Sinster censorship caused by Part P

About 2 seconds in a microwave oven should remove that particular danger.

Reply to
RichardS
Loading thread data ...

Near me in Leeds on a 1.2 mile stretch of the A643 the Council have recently installed 12 cameras (6 in each direction) as a result of lobbying by Local Councillors for a single pair of cameras. For years the Council stonewalled them by saying traffic and accident levels did not justify a camera.

However once they "crossed the Rubicon" they seem to have decided that "If 1 camera each way is "a good thing" then 6 must be absolutely marvellous so let's see what the Local Councillors say now".

They have done this on several other roads in the city, Viz, A65, A62, and A660.

DG

Reply to
Derek *

In message , chris French wrote

No problem for the law abiding individual but it could be a problem for law enforcement if respect for the Police no longer exists.

The tax can be avoided by paying more attention to the roadside rather than paying attention to what is in front of you. I'm sure this aids road safety.

The Police can only operate if the population at large agrees to what they are doing.

IMO, a large number people don't agree on how the yellow boxes and speed traps are being operated by the Police and believe they have little to do with road safety and more to do with generating cash.

How long before the majority of the population are classified as criminals by these yellow boxes and who many of are going to have the attitude of 'f**k them' when it comes to dealing with the Police in the future.

Reply to
Alan

12 boxes and one or two cameras, more likely.

And a jolly good idea. Why shouldn't those who /choose/ to break the law not help out the local economy. I do speed at times, but i don't moan when caught.

Reply to
B Thumbs

Although not perfect, there is still plenty of respect and cooperation between police and public. Imagine what would happen to crime rates if that evaporated entirely.

  1. It is not whether one is law abiding that counts, it is whether certain people think you are or not. The 2 are obviously different things.
  2. Are you going to tell us there has never been, is not currently, and never will be any law that is unjust or even outrageous? Such laws always exist, society is never perfect.
  3. Will you put your hand on your heart and tell us there are never any miscarriages of justice? Have you ever even been in a courrt and appreciated the considerable problems involved in determining the truth and the guilt or innocence?
  4. And finally, if the law says you must carry ID cards, and you commit the awful crime of walking peacefully down the street, and are arrested, assaulted, strip searched, thrown into a cell, threatened, prosecuted, and so on, will you still tell us its abiding by the law that counts? And that what happened to you was in fact just? Can anyone be so naive?

NT

Reply to
bigcat

It is already used to prove ID, but this is fundamentally different to the ID card proposed. The driving license is a different thing, has a genuine justification, and is not a significant problem.

that is not possible, since at no time can everyone be expected to have a driving license.

no, these are very diffrent things to ID cards. The fact that they also prove or semi-prove ID does not make them the same thing.

wrong, obviously. The government and the governed always exist in a balance of power, and it must be so for society to remain reasonably healthy.

License and passport arent ID cards. Look at what the problems are with ID cards, quite different.

NT

Reply to
bigcat

So if a new government, of whatever party, enacts a law on May 6th (or

10th, or whenever it gets its act together) requiring compulsory ID cards, we can... do what, exactly?

Bear in mind that the current large overall government majority results from the votes of less than a quarter of the electorate.

Reply to
Joe

But they can be made into them quite easily. There has already been talk about how passports could be made to hold the same information that they want ID's cards to hold, what's more (as I've already said before) they don't even need Parliamentary approval to do so.

It's no different, a database is a database. How secure that database is, well. that's another issue.

The point is, if HMG want to introduce an ID card then they will, if they have a majority and use the whip they will be able to make carrying it compulsory, once introduced I can't see any future HMG giving them up. QED...

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

You missed the vital line in the other posts "....but when speed limits are reduced for no real reason and soon after a camera is erected you really do have to ask what the real reasons are...." and " For years the Council stonewalled them by saying traffic and accident levels did not justify a camera.", I don't think anyone object to the placing of cameras at danger spots but when speed limits are reduced and then camera are installed it's nothing what so even to do with preventing accidents.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

The govt don't have to make them overtly compulsory - they will become the standard for all occasions where identity is desired (even if not neeed), whether de facto or de jure. Sign up with a doctor or dentist, sign up for evening classes, open a bank account, rent a flat / television / car, start a new job, buy a new consumer unit ....

Owain

Reply to
Owain

They can introduce them but the judiciary can, have (in 1954) and hopefully will again make having, let alone carrying them, optional.

Reply to
Mike

Reply to
Mike

We're long past that phase round here. Not only speed cameras but lots of other nonsense where the police seem to set their own priorities irrespective of the views of local councillors or members of the public. What we need are locally elected sheriffs like in the US to replace chief constables.

Reply to
Mike

Pshaw. The democratic process in the UK isn't perfect, but if sufficient people don't 'like it' it won't happen. Australia's experience with their 'citizen card' is instructive: when initially planned, Publick Opinion was sthg like 70% in support; as the debate progressed and the proposals were scrutinised more carefully, the proportion swung the other way, with 70% or so opposed. The plan was abandonulated.

Even the '80% of the population support the idea' survey (details at

formatting link
) shows the public support, with very little detailed discussion in the popular media yet, to be very soft. In that survey, the first question was, roughly, 'ID cards: good or bad?', 81% replying in the 'v good' or 'good' categories. There's then a series of further questions: 'national biometrics register: good or bad' (no mention of comprehensive audit trail of presentation of these cards and/or scanning of a matching biometric, mind) - 81% still in the 'yeah OK' categories; then a series of polarised statements, covering many of the points we've sketched here

- e.g. 'do you agree more with "govt IT, brewery, great time, organise, couldn't" or "govt IT, experienced, already run big systems, will do fine with this one too", generally supporting the gummint arguments still, though interestingly in a ratio of about 65:35 rather than 80:20.

