Identity Cards

[Margarine]

Grouse will be bricking it.

[Margarine]

A few quid on the side for err.. bath plugs and videos?

[Al Fowler]

A few quid on the side for err.. bath plugs and videos?

Thats a wierd fetish.

[Guick Dotto]

I don't mind carrying a card or having to if it proves I have a right eg to drive a car, call myself a teacher, an affiliated runner, a qualified nurse etc.
I don't see why I should need a card just to have the right to walk around.
I am a free Englishman (despite my exotic name). How dare they covet my freedom.

[TheHeathens]

When in an accident you're required to exchange details I.e. identities. Names and addresses won't always do, neither will jotting down number plates.

Why not? Why is the number plate not sufficient evidence? As mentioned previously, people driving illegally are not going to give you their fingerprints are they, so what's the point in taking further evidence from law-abiding people?

Exchanging fingerprints is a simple and honest way of establishing identity. I've seen it work in America for people who want to hire a car.

A person walks in to the car hire and says "I'd like to hire a car please." The Man on the other side of the counter says "sure that'll be 200bucks and a set of prints please." He doesn't give a stuff if the fellow has an I.D card, if he wants the car he'll have to give his prints.

Clearly a different situation - that's a voluntary action on behalf of the person who wants to hire the car, they can make their own assessment on the trustworthiness of the person asking and refuse if they want to.

This is no different to giving personal details to a person or company; you make your assessment on them and decide whether to release the information.

The thing is Heathens you only associate the taking of fingerprints with criminal activities so you cannot conceive of an alternative process involving consenting adults.

The problem with you Christopher Leigh is that you are treating voluntary and compulsory acts exactly the same. If you were forced to give fingerprints, how could you check the trustworthiness and credibility of the people taking them?

At the moment, there's probably not much they can do but if this became law, how soon before some criminal found a way to exploit it through advancements in technology.

[CL]

Why not? Why is the number plate not sufficient evidence? As mentioned previously, people driving illegally are not going to give you their fingerprints are they, so what's the point in taking further evidence from law-abiding people?



Clearly a different situation - that's a voluntary action on behalf of the person who wants to hire the car, they can make their own assessment on the trustworthiness of the person asking and refuse if they want to.

This is no different to giving personal details to a person or company; you make your assessment on them and decide whether to release the information.



The problem with you Christopher Leigh is that you are treating voluntary and compulsory acts exactly the same. If you were forced to give fingerprints, how could you check the trustworthiness and credibility of the people taking them?

At the moment, there's probably not much they can do but if this became law, how soon before some criminal found a way to exploit it through advancements in technology.

Because a number plate is not identity of the person. If all police took your position and said we're not going to stop motorists for driving dangerously(and some do), because they MAY attack me, no one would ever be stopped.

The idea that all uninsured drivers would attack you for asking for identity is just an excuse for cowardice. There are situations where hit and run mentalities hit and can't run. They sometimes have to face their victims. As it stands now, all they have to do is convince their victims that they are who they say they are.

If taking prints became a requirement at the scene of an accident, an uninsured person would have to refuse to give them or give them knowing he wouldn't be on the run for long(if you get my drift). In the former case you would know immediately to call the police and in the latter the insurance companies could take steps to find the culprit.

Now you say I am confusing voluntary and compulsory acts. Actually I'm not, because I go to the root of the problem. You just fish around on the surface, like with economics.

To drive on the road is not a compulsory act. Therefore if you don't like the terms and conditions(implications) don't apply.

[fellgazelle]

I rather fear that Jackie is closer to the truth, this is a ploy to gather data for 'other' purposes and make a few quid on the side as well.

Agreed, and I bet they charge to renew it every ten years as per the passport, photocard driving licence, etc.

[ZootHornRollo]

I don't mind carrying a card or having to if it proves I have a right eg to drive a car, call myself a teacher, an affiliated runner, a qualified nurse etc.
I don't see why I should need a card just to have the right to walk around.
I am a free Englishman (despite my exotic name). How dare they covet my freedom.

indeed indeed, spot on

there's lots of arguments against this noxious idea, but the big daddy that should convince anyone is this: it is a surrender to the idea that the individuals are servile to the state that they have sanctioned. A person should not have to prove their identity merely in order to exist and walk down the street.

we vote in a government to serve our purposes by maintaining a stable civil society: that it then acquires the power to demand of us the proof of existence is abhorrent.

