for questioning/forcible identification. Otherwise they literally wouldn't be able to issue the fine. You can't mail a bill to an unknown person at an unknown address after all.

With regards to what stops the police in Britain arresting you over the same suspicion/prejudice as Germany in cases of discrimination, it's a question of options. Here, if a policeman stops you, asks for ID, and you refuse to show it, he either has to act on his original suspicion/prejudice (putting it on all the paperwork and opening it up to senior oversight) or leave you be. In Germany, if the copper asks you for ID because of his suspicion/prejudice and your refuse to show it or don't have it, he now has grounds for further action unrelated to that original suspicion. When he brings you into the station, it won't be the original 'vague suspicion' marked down as the reason for taking you there. It'll be because you refused identification; making you more suspicious generally and in breach of the law saying you need to ID yourself.

In essence, the act of refusing/being unable to provide identification opens up the possibility of incriminating yourself. To a smart lad who carries his ID, that option is blocked. The German officer checks the ID and has no further ability to discriminate/harass that his British counterpart does not. To the black lad ID'd for the fifth time tonight who is bored of it, gets sarky, and refuses to show it/cannot do so? Our German officer now has a reason for bringing him in to put down on the paperwork that isn't baseless or unjustified. One that his British counterpart wouldn't have, and which won't mark him out as hassling someone.

 Ketara 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.

The obvious question arises as to how a policeman can fine someone who won't identify themselves without arresting them? I mean, it's not my country so I'm not au fait with the specifics, but it wouldn't make much sense to have it be the law for you to produce your ID when demanded, and the police be able to fine you for not producing ID; only for any such attempts to do so being stymied by you turning around and walking away. One assumes that if you refuse to ID yourself, the police have the ability to pull you in for questioning/forcible identification. Otherwise they literally wouldn't be able to issue the fine. You can't mail a bill to an unknown person at an unknown address after all.

With regards to what stops the police in Britain arresting you over the same suspicion/prejudice as Germany in cases of discrimination, it's a question of options. Here, if a policeman stops you, asks for ID, and you refuse to show it, he either has to act on his original suspicion/prejudice (putting it on all the paperwork and opening it up to senior oversight) or leave you be. In Germany, if the copper asks you for ID because of his suspicion/prejudice and your refuse to show it or don't have it, he now has grounds for further action unrelated to that original suspicion. When he brings you into the station, it won't be the original 'vague suspicion' marked down as the reason for taking you there. It'll be because you refused identification; making you more suspicious generally and in breach of the law saying you need to ID yourself.

In essence, the act of refusing/being unable to provide identification opens up the possibility of incriminating yourself. To a smart lad who carries his ID, that option is blocked. The German officer checks the ID and has no further ability to discriminate/harass that his British counterpart does not. To the black lad ID'd for the fifth time tonight who is bored of it, gets sarky, and refuses to show it/cannot do so? Our German officer now has a reason for bringing him in to put down on the paperwork that isn't baseless or unjustified. One that his British counterpart wouldn't have, and which won't mark him out as hassling someone.

But how can you fine someone when you don't have a valid reason to issue the fine in the first place?. Again, the law is an identification policy, not a carrying one. In your example with the friends in the car the officer could have only asked for ID if he had a genuine suspicion you were the criminals in question, in which case the UK officers would also move to arrest you because ID doesn't spell out criminal on it. You would assume that, but again that is not how the law works here, specifically so. You could only fine them for not having an ID if you were already fining them. Is it that different from the UK when you don't want to identify yourself for a fine? The same unknown person and unknown address (they still have to ask for your address though because its not on there, they just check it in the system against where you live) reasoning applies.

But in both your examples it already its the same choice, does the officer push forward with his prejudice and risk his work over it? If that person files a complaint that they only got arrested over not showing ID the case will get thrown out, because that isn't sufficient reason for an arrest. Its the same case of hassling.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In the Netherlands and in the UK as well it is illegal for police to stop someone just to check their ID

You're missing the subtext. A policeman will never stop you explicitly to check your ID in Germany. But he might think that you look dodgy because you're black and it's night, or because you're annoying him in a political protest, or somesuch; at which point he can fabricate a suspicion ('I could have sworn I saw you put a white powder in your pocket') to ID you off of in the hope you won't be carrying one.

