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

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. …

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…

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…