Sinster censorship caused by Part P

[bigcat]

they are a way of reducing the annual slaughter that is driving. That is their reasonable basis.

NT

[:::Jerry::::]

[ context snipped previously ]

But they do not stop that slaughter.

[:::Jerry::::]

[ re ID cards ]

muggers and

commit their

All quite correct, but what is so wrong in having to carry an ID card, that is the point I'm trying to make, personally I can't see the need for ID cards (certainly not for the reason Blair and Co. are giving) but I can't see what the problems is with having to carry one if the law demands it. I *can* see concerns about who could be entitled to see and or access any information recorded on to the card, but then many of the same concerns could be levelled at bank cards etc.

[John Rumm]

Partly it is about losing yet another freedom that we in the UK have had for a very long time, that is not typically available in many other countries.

At the moment no one can randomly stop you in the street and demand that you prove who you are.

There is also the practical issue of there being occasions where you are popping out for a walk along the beach one summer evening, and you don't want to carry anything. Currently you can do just that, and you won't get into trouble for doing it (unless there is no one home when you return without your key! ;-)

[:::Jerry::::]

giving)

But as you say, we have been loosing freedoms for many years...

But just having ID cards does not mean that anyone will be able to do so, what it does mean is that anyone who needs to verify you are who you are will be able, together with you being able to prove who you are - both with the minimum 'fuss'.

If the Police have (in their eyes) good reason they can stop you now in the street and ask who you are and where you live. Who is suggesting that there will be hoards of Police walking around randomly stopping people?

won't

Well unless you walk in the nude what is the problem about carrying an ID card, as you say, most people will be carrying at least their house keys anyway?

[John Rumm]

True, but I don't see it as a suitable justification to lose more. It is a slippery slope each step makes the next objection simpler to overcome. Once the ID card database is in place then it can be used in justification for what in the IT world we call it feature creep.

If I want to prove who I am, then I can do so now with a minimum of fuss. I don't see that an ID card helps much. It can be no more authorative than the sources of information that it is based on (i.e. passports etc). There is a danger however that it will be trusted more and hence people will do less cross checking than they currently do when it matters.

Which is information you are not obliged to supply (unless they arrest you).

I doubt it. However you can see that it will become yet another tool they use in much the same way as they used to use the "suss" laws

I am not suggesting this point is a partcularly "big" one - it pales into insignificance compared to the all invasive database. However it does add yet another way that someone in officaldom can have a pop at you should they want to for some reason.

[:::Jerry::::]

overcome.

But that, again, has been happening to (a lesser extent) for many years.

(i.e.

True, and that is one of my concerns, the need for such cards when at least 80 percent of the adult population already have suitable ID, a fact born out by Labours 'plan B'.

arrest you).

...and you want a lot of hassle, if you have done nothing wrong what is the objection to giving your details, if they suspect you of being involved in crime they are just as likely to arrest you so you can 'help them with their enquiries'.

It's due to people objecting without good reason to giving the police the above information that some think there is a need for compulsory ID.

[Joe]

That makes it all right, does it? Wouldn't an equally valid conclusion be that we should roll it all back?

Hang on, how often do the Police have 'good reason' to want to know who you are? If I'm ever asked, I will know for certain whether they have 'good reason', and I don't see why I should need to account for my existence if they haven't. They're not gods, or royalty, they're just other people.

There's no practical reason for saying either that compulsory identity card carrying is a right or a wrong thing. Certainly it will solve nothing. It will allow easier form-filling on the part of some people who have no other purpose in life, but why should I be inconvenienced and fined to achieve that? Why shouldn't they have to make my life easier? I pay their wages, after all, they don't pay mine.

The bottom line, as they say, is that a card-carrying society is not one I wish to live in. I don't see why I should have to accommodate those who do, rather than them accommodating me.

[Stefek Zaba]

What's 'good reason'? And who establishes it?

The structure of policing in the UK is based on the idea of 'policing by consent'. Of course, it's easier to consent if you're middle-class and white (guilty on both counts); but that's still the approach which dominates, regardless of the area - community policing, link-building, engagement, seems to work better over the longterm than massed swoops (though an initial swoop and prosecution of local 'enforcers' seems to be an effective initial component of local policing).

So, what effect does the introduction of ID cards have on this style of policing? Is it more likely that people stopped and asked (maybe 'required' later?) to produce ID will (a) be carrying ID which identifies them as Known Wrong 'Uns On The Run, allowing the police to arrest them on the spot; (b) be innocent, but resent being stopped; (c) be pleased that the police are active on their patch?

I'm not aware of any recent research on the balance between (b) and (c); I know that the experience of wartime and just-after in the UK was weighted in the (b) direction, precisely because of 'function creep' - it's said there were three circumstances for ID-card checking at introduction, but over fifty when they were scrapped. In the judgment given in 1953 in the test case which scrapped them, the lord chief justice (Goddard) ruled that giving police the power to demand an ID card "from all and sundry, for instance, from a lady who may leave her car outside a shop longer than she should", made people resentful of the police and "inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist them."