[TheHeathens]

Because a number plate is not identity of the person. If all police took your position and said we're not going to stop motorists for driving dangerously(and some do), because they MAY attack me, no one would ever be stopped.

You're waffling (!) and not answering the question posed to you. Law abiding people will give you their details anyway and their numberplate can be used to track the owner of the car (who is ultimately responsible for the person driving it, unless taken illegally).

Why are you bringing the police into it? That's their job; our taxes pay for them to do their job so we don't have to. What a stupid point.

The idea that all uninsured drivers would attack you for asking for identity is just an excuse for cowardice. There are situations where hit and run mentalities hit and can't run. They sometimes have to face their victims. As it stands now, all they have to do is convince their victims that they are who they say they are.

Firstly, I never said all uninsured drivers would attack you, just that you are increasing the risk. Cowardice? Would you be happy with your pregnant wife (for example) demanding prints? Anyway, this wasn't the question.

As you're myopic, I'll make it very easy for you:

How do you ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of the person taking the fingerprints?

Take a look at this thread:

http://forum.fellrunner.org.uk/showt...ghlight=police

If taking prints became a requirement at the scene of an accident, an uninsured person would have to refuse to give them or give them knowing he wouldn't be on the run for long(if you get my drift). In the former case you would know immediately to call the police and in the latter the insurance companies could take steps to find the culprit.

The police wouldn't treat that as an emergency call. Before I went to Uni I worked in a petrol station and their average response time to 'drive-offs' was about 2 hours at best. Best take off those rose-tinted spectacles.

Now you say I am confusing voluntary and compulsory acts. Actually I'm not, because I go to the root of the problem. You just fish around on the surface, like with economics.

At least I have some knowledge of economics. Yours can be written on the top corner of your beloved Daily Mail. What exactly qualifies you in economics again?

Your knowledge (and I can dig up the quote) is based upon "I read it on an internet forum" or "I spoke to someone".

This argument is for another thread but I suspect we're now in a Bull run and if we are, you're going to look very silly over the next few months.

To drive on the road is not a compulsory act. Therefore if you don't like the terms and conditions(implications) don't apply.

You need a licence to drive on the road - make it compulsory to carry that when driving if you really need to prove your identity.

[CL]

You're waffling (!) and not answering the question posed to you. Law abiding people will give you their details anyway and their numberplate can be used to track the owner of the car (who is ultimately responsible for the person driving it, unless taken illegally).

Why are you bringing the police into it? That's their job; our taxes pay for them to do their job so we don't have to. What a stupid point.



Firstly, I never said all uninsured drivers would attack you, just that you are increasing the risk. Cowardice? Would you be happy with your pregnant wife (for example) demanding prints? Anyway, this wasn't the question.

As you're myopic, I'll make it very easy for you:

How do you ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of the person taking the fingerprints?

Take a look at this thread:

http://forum.fellrunner.org.uk/showt...ghlight=police




The police wouldn't treat that as an emergency call. Before I went to Uni I worked in a petrol station and their average response time to 'drive-offs' was about 2 hours at best. Best take off those rose-tinted spectacles.



At least I have some knowledge of economics. Yours can be written on the top corner of your beloved Daily Mail. What exactly qualifies you in economics again?

Your knowledge (and I can dig up the quote) is based upon "I read it on an internet forum" or "I spoke to someone".

This argument is for another thread but I suspect we're now in a Bull run and if we are, you're going to look very silly over the next few months.



You need a licence to drive on the road - make it compulsory to carry that when driving if you really need to prove your identity.

Why don't you just say you don't get it Heathens?For those who do understand, no further explanation is necessary.

Just a couple of points about economics though. I never claimed to be an economist. All I ever said was that in times of trouble, gold was king. You believed diversification was king, and I just challenged that viewpoint from a layman's perspective.

Like I said earlier on another thread, if an expert tells me something I know is false I.e. 2+2=5, I don't need to be an expert in calculus to know it's so.

By the way you're mistaken in your view of my love for the Daily Mail.