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

John Hemming said…
True, but difficult to enforce.
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?
Unknown 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

Six months for recording a court hearing - Norman Scarth

The link is in Russian about the imprisonment of Norman Scarth who is actually 85. He has a complex history including a court hearing which found that he used a chainsaw to fight off bailiffs when he was 75. [a court judgment which is disputed see comments] However, that does not justify imprisoning him for 6 months for recording a court hearing (see the link and ask google to translate it if your Russian is not up to it). It has got into the Argyll News Because he has been held such that people cannot get to him to sign paperwork an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was made today. This has been adjourned until next week. The English judicial system is really not good at responding to major abuses of human rights by the judicial system.