Still, that was 50 years ago, and we've moved on [tm] since then. Shut up, Santayana...

Stefek

[John Rumm]

Sadly they now seem to have a collection of techniques and practices that achieve the same result. What intrigues me is their apparent inability to connect these with their concerns over lack of public co-operation.

It also opens the philosophical debate regarding use of technology in general. We now live at a time where significant numbers of minor "crimes" that historically were policed more in the breach, could now be policed in totality. You could if you choose criminalise a large swathe of the population with little effort.

Case in point: Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is now being rolled out nationwide. This will allow for the first time automatic detection of all unlicensed (taxed) vehicles on the roads. How the authorities choose to use this data will have a big effect on its perception.

Yes, it must be a good thing to pick up the persistent dodger who has never taxed the vehicle and probably does not have MOT / Insurance either. But do you also want to prosecute the little old lady who fully intends to renew her tax as she has for the last 40 years, but forgot to go to the post office at the right time, and is now 20 days past the renewal date? What about all the poor sods who have had someone "borrow" their name and address when filling in the vehicles V5?

You can also see that the feature creep available offers some very tantalizing prospective uses of the data. How long do you suppose they will be able to resist using the data for these purposes? (before you answer, remember back to the assurances given that speed cameras would only ever be placed "close to accident black spots" on the actual roads where the accidents happened... how long did that last before "close to accident black spot" became "within a 'n' mile radius, and on any road in the area"?)

[:::Jerry::::]

being

As long as it is used to throw the book at the wankers who think its clever to use registration plates with illegally spaced letters and or numbers to make the plate read something different at first glance [1] - IMO the offence should be classed and prosecuted the same as driving with fails plates.

[1] which is all someone might get when the vehicle is involved in an incident, and is the reason for having to display the registration in the first place.

[DJC]

But personalised plates are so conspicuous. They may be misleading, but they are obviously misread and one can correct for that. People who would prefer to escape attention shouldn't have personal plates. Ah, I forgot, criminals are stupid.

[:::Jerry::::]

I'm not talking about 'personal' plates [1] but plates that have illegally spaced letters or numbers, a big difference in that the 'personal' plate is recorded on the DVLA data base.

[1] personal plates are legal plates that have been issued but the DVLA (or it's forbears) that mean something to the owner or possibly spell out a word.

[John Rumm]

ANPR quite often fails to recognise non standard plates. In the case of speed trap systems like SPECS then the plate is passed on to a human operative to check. Not sure what will happen on ANPR since there will obviously be 10's of thousnads of mis-read plates in the space of a day, mostly for legitimate reasons.

[:::Jerry::::]

All the more reason for these vehicles to be removed from the road when ever they are spotted by Police or Traffic Wardens etc., there would only need to be a dozen or so cases were the owner looses [1] their vehicle and is fined before people fit the correct *standards* compliant plates.....

[1] I would suggest that the vehicles are scrapped / crushed, as now happens to many abandoned and unclaimed vehicles removed from the curb side.

[John Rumm]

I was talking about the *legitimate* failures to read a plate - i.e. partially obscured by another vehicle, poor visibility, ANPR system capturing sign written text on vehicles etc.

You will also have false positive problems as well to deal with. What happens when a fine drops through your letterbox for driving a vehicle that you have created a SORN notice for simply because the system misread a similar plate incorrectly?

[Alan]

In message , John Rumm wrote

As usual, many of the schemes can only cut 'crime' if criminals give correct details in the first place.

... and after the once badly designed road has had a major layout change to cure the problem.

[Alan]

Isn't number plate cloning becoming an increasing problem with the London congestion charge? The fine goes to the registered owner of the plate and not to the person driving the car with the false plates.

I note that there a few speed cameras local to me that take front and back photographs in an attempt to identify the driver (I presume in the event of an appealed fine). I bet this technology works well for cars with (illegal?) dark tinted windows i.e. those driven by drug dealers :).

[Tony Williams]

Wasn't there a congestion charge levied on a classic car in a bristol museum, clearly permanently off-road. Afair the law was written such that the museum was forced to pay the fine anyway, then had the expense of trying to reclaim it.

[Brian Sharrock]

A road that I frequently traverse (A259 aka 'The Coast Road') has an interesting section: - travelling westward there's a divided carriageway each with very wide three lanes ... but for a very short section it's pinched down to two lanes with shops along it - many ***** drivers double-park in the nearside lane 'while they pop-in to a shop' - they seem to think switching 'flashers' on excuses their blatant disregard to safety or convenience of other drivers. Now; please guess - where are the traffic police and/or their speed-detector sited?