Again, in the UK police can still ask you to ID yourself, so there is already no practical difference between the UK and other European countries, except in that in those other European countries

They can ask politely, but never demand. And I can refuse. That is the practical difference.

Again, in the UK, the police can still arrest you if you can't or refuse to ID yourself if they think you may have committed an offence.

You're wrong there actually. It rarely comes up, but you're under no legal obligation to identify yourself even when arrested in the UK. Furthermore, you're actively protected from 'Obstructing the police' in doing so. If you've done nothing, refuse to identify yourself, and the police were unable to get a court order to hold you longer, they'd technically have to release you.

Doesn't really happen (people carry wallets with their names in, phones, etc, as well as being in fingerprint databases and the like), but if a policeman arrests you? It's because he thought you had or were about to commit an arrestable offence. Identity doesn't come into it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

But how can you fine someone when you don't have a valid reason to issue the fine in the first place?

The fine, according to yourself, is for not showing your ID. So...the reason for fining someone for not showing their ID is that they refuse to show their ID?

You could only fine them for not having an ID if you were already fining them.

According to the Wiki, you're liable for a fine for not presenting your ID (be it at home after being escorted there, claiming you don't have any, or after point blank refusing). It doesn't say that they have to be charging you for something else simultaenously. If there's further detail I haven't seen along those lines, I wouldn't mind being linked to it.

But in both your examples it already its the same choice, does the officer push forward with his prejudice and risk his work over it? If that person files a complaint that they only got arrested over not showing ID the case will get thrown out, because that isn't sufficient reason for an arrest. Its the same case of hassling.

So you're telling me that if someone refuses to/cannot show to show his ID, and gets arrested/fined as a result so they can determine his identity; the superiors of the arresting officer would consider that dodgy or 'hassling' behaviour on his part? Because frankly, I'm amazed anyone ever pays a fine or bothers to carry ID in that case. I mean, given that nothing happens and the courts all throw it out, and the policemen get black marks against them. Heck, why even have the law? It's effectively non-functional.

I also think that regardless of any of the above, this is getting a little bogged down in the specifics of Germany/UK comparisons. There are plenty of other countries out there with ID cards and presentation laws.

My interest in the matter is simple: by preventing ID cards coming into existence, I prevent any laws around ID card presentation coming into existence. The reason why I oppose those ID card presentation laws is because I view them as being an extroadinarily expensive unnecessary security risk; which also often happens to be used as an additional club to hit discriminated against/vulnerable people. I also dislike the concept of anyone being able to accost me and demand to know my business with my being compelled to reply under fear of consequences (be it wasting time in the station, fines, or anything else).

I'm not sure I've much else to say on it really.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
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).

No completely different university that I had never previously been too. Systems aren't linked like this in the UK. In fact this would contravene data protection acts to transfer personal in this way. UK universities are completely separate entities and are not really public bodies in the sense of a local Council (however even these cannot share personal data).

I think my overall conclusion is that UK citizens much more value their privacy from state intrusion than perhaps other European citizens and are much less trusting of their governments not exploit/lose such information (considering the handling of Wrexit should anybody be surprised?)

However going back to Wrexit for a moment. More Wrexit issues if it is hard exit. Less BLT sandwiches! Or strictly speaking that choices may become more limited because of the delays in obtaining fresh produce.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/no-deal-brexit-could-lead-to-sandwich-shortages-claims-industry_uk_5b602579e4b0fd5c73d2ea74?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

 Ketara wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

But how can you fine someone when you don't have a valid reason to issue the fine in the first place?

The fine, according to yourself, is for not showing your ID. So...the reason for fining someone for not showing their ID is that they refuse to show their ID?

But then you need to have a valid reason that holds up in court for being in a position to issue said fine first.

 Ketara wrote:

You could only fine them for not having an ID if you were already fining them.

According to the Wiki, you're liable for a fine for not presenting your ID (be it at home after being escorted there, or after point blank refusing. It doesn't say that they have to be charging you for something else simultaenously. If there's further detail I haven't seen along those lines, I wouldn't mind being linked to it.

No, but say you fine them for something and they don't have an ID, that's when you could fine them. Your car example would mean they can't fine you because there is no genuine reason to do so. Although if you think this law sounds crazy, our 1994 road law basically allows police to flag you down regardless of the vehicle you operate on a public road, of course what they do after they flag you down gets into more hazy legal territory.