Until we get to a non-abstract impact: that of personal cost. First qn here is 'how much would you pay': 30% nowt, next 45% in the "up to 20 quid" boxes. That's 75% accounted for; another 23% cap their enthusiasm at 50 quid, with none in the 60, 70, 80, 90 bands, but the last 2% in the "affluent patriots" box of "up to 100 nicker". (They can't *all* be IT consultants working on privatised gummint IT, can they? :-) Second qn says "well, HMG figure 35quid, or 85quid combined with a passport. Now waddya think?" Our 81% fades to 68% - most of the movement being from "v good" to "good". So, present one new fact, on proposed cost, and support drops by 13 percentage points out of 81 - that's one-sixth of the project "supporters" faded away. The survey didn't go on to say, for example, 'criminals currently gain access to centralised government databases by slipping 100 quid to people whose low-paid jobs give them access to those databases. Do you think the gummint will keep the national identity register and the record of all the times and places where the ID card's been shown secure against such access?', or similar questions giving rates of 'hacker' (cracker, really, but we've lost that linguistic battle!) access to DB systems.

The manouver they've used only allows them to tweak the passport format; to set up the really significant part of this proposal - the linked databases of card and biometric usages, and the links to other databases

- needs the primary legislation which was timed out in the last session, but which will back in the new Parliament.

Unashamedly biased followup info at <

formatting link
> and <
formatting link
>

Reply to
Stefek Zaba

AIUI that was due to the reason they were introduced having past, this time it looks like an open ended reason....

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

I have not had a passport for about 30 years and I very much doubt that I will get one in the next 30 years.

I have a paper driving licence and I doubt that I will continue to drive if my doctor tells me not to.

Where does that leave me?

Dave

Reply to
Dave

Indeed. But I can't see most of these simpler "ID checks" being done by Fully Authorised Users with biometric readers and links to the Central DB. (To be specific: enrol at NHS provider: yes, but emergency treatment won't need an ID card; evg classes - no; open back acct - yes-ish; rent a flat - no; rent a teli - unlikely unless TVLRO enforce and/or subsidise readers at point-of-rental, and in any case the TV rental market's almost dead now that cheapie TVs are, wot, 40 quid at Tesco; rent a car - not at most sites, *expecially* airports (short-stay overseas visitors won't carry a UK-issued ID card); start new job - no, most employers won't have on-line readers; buy a new CU - yes of course ;-)

All of which suggests to me that there will be a great deal of purely visual ID-card "checking" - "yup, that looks like your photo on that bit of laminated plastic". Which will make trivial forgery well worth while: and because the majority, law-abiding population would (if the legislation came to pass) carry genuine Govt-issue ID, the aura of Officially Issued ID would make using non-reader-checked use of forgeries *more*, not less, attractive to fraudsters.

If you want to think those example through some more - the 'start a new job' is one where there's a whole variety of cases depending on the 'officialness' of the employer. At one end of the scale is applying for a permanent job for a large private- or public-sector body: there the personnel dept will prolly have an on-line reader. The big range in the middle will be at smaller private companies, where they'll copy down details manually from the card you show them, but if the NIRN (National Identity Registration Number) on the card turns out (when they pass details on to the tax-n-benefit authorities) not to match the name you gave, expect uncomfortable questions from your new employer. At the purely casual end, 'employers' will look at ID cards and write down details for the valid-looking ones, so that they can vaguely plausibly claim to have checked; many will push responsibility for such checking on to agency intermediaries anyway.

Stefek, appearing to drift from uk.d-i-y topics - but what's more d-i-y than forging plausible-looking State ID cards? Oh, silly me, it'll be

*illegal*; so that'll stop everyone, expecially criminals, from doing it...
Reply to
Stefek Zaba

It'll be required 'for the safety of other students' - applicants already have to declare criminal convictions

Landlords and letting agents would be daft to let without some proof of ID; if there's an ID Card they can ask for that. Not legally demand, but there will be no penalty on them refusing to let to someone without an ID Card.

Short-stay overseas visitors will have a passport or National Identity Card from their own country.

Already required, to some extent.

I agree, but the number of places asking for or insisting on ID Card will mean that most people will decide it's less hassle to forget their principles and get one.

Why bother forging a card - if the system is based on existing records (passports, driving licences, birth certificates) those are already all compromised. Just apply for a new card with false info. The biometric /might/ mean you can only get one card and duplicates will be detected, but possibly not.

Owain

Reply to
Owain

The rules appear to have changed from 1/1/2003, but not in Oz which has (SAIUI)mutually agreed standards with NZ. see

formatting link

Would be good to hear from s

Reply to
jim_in_sussex

On 24 Apr 2005, jim_in_sussex wrote

Thanks for the link; that sort of confirms what I was told -- the bit that affected what I intended to do is explained at

formatting link
though, seems to contradict itself, in that on page 1 it says (to paraphrase) that you can run all the wiring and stuff you like, but that it has to be checked, tested and connected to the electricity supply by a licensed electrician; but on page 2 it says that in your own home you can extend, install or alter any cables except those between the street and the consumer unit.

It seems even more confusing to me than Part P.

Reply to
Harvey Van Sickle

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.