Skip to main content

Stealth Taxes and ID Cards


This is the ID Cards Bill

Anyone who thinks they support the legislation should read the bill. This is intended over time to apply to everyone over the age of 16 in the UK except:

a) Those who are in the country for less than 3 months
b) Those who have no right to stay in the UK

The government's argument for it is that:

"Ministers say the cards can help tackle terrorism, make national borders more secure, and prevent abuse of benefits and public services. "

On Terrorism:
Spain has compulsory ID cards, but that did not prevent the Madrid Bombing.

On Making Borders More Secure:
People don't have to have ID cards to pass through the borders and can always claim they have been here less than 3 months. Asylum Seekers generally won't have to register.

On preventing the abuse of benefits:
1 in 20 of cases of benefits fraud could be affected by this leaving 95% unaffected. More effective work on National Insurance could deal with this.

It is not ID Cards, but a register


The reality about the scheme is that it is not about ID cards, but instead about another national ID register. This is a register that the law-abiding people will have to work with. Criminals will be able to ignore it with impunity.

This means new offences for you

If you don't register they government will fine you £2,500
If you forget to tell the government when you move home they government will fine you £1,000
If you don't turn up to be photographed they will fine you £2,500
If you don't allow the government to take "biometrics" they will fine you £2,500
If you don't tell the government if your card is lost, stolen or damaged the government will prosecute you.

[check it out in the bill cited above]

Although the bill itself is not about cards so much as a national identity register, the truth is that it is about the General Election and political posturing. Rather than govern the country properly the government are posturing that they are "tough on crime".

Making law abiding people follow more unnecessary laws is not being "tough on crime".

The cost of £5,000,000,000 would be far better spent on law enforcement. In the mean time the government are funding schemes which teach graffiti artists to be better at doing graffiti. Is that "tough on crime"?

We already have the National Insurance register, Health Service register and DVLC. I have no problem having a photographic Driving Licence and would have no problem having photographic provisional licenses. The National Identity Register is about changing the balance of power between the individual and the government - not for the security of the individual, but for the convenience of the government and because Tony thinks it is popular.



Comments

Anonymous said…
Please let us have more details on these schemes teaching graffiti artists to be better, sounds like an urabn myth to me. Get some facts on schemes funded by the goverment and post them.
ingerson said…
Please let us have more details on these schemes teaching graffiti artists to be better, sounds like an urabn myth to me. Get some facts on schemes funded by the goverment and post them.
john said…
The reference is in this post on my weblogThe scheme was funded by the government's Children's Fund and ran in Quinton, Birmingham. See the Evening Mail Story.
Anonymous said…
This blog is fantastic, is very interesting, I like the colors, are awesome. Keep it and show us more!!!! Do you wanto to see something more? Look... Glass Bongs and Bong featuring Herbal Smoke, water bongs, bongs online head shop, Marijuana Alternative,glass water bongs, Hashish, Ganja, homemade bongs, Smokeshop, cannibis, legal smoking alternatives for herbal highs and aphrodisia. http://www.headshopinternational.com

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

Service launched to reduce the pain of calling a call centre.

Click here to try the beta test call entre phoning service"John Hemming, who has created an internet Startup called Cirrostratus since he ceased being an MP, is launching a free online service to make life easier for people phoning call centres.   The service is provided by Cirrostratus, but the SIP backbone is provided by the multi-award winning business VoIP solution, Soho66." John said, "Many people find phoning call centres a real pain.  Our service is aiming to make things a lot easier.   One click on alink or the bookmarks list and our server will phone up the call centre and get through all the menus.  This is a lot faster than when people have to phone up and is less irritating." "Additionally the system uses WebRtc and the internet to make the call. This means that people don't find their normal phone system being blocked whilst they hang on the line waiting to speak to a human being." Marketing Manager from Soho66, David McManus, said: &q…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…