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-identiteitskaart/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-de-identificatieplicht
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/paspoort-en-identiteitskaart/vraag-en-antwoord/wie-mag-vragen-naar-mijn-identiteitsbewijs-en-wanneer

 Ketara wrote:

But in both your examples it already its the same choice, does the officer push forward with his prejudice and risk his work over it? If that person files a complaint that they only got arrested over not showing ID the case will get thrown out, because that isn't sufficient reason for an arrest. Its the same case of hassling.

So you're telling me that if someone refuses to/cannot show to show his ID, and gets arrested/fined as a result so they can determine his identity; the superiors of the arresting officer would consider that dodgy or 'hassling' behaviour on his part? Because frankly, I'm amazed anyone ever pays a fine or bothers to carry ID in that case. I mean, given that nothing happens and the courts all throw it out, and the policemen get black marks against them. Heck, why even have the law? It's effectively non-functional.

I also think that regardless of any of the above, this is getting a little bogged down in the specifics of Germany/UK comparisons. There are plenty of other countries out there with ID cards and presentation laws.

My interest in the matter is simple: by preventing ID cards coming into existence, I prevent any laws around ID card presentation coming into existence. The reason why I oppose those ID card presentation laws is because I view them as being an extroadinarily expensive, unnecessary security risk; which also often happens to be used as an additional club to hit the discriminated against/vulnerable people. I also dislike the concept of anyone being able to accost me and demand to know my business with my being compelled to reply under fear of consequences (be it wasting time in the station, fines, or anything else).

I'm not sure I've much else to say on it really.

In both cases the police officer needs to charge you with something to insist you identify yourself. In the UK that means finding some com ovation of paperwork or a trip to the station. In most of the EU it means producing an I'D card or a trip to the station.

Both require a crime to have been suspected. The German police (according to the German poster) are not legally allowed to ask for your ID purely to fine you for having no ID. Just like the UK police can't ask for you to identify yourself purely to charge you with obstruction.

They are both literally the same except for the medium that counts as I'D, and that the German police can fine you for not being able to do produce it whilst being identified in the process of handling another suspected crime.

You're latching hard onto something that doesn't exist.

Germans have a long memory; they'd never accept the approach to carrying ID that you're worried about.

Would the UK instigate the sort of thing you're worried about? Quite Likely, if it's outside of the EU (I bet it impeached on EU codified human rights somewhere)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can anyone make sense of this blind brexit thing? Who gets to see what's happening?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I assume they did it based on your degree as proof? I think we value privacy too, ID just doesn't push that button for a lot of people, not like censoring the internet
I think the legal protections in place right now are quite good on that data. But if a government really wants to do wrong there are much more worse ways.

It's a bit antiquated really. At the end of your degree I was given sealed envelopes with my grades for each of the courses. You give these (unopened) to the university you are accepted at. I wouldn't call it ID though. It's just names and scores, there's nothing specific to say it is actually you.

Yeah not many of us like the way the UK government is trying to censor the internet either. Unfortunately those in government are either using it to watch porn in their offices or otherwise think it is only used by terrorists. They much prefer that we got our news direct from them rather than ask awkward questions. The UK always seems to be a battle between the populace and the government (especially the Tories) when it comes to personal freedoms.

Speaking of Brexit, the UK's favored position with opt outs enabled you to circumvent EU ID standards. If you ever want to get back in that's going to be a problem.

I don't think there is much question that leaving is going to cost the UK substantially really, both now and the inevitable time we would like to rejoin. For some reason we obviously like shooting ourselves in the foot, leg, arm and hand all at the same time.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I assume they did it based on your degree as proof? I think we value privacy too, ID just doesn't push that button for a lot of people, not like censoring the internet
I think the legal protections in place right now are quite good on that data. But if a government really wants to do wrong there are much more worse ways.

It's a bit antiquated really. At the end of your degree I was given sealed envelopes with my grades for each of the courses. You give these (unopened) to the university you are accepted at. I wouldn't call it ID though. It's just names and scores, there's nothing specific to say it is actually you.

Yeah not many of us like the way the UK government is trying to censor the internet either. Unfortunately those in government are either using it to watch porn in their offices or otherwise think it is only used by terrorists. They much prefer that we got our news direct from them rather than ask awkward questions. The UK always seems to be a battle between the populace and the government (especially the Tories) when it comes to personal freedoms.

