Skip to main content

Stealth Tax on Shaving

It may sound superfically odd, but there is a provision in Section 12 of the ID Card/Database bill which means that people could be fined up to £1,000 if they shave without telling the government.

Considering the bill which is on the net at ID Cards bill at Hansard

See the following sections:
Section 12 Notification of changes affecting accuracy of Register
(1) An individual to whom an ID card has been issued must notify the Secretary
of State about—
(a) every prescribed change of circumstances affecting the information
recorded about him in the Register; and
(4) The things that an individual may be required to do under subsection (3) are—
(a) to attend at a specified place and time;
(b) to allow his fingerprints, and other biometric information about himself, to be taken and recorded;
(c) to allow himself to be photographed;
(6) An individual who contravenes a requirement imposed on him by or under
this section shall be liable to a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000.

From Section 1
(6) In this section references to an individual’s identity are references to—
(a) his full name;
(b) other names by which he is or has previously been known;
(c) his gender;
(d) his date and place of birth and, if he has died, the date of his death; and
(e) physical characteristics of his that are capable of being used for
identifying him.


What this means is that if someone gets married, shaves off a beard, grows a beard (and or moustache), cuts their finger (fingerprint changes) they need then to tell the government on the pain of an up to £1,000 "Civil Penalty" which may then require them to go somewhere to be photographed.

The other issues about the system remain, but it is very clear that the legislation has been written for the convenience of the government and not the private individuals. Furthermore it will not be criminals who will first register for these cards hence it will be an expensive and unnecessary burden on private individuals whilst not making any difference to those breaking the law.

Comments

Bradley said…
If I read it correctly, you can also be fined if you die and forget to give notice of your death...
john said…
True, but difficult to enforce.
jhcrew said…
The changes in beard and moustache might be a red herring.

The facial recognition technology works by assessing the distance between a number of key points on the face (such as the tip of the nose).

The absence or presence of facial hair (unless the person is the hirsute Robinson Crusoe) would not change these key distances.
NW11851 said…
Don't dare have cosmetic facial surgery. LOL
Bishop Hill said…
jhcrew:

That's not what the legislation says...

"physical characteristics of his that are capable of being used for identifying him."

Facial hair is capable of being used for identifying a person isn't it?
strangely rouge said…
Why weren't you at parlimwnt to vote against it then?
Justin said…
Why no show at the vote yesterday, John?

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…