UK 'ID Cards' - Do you want them?

[Mark Davies]

Originally Posted by chrisch

I am a little confused here. Are you saying you cannot arrest me for not wearing a seatbelt if I have ID?

I think I must misunderstand the term "arrest".

Just a quick one Chris - basically as it stands, no - I couldn't arrest you. It's not an arrestable offence and is dealt with by fixed penalty or summons only. However, what are called "general arrest conditions" (as provided by s.25 PACE) do apply. This provides that if it is not practicable to proceed by way of summons because the offender's identity or address cannot be verified then that person can be arrested for the purpose of establishing who they are. This is why being in possession of proper ID can prevent arrests and stop you being taken into custody.

Just to clarify the term, 'arrest' means to detain you against your will and inevitably take you to a police station and custody. Once there you would be charged with the offence. If it was still not possible to confirm who you were you'd be kept in custody to appear before the next available court - usually the next day. A 'summons' is just that - a written notice requiring you to attend court for a hearing. Obviously if we don't know your address or who you are, how can we post you a summons? That's why we have the option to arrest.

[PeteM]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

So how are you gonna attract the attention - just going about your normal business - of coppers who are on the beat looking for same?

And I can't see "as I find it uncomfortable" being considered a valid or plausible defence for not having one as and when these cards come in. Can you?

No it is not a reasonable defense, which is part of the point. Something that is quiet reasonable (i.e. going for a run not wanting to carry anything) is proposed being criminalised.

Everyone that forgets to pick up the card, leaves it in their other suit or does not have it on them for any one of a miriad legitimate reasons automatically becomes a criminal. Making a large part of the population criminals is not a good idea and tends to disenfranchise people (Evidence: peoples attitudes towards Gatso cameras and the growing acceptance of the legitmacy of vadalising them).

When people talk about the civil liberties arguements this is a large part of what they are getting at

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

Just to clarify the term, 'arrest' means to detain you against your will and inevitably take you to a police station and custody. Once there you would be charged with the offence. If it was still not possible to confirm who you were you'd be kept in custody to appear before the next available court - usually the next day. A 'summons' is just that - a written notice requiring you to attend court for a hearing. Obviously if we don't know your address or who you are, how can we post you a summons? That's why we have the option to arrest.

Thanks for that clarification. Not sure I completely get it (old age - too much booze), but I think it hinges on being led away...

As ever, I learn something from YD. (Esp. Mark!! Keep up the deco stuff mate!)

Sounds to me like the ID card is useful to you and your colleagues in this respect. Not sure it is useful to me ...................

In fact, I am tempted to change my mind here. As it stands there is no requirement to carry the ID card. That may be a sop to the civil liberties people but it - to my mind - addresses the liberties issue. Clearly as it stands the introduction of ID cards does not help you in your job at all.

That said it must surely be a short period of time after their introduction before several Chief Constables start gobbing off about how much better it would be (for the police anyway) if everyone had to carry the card. After all we have got it we might as well use it.

I have long believed the government wants to make their carriage compulsory but figures the best way to achieve this is in stages to keep the liberties people quiet.

You have significantly strengthened that belief.

I'm glad I voted no.

Chris

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Paul Oliver

Last night alone, a few trained officers on the shift i was on were able to stop a dozen offenders, many of whom would have claimed assylum and cost the tax payers between them £1 million + while their claims in line with their human rights were assesed, refused, appealed, refused, appealed, refused, then they go missing with a new identity and no need to prove it. Not even counting the abuse of the NHS and housing system that would have gone on their as well.

Thats a staggering £83 grand each.

Bollocks.

Its this sort of stuff that drives the idiotic press to want these things.

Chris

[Mark Davies]

Originally Posted by chrisch

Sounds to me like the ID card is useful to you and your colleagues in this respect. Not sure it is useful to me ...................

............. Clearly as it stands the introduction of ID cards does not help you in your job at all.

I'm not sure I follow this immediate and obvious self-contradiction!

I think I've made my point clear that it would be useful to us in some respects, but more so to those who choose to have one. I do agree with your points about the limitations inherent in a voluntary scheme. No doubt, someone going out to commit a burglary isn't going to take their ID card with them! No doubt they'd have to have one because they'll almost certainly be claiming benefits. But a card is of little use if it's hidden and the little toe-rag I've just dragged from someone's house is keeping stum.

Ah, but! If fingerprints are part of the records kept for the card them we've got him. We have an electronic livescan fingerprint system which can identify him within the hour. Currently this is only any good if he's been arrested before and so we have his prints. If he's had to provide prints to get a card we'd get him.

Now this raises the whole civil liberties argument, but I have to say I have never heard or read an actual argument about how exactly this is a breach of civil liberty. I just hear the fact screamed out without any explanation why. So I'd be interested to hear it.

Exactly how is the state holding information on your identity a natural breach of civil liberty? Why should personal anonymity be assumed as a natural right? What is it that you should instinctively be allowed to do that lack of anonymity prevents?

Now don't forget, as a police officer I am not a machine - a robot in the service of the state - I'm just a bloke doing what I hope is a worthwhile job, same as everyone else. I've wracked my brains over this and I personally can't find many answers.

'It just is!' is never an answer.

The only thing I can think of is that it would make it difficult for someone to assume a new identity to just disappear and walk away from their lives to start afresh. Now there's nothing objectionable to people doing that, presuming they're not running away to evade a load of debt (though of course the emotional stress it causes other people is imense, we can't legislate against hurting other peoples' feelings). Effectively it makes it difficult for you to choose to go missing.