Oh no, its not ID but it works on a trust basis towards other universities.

Regarding the internet, its funny, a UK government would love a more passive population while the Dutch government has that population and just half asses things it kinda wants. I guess it breeds complacency, but the ID card in different form has been baked into multiple generations, now the revolutionary thing is that they actually hand them to us instead of keeping those things at city hall, pretty strange but also explains why not many people were that opposed to it.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Speaking of Brexit, the UK's favored position with opt outs enabled you to circumvent EU ID standards. If you ever want to get back in that's going to be a problem.

I don't think there is much question that leaving is going to cost the UK substantially really, both now and the inevitable time we would like to rejoin. For some reason we obviously like shooting ourselves in the foot, leg, arm and hand all at the same time.

 Ketara wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In the Netherlands and in the UK as well it is illegal for police to stop someone just to check their ID

You're missing the subtext. A policeman will never stop you explicitly to check your ID in Germany. But he might think that you look dodgy because you're black and it's night, or because you're annoying him in a political protest, or somesuch; at which point he can fabricate a suspicion ('I could have sworn I saw you put a white powder in your pocket') to ID you off of in the hope you won't be carrying one.

Again, in the UK police can still ask you to ID yourself, so there is already no practical difference between the UK and other European countries, except in that in those other European countries

They can ask politely, but never demand. And I can refuse. That is the practical difference.

Again, in the UK, the police can still arrest you if you can't or refuse to ID yourself if they think you may have committed an offence.

You're wrong there actually. It rarely comes up, but you're under no legal obligation to identify yourself even when arrested in the UK. Furthermore, you're actively protected from 'Obstructing the police' in doing so. If you've done nothing, refuse to identify yourself, and the police were unable to get a court order to hold you longer, they'd technically have to release you.

Doesn't really happen (people carry wallets with their names in, phones, etc, as well as being in fingerprint databases and the like), but if a policeman arrests you? It's because he thought you had or were about to commit an arrestable offence. Identity doesn't come into it.

A policeman can also stop you because you are black and he thinks you look dodgy in the UK and ask you for your personal details. Again, this is no difference. In the Netherlands or Germany, the police can only ask for your ID if they have a valid reason to be asking for your ID (otherwise they are committing an offence themselves). If they just stop you on the street and can't provide you with a valid reason why you should be showing them your ID, you are not obliged to show them your ID either. And if they arrest you and you still refuse to identify yourself, they also have to let you go after the legal limit on how long they can hold you expires (unless they can get an order to detain you longer).
And in Britain you do need to provide your identity and address to a police officer is he is halting you because he thinks you committed an offence or if you are driving a vehicle (All the UK police sites I have just searched for information say so) or else the officer is allowed to take you to the police station to establish your details there (same as in Germany or the Netherlands, and they have to let you go after the legal limit expires even if you still do not cooperate). Really the only practical difference is the ability to fine people for not carrying an ID, and seeing as that ID cards do not carry any secret information or any information at all beyond your name, age, address and place of birth (information that is already known to the police as organisation anyway) and provide a lot of convenience to people, I do not think that is a difference significant enough to justify opposition. The UK could even introduce ID cards without an obligation to always carry an ID.
Again, ID cards are used by virtually every country in Europe, and abuses of it are virtually non-existent. This just seems like one of those really things that are completely normal and nothing but beneficial but that the British are for some odd reason opposed to, like the metric system, decimal currency, proportional representation, the EU or driving on the right side of the road.

 Ketara wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

But how can you fine someone when you don't have a valid reason to issue the fine in the first place?

The fine, according to yourself, is for not showing your ID. So...the reason for fining someone for not showing their ID is that they refuse to show their ID?

But they can only ask for your ID when stopping you for something else. So the fine for not showing your ID is on top of whatever fine you already got for whatever offence you were initially stopped for. They can't stop you just for suspecting or checking that you aren't carrying an ID.

 Ketara wrote:

You could only fine them for not having an ID if you were already fining them.

According to the Wiki, you're liable for a fine for not presenting your ID (be it at home after being escorted there, claiming you don't have any, or after point blank refusing). It doesn't say that they have to be charging you for something else simultaenously. If there's further detail I haven't seen along those lines, I wouldn't mind being linked to it.

