It is well established that there are repressive regimes around. And that many (probably most) of those regimes have compulsory ID cards. I don't dispute that for one moment.
What I *do* dispute is that compulsory ID cards makes such a regime inevitable.
I think you would agree that most criminals own clothes. But that does not mean that everyone who owns clothes is a criminal.
There are many countries in the world who have ID cards, including most of our European "partners". Most of them are not what could reasonably be described as repressive regimes.
Now answer the question. Do you think that the population of Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, etc. are all slaves? All those countries have had compulsory ID cards for quite some time.
If you do think they are all slaves, please explain why.
If not, please explain why you think the UK would be any different.
I'm not disputing for one moment that there are countries where ID has to be shown for fairly trivial transactions.
What I am pointing out is that it is by no means inevitable.
Incidentally, since photo ID is usually required for monthly bus/train passes even in this country now, I don't think that is necessarily unreasonable in the Netherlands (or even just in Holland if it is only in that art of the country :-)
That is not at all the same as having to show ID just to use the train or bus.
There is absolutely no general restriction whatsoever on any of us travelling within this country, beyond that of having to pay for the journey.
There are limited restrictions on certain people, due to injunctions or ASBOs. But that is not remotely the same. Even with those people, there is no actual travel restrictions preventing them, just that they are likley to be arrested if found and recognised in the area they are not allowed.
The Tornado ADV went into service without working radar ... in fact many of them went in to service with a lump of concrete where the radar should have been ... handy when their main weapons are SARH missiles.
Wel I live surrounded by farmers, and basiocally it looks like they will make slightluy more money froim not farmong than they will from farming.
One assumes that Prescott will then point the finger at 'all that unused buiilding land' and compulsorily purchase it at agricultural prices, and then build sink estates on it. Where chavs with packs of dogs on scooters will hunt foxes...
I will check that the next time I want a monthly travel pass in Birmingham - it used to be a photo ID in the sense that it was the same person taking the bus who was authorised... not in the sense that a person needed to show his personal details.
Was he carrying stolen eggs? How exactly do the nesting birds give you thr right to destroy a camera film that he has paid for with his own money? Would you have reimbursed the cost of the film?
Not inevitable, but *easily possible* Therefore it represents a risk
- and IMO in today's Britain, I consider it to be quite a high risk.
In order to take any risk, I have to see a real advantage that outweighs that risk. I see *zero* advantage in having to carry an ID card around. The main thing you appear to have raised is that it will make it easier for me to provide proof of identity when I need to. At present I have absolutely no problem in providing ID when I need to (which is not often). A passport and a drivers licence satisfies just about everyone. I also sometimes have to provide proof of where I live which requires a utility bill. IIUC the ID card will not be able to be used for proof of home address.
That's because clothes are not commonly used as tools of crime. ID card s are commonly used tools of control or repression. So to compare like with like, you might try substituting the word "gun" or "jemmy" for "clothes".
It boils down to trust. Trust should always be mutual, and it helps a lot if it is backed up by a legal contract or other disincentive to abuse the trust.
I'm meant to simply trust the government not to abuse the power that a compulsory ID card would give it. I base that trust on the vague words *but no assurances* of one person who I am certain has deliberately tried to mislead me in the past, and who in any case will be replaced in a few years' time by someone unknown. I have no assurance of a constitution or similar that forbids the misuse of the ID card.
Meanwhile, the government I am being asked to trust with a powerful tool of potential oppression against me does not trust *me* to carry even a pen-knife for fear that I might misuse it. So it doesn't look as if the trust will be very mutual, does it?
The "everyone else is doing it" it is always a poor argument. There are plenty of countries that *have* used ID cards as a tool of control and/or oppression, and the UK government is going through quite a heavy control phase at the moment.
Their citizens have also been permitted own and carry guns and knives. Although the right to bear arms would not by itself make me in favour of an ID card, it does go a little way toward redressing the balance of power between the state and the citizens, and it also shows more
*mutual* trust between state and citizen.
One reason is that the UK government has developed a very aggressive and arrogant attitude over the past decade or so compared to the countries you mention, and I trust aggressive and arrogant people less than those who are not. I also do not believe that compulsory ID cards are right in *any* country. The fact that some countries have not abused them yet does not mean that (a) they have made life any better in those countries or (b) they could not be abused in future.
Instead of trumpeting about the countries that have managed not to abuse their ID cards (which is a bit like boasting about drunk drivers who have managed not to kill anyone), I'd like you to tell me what
*advantage* the citizens of those countries have obtained from having an ID card (i.e. in what ways are their lives better than ours because of the cards), and I'd also like you to tell me what went wrong in the countries that *have* abused their ID card system, and why a similar thing could never happen in the UK.
F-15's would have been an excelent choice of multi-role aircraft....
I've always thought we would have been better going down that route, than wasting time, money and effort on the Tornado Project, then wasting even more time and money trying to redesign and force a ground attack airframe to do an air defence role....
Is there any reason why British Aerospace couldn't have built them under license?....In much the same way that the Yanks built Canberras and spitfires under license?....
Tornado maneuvers like a double decker bus....It's only the skill of aircrews that makes it out-perform our American cousins aircraft.... Look at the sort of flying an RAF tornado crew can do, compared to Italian or German tornado crews....
Typhoon, although shaping up to be a pretty decent multi-role aircraft, is 5 years late....
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.