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.


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.
costa rica 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.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

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).


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.

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…