The problem is that most information on the subject is only available in German (for Germany) or Dutch (for the Netherlands). I found the Dutch one. I suspect German law regarding this is much the same.
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/identificatieplicht/vraag-en-antwoord/wie-mag-vragen-naar-mijn-identiteitsbewijs-en-wanneer

 Ketara wrote:
My interest in the matter is simple: by preventing ID cards coming into existence, I prevent any laws around ID card presentation coming into existence. The reason why I oppose those ID card presentation laws is because I view them as being an extroadinarily expensive unnecessary security risk; which also often happens to be used as an additional club to hit discriminated against/vulnerable people. I also dislike the concept of anyone being able to accost me and demand to know my business with my being compelled to reply under fear of consequences (be it wasting time in the station, fines, or anything else).

I'm not sure I've much else to say on it really.

Those fears are unfounded. ID cards and ID carrying laws are used in all of Europe except the UK, and they have been used for decades, and it has never led to any of the problems you are describing. Really an ID card is just a small convenience, nothing more, and ID presentation laws make the police's job just a tiny bit easier without infringing on the rights of the public, which is as well protected in Germany as it is in the UK. Again, German police officers, just like UK officers can't stop you without valid reason, and if they do not provide a valid reason you can choose not to answer their questions.

So in summary, British people have no need for ID cards, which don't have any useful function, don't want them, and have a government which is incapable of introducing them.

Sorted!

Let's drop this topic and chat about Love Island.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So in summary, British people have no need for ID cards, which don't have any useful function, don't want them, and have a government which is incapable of introducing them.

Sorted!

Let's drop this topic and chat about Love Island.

That about sums it up.

Is Love Island how you're going to market the UK after Brexit

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So in summary, British people have no need for ID cards, which don't have any useful function, don't want them, and have a government which is incapable of introducing them.

Sorted!

Let's drop this topic and chat about Love Island.

That about sums it up.

Well the Tories have already started to sell a line of water bottles based on it. Perhaps they are thinking they need to supplement their income after anyone with a brain abandons their party membership?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tory-love-island-water-bottle_uk_5b5f4732e4b0b15aba9b6027


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Is Love Island how you're going to market the UK after Brexit

With a lack of immigration we do have to increase our population somehow. Why not encourage it through 'not quite' porn?

Ketara wrote:

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?

The difference is that the British policeman is really incompetent when it comes to abuse of power while the german is really inefficient. Why would they ask you for ID if you can just get away like that. That's a unusable attempt to abuse their power. If they really wanted to abuse you they would just shift their approach a bit so that their abuse is within their job descriptions. Why would they even try something that doesn't work? Are they cartoon villains? You'll never become a good tyrant with such an simplistic view of power and how to abuse it.

And the german one is using a really lame way to abuse people with their "power". Like any other police officer anywhere else in the world they have other methods they would use preferably instead of asking for your identification. That abuse is on the level of those people who checke for valid tickets on a train (or would you decline such checks because they could trace back to the station where you entered the train and thus be used to track you?).

Two decades ago or so German police even accepted one of my old passports (I had forgotten to renew it) when asking for my ID. ID cards allow for a simple standardised way of accessing certain data (to show that you are you). It's how we all use currency as a main way of commerce instead of using the old trusted barter system.

Doesn't Britain have the world's highest density in CCTV cameras? Somebody gaining access to a bit chunk of that data would be much more effective than a little plastic card. And didn't Britain also heavily cooperate with US surveillance agencies? Why's an ID card such an affront to one's autonomy but that stuff's still working and an actual instance of surveillance activity by the UK government?

That being said here in Bavaria some conservative politicians want harsher surveillance laws and more power for the police but even the police union is against their paranoid bs.

 Ketara wrote:

 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.

Well then you should have no problem with id card as it doesn't happen with it any more than without. Id card doesn't cause that and conversely if police wants to abuse his position not having id card doesn't help either as said police will demand you to prove you one way or another. What does he care what method you use when he's abusing his powers.

Your arqument stinks as it provenly and logically doesn't happen. Only way you could arque it would happen in uk if you somehow think people of uk are genetically inferior to rest of the world or some other weird reason

In my own experience, the German police ask for ID in relevant situations (for example, after a car crash), but if for some reason you don't have your issued ID with you, they're also happy to look at your driver's license or any other official document that might be of use. And even if you have NO form of ID at all on you (happened to my mother recently after she bumped into a car in a parking lot), they just asked her for her name and address and were happy to trust her word (for now). The latter might be dependent on how cooperative and trustworthy you seem to the police (which, I guess, is the basis for how MOST things go with the police, literally anywhere).