I can't think of anything else, but is that enough?

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

I'm not sure I follow this immediate and obvious self-contradiction!


[font=Comic Sans MS][color=#4b0082]Ah, but! If fingerprints are part of the records kept for the card them we've got him. We have an electronic livescan fingerprint system which can identify him within the hour. Currently this is only any good if he's been arrested before and so we have his prints. If he's ..

OK Mark two points (and its late Friday night so last post for a bit).

To clarify my point: the cards have a theoretic and possible future value to you so you have an interest in seeing them introduced. However, the current proposal does not require me to carry the card - ever. Therefore the introduction of the card will not address any of the issues you talk about since most people will not carry the card. Nothing has changed from the current situation.

PC: Show me your ID
Crim: Its at home
PC: Oh dear. On your way then chummie...

or something like that..

Everyone who has posted something overlooks this simple but critical point. That's why I think the argument is so stupid. All the in-favour (and many opposite view) postings assume incorrectly that you will be able to check someone's ID.
YOU WILL NOT.

Ok. Point 2.
Fingerprints. The card uses a biometric fingerprint check (if this is the chosen technology - don't forget this is a proposal).
This does not record your "fingerprint". There is no way whatsover the fingerprint can be derived from the electronic code on the card. You cannot check it against your database. The technologies are totally different and are not designed for the same job.

I believe 'Bastard' Blunkett will try to introduce them. I suggest many people will refuse to play and there will be a massive problem. Blair's Poll Tax if you like.

Me? When I have complied with the law (good chap that I am) I will cut the card in half and send it to Blunkett.

Whatever the rights and wronngs of the liberties issue this project is a fuckwit waste of money to make the Millenium Dome look like a good idea.

Have a nice weekend one and all.

Chris

[Mark Davies]

Originally Posted by chrisch

PC: Show me your ID
Crim: Its at home
PC: Oh dear. On your way then chummie...

Well no, Chris. The point you keep avoiding is that it goes like this;

PC: Show me your ID
Crim: It's at home
PC: Oh dear. You're under arrest under s.25 PACE. Anyone at home who can bring the card to the station for you?

Unless of course you happen to have your card. Of course the criminals are not going to carry the card - I'm sure I conceded that earlier. The point I'm trying to get across is that for the law-abiding citizen who does carry the card it will save them a whole load of grief and the police a load of time. It's to your advantage to have one.

Originally Posted by chrisch

Everyone who has posted something overlooks this simple but critical point.

As I hope you see, I'm not overlooking the point at all. You keep going on that the whole thing is useless to everybody if some don't participate. It's just not true.

If I'm hungry and want to buy lunch it's useful that I've got a £10 note in my pocket. Just because the guy next to me doesn't have a £10 note in his pocket doesn't make my £10 note any less useful!

I have highlighted just one situation relevant to my work where a card will be of use to YOU. That not everyone will have one limits the system's uses to the police, but if YOU choose to have a card it could be of great benefit to YOU. It would, in certain situations, prevent YOU from being arrested.

I am not advocating the cards because I think they are going to be some kind of revolutionary investigative tool for the police. You're right - it's not going to effect the way I deal with the criminal toe-rags on the street. Those buggers are getting dragged off the street either way.

The carrying of an ID card would effectively be a token of good and honest intent, which would enable me to differentiate easily those decent individuals who have unfortunately come a cropper over some minor misdemeanor and so be able to treat them in as light and even handed manner as possible.

At the moment we have to trust to instinct to do this, but we can't get it right every time. The result is decent people who should never see the inside of a police cell sometimes get locked up while genuine criminals occasionally get away from us. A card would help prevent that, not only by having one, but by the significance of not having one.

Originally Posted by chrisch

Fingerprints. The card uses a biometric fingerprint check (if this is the chosen technology - don't forget this is a proposal).
This does not record your "fingerprint". There is no way whatsover the fingerprint can be derived from the electronic code on the card. You cannot check it against your database. The technologies are totally different and are not designed for the same job.

I'll have to admit ignorance of this - I know nothing about it. My arguments are in principle regarding an ID card that can be accepted as absolute proof of identity. What technology is used to achieve this is a different matter.

Cards are available that record a thumb print in a portable, electronic form, as are portable readers that could be carried by the police. The Immigration Service already use them. As I've said before, arguments about implementation are separate to those of principle.

Originally Posted by chrisch

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the liberties issue this project is a fuckwit waste of money to make the Millenium Dome look like a good idea.

Again, you're probably right. I wholeheartedly share your doubts that this government (or any for that matter) can implement this properly. But I stress again, I'm only arguing from the point of principle.

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

The carrying of an ID card would effectively be a token of good and honest intent, ............

I fear in that one simple statement you have confirmed all the civil liberties fears........

I still have to take issue with it being of value to ME. Why would you stop ME in the first place. As white, jewish, Sacha Baron Cohen is want to say "is it cos I is black?" (Not that I am any of these things BTW only slightly less brown that most - (31C here again today...))

I have a photo ID driving licence on me more or less all the time. I have not been stopped by the police in the last 10 years and other than in the car only once in my life.... Most law-abiding citizens do not get stopped. Its a non issue as far as I can see.

Utility of ID card - nil as far as I am concerned. I accept this might not be the case for some pissed up teenager puking over the bonnet of a car in the town centre on Saturday night. But to be honest if it was my car s/he puked over I would want the little twat banged up (see what a nice liberal I really am!!).

I think I really would prefer this money spent