As a disclaimer, I'm aware some cops might be more mistrustful and handle things harsher if they have a xenophobic streak and you look like a foreigner, but I'm also agreeing with statements made here before that this is then a problem with the individual cop, not with the German ID system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So in summary, British people have no need for ID cards, which don't have any useful function, don't want them, and have a government which is incapable of introducing them.

Sorted!

Let's drop this topic and chat about Love Island.

Considering that the tories are pushing for requiring photo ID to vote in elections, a universal, freely available government ID could actually be useful.

Passports are quite expensive to acquire for low income people, if you are banned from driving or have a serious disability you cannot get a driving licence, so what official photo government photo ID is left without those two forms?

They trialled Voter ID in the recent local elections. It was a huge disaster. Lots of voters didn't have anything, and were very angry to be turned away.

Deciding to require national ID because of deciding to require voter ID, neither of which have any proven necessity and both of which go against deep-rooted British traditions, is not a valid argument for national ID, IMO.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They trialled Voter ID in the recent local elections. It was a huge disaster. Lots of voters didn't have anything, and were very angry to be turned away.

Deciding to require national ID because of deciding to require voter ID, neither of which have any proven necessity and both of which go against deep-rooted British traditions, is not a valid argument for national ID, IMO.

This is the tories though. Something being a huge disaster and causing massive anger and aguish only drives them to do it more in some vain attempt to prove that they were right all along.

For examples see Brexit, Badger culls, austerity, disability assessments, etc.

Agreed. More examples include academy trust schools, the probation service, and the National Citizen Service scheme.

Most of these ideas are designed at least partly just to funnel taxe revenues over to private companies.

That's why it is so disappointing to watch Labour make nothing of their opportunities.

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1025277652373069824

EU regulations currently prevent doctors from qualifying before five years of training. Just one of countless examples of EU "market building" that do nothing of the sort, instead causing disruption and impairing UK policymakers.

.... I know it's kinda cool to rage against experts currently, didn't think this was now extending to wanting less qualified Drs.

I actually went to medical school for three years. It's a very tough course. (Part of why I gave it up.)

I think if we have a crisis of not enough doctors and need to attract more people to the profession, the best way to do it is to make medical school even tougher.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Agreed. More examples include academy trust schools, the probation service, and the National Citizen Service scheme.

Most of these ideas are designed at least partly just to funnel taxe revenues over to private companies.

That's why it is so disappointing to watch Labour make nothing of their opportunities.

To be fair the government are cancling the probation services contracts. Let’s just gloss over the fact that they are doing so because running something with no revenue stream as a private services is a monumentally stupid idea and totally ideologically driven and proven to be so.

Personally I think the "private is best" ideology ran out of practicable steam with the privatisation of the railways under Major. Pretty much all the public-private partnerships or outsourcings since than have been bad.

Now with the imminent collapse of Northamptonshire Council -- run for years by Conservatives -- we can see that Conservatives are also unable to run public bodies properly.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I actually went to medical school for three years. It's a very tough course. (Part of why I gave it up.)

I think if we have a crisis of not enough doctors and need to attract more people to the profession, the best way to do it is to make medical school even tougher.

As I've said before, the solution to the NHS doctor and nurse crisis is staring us in the face, and if Parliament grants me emergency authority, I'll dig out my passport and fix it this week.

Fill up a black bag full of visas, fly out to India, grab 50,000 doctors, jet them back, and problem solved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They trialled Voter ID in the recent local elections. It was a huge disaster. Lots of voters didn't have anything, and were very angry to be turned away.

Deciding to require national ID because of deciding to require voter ID, neither of which have any proven necessity and both of which go against deep-rooted British traditions, is not a valid argument for national ID, IMO.

This is the tories though. Something being a huge disaster and causing massive anger and aguish only drives them to do it more in some vain attempt to prove that they were right all along.

For examples see Brexit, Badger culls, austerity, disability assessments, etc.

I agree with you, and it doesn't happen often.

But I will bet every last penny I have, thousands of wargames miniatures, dozens of rulebooks, and my house, that millions of people down your way will vote Tories come the next election.

The Tories could bulldoze Stonehenge, demolish Big Ben, and privatise the Royal Navy, and millions would still vote for them.

Partly for the lack of a credible alternative.

The Labour Party is not covering itself with oppositional glory.

All the other third parties are too small and unproven for people to invest faith in them, except the regionals (SNP) who by definition won't operate in England where most of the electorate live.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Partly for the lack of a credible alternative.

The Labour Party is not covering itself with oppositional glory.

All the other third parties are too small and unproven for people to invest faith in them, except the regionals (SNP) who by definition won't operate in England where most of the electorate live.

It's like what I said a few weeks ago: a decade of coalition politics is upon us.

On a serious note, and this is why I'm still pushing the EEA/EFTA deal:

the heatwave is badly affecting food production, England will probably get flooded again this winter, a no-deal Brexit is on the table, and energy prices will probably rise as well...

I seriously think we're in for a winter of discontent on a scale that will make the last one look like a dust up at a WI meeting.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As I've said before, the solution to the NHS doctor and nurse crisis is staring us in the face, and if Parliament grants me emergency authority, I'll dig out my passport and fix it this week.

Fill up a black bag full of visas, fly out to India, grab 50,000 doctors, jet them back, and problem solved.

This sort of view really annoys me. Nothing personal DINLT but effectively what you are proposing is to screw over people in another part of the world simply because they are "out or sight, out of mind". It's all very well doing this, except of course, that the people it will effect are in an even worse position than even the poorest in this country. That we like to be consider nice and left leaning as long as it benefits us at the expense of them. It's just another type of exploitation that we are continuing comparable to the empire days. Instead of raw resources it is instead people whilst we happily ignore the consequences on those that experience the consequences of it. If we don't have enough doctors then we need to consider why that is and make it a more attractive environment (such as not exploiting their working hours).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I think the "private is best" ideology ran out of practicable steam with the privatisation of the railways under Major. Pretty much all the public-private partnerships or outsourcings since than have been bad.

Now with the imminent collapse of Northamptonshire Council -- run for years by Conservatives -- we can see that Conservatives are also unable to run public bodies properly.

Privatisation can work where there is real competition for optional products (e.g. the wargaming industry). It never works where there is a captive audience (trains, water, power). When things were privatised initially they were cheaper because generally public benefits were much better than private benefits (for example in the 90's local government would guarantee a pension whereas a business did not have to). Now however benefits are comparable if not worse for public bodies - e.g. many firms offer private health insurance and equivalent pension schemes. As such paying privately now means you pay more than the equivalent public body officer not only for the benefits the public officer doesn't get, but also that profit margin.

Speaking of which I see Amazon have paid a huge tax bill of £1.7m despite pre-tax profits tripling. That's the equivalent of 170 people on 30k per annum. I wish I could pay 2.5% tax (and this is before the morally questionable approach to allocating expenditure to offset tax, morally questionable employment practices etc). It is also a very good example of why high street stores are failing as they simply can't compete at this level. Despite assurances from government before they quite happily favour a corrupted tax system.

At one time people and companies both paid income tax on the same basis.

Then gradually special company taxes were introduced, which have led to the current situation in which the world's richest man has been able reach his position of pre-eminence by building a figurative pyramid of corpses of workers and small businesses to climb up.

The high street situation will correct itself. As the high street dies, so too business rates die. Eventually the govermnent will be forced actually to tax out of town businesses at a realistic rate.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As I've said before, the solution to the NHS doctor and nurse crisis is staring us in the face, and if Parliament grants me emergency authority, I'll dig out my passport and fix it this week.

Fill up a black bag full of visas, fly out to India, grab 50,000 doctors, jet them back, and problem solved.

This sort of view really annoys me. Nothing personal DINLT but effectively what you are proposing is to screw over people in another part of the world simply because they are "out or sight, out of mind". It's all very well doing this, except of course, that the people it will effect are in an even worse position than even the poorest in this country. That we like to be consider nice and left leaning as long as it benefits us at the expense of them. It's just another type of exploitation that we are continuing comparable to the empire days. Instead of raw resources it is instead people whilst we happily ignore the consequences on those that experience the consequences of it. If we don't have enough doctors then we need to consider why that is and make it a more attractive environment (such as not exploiting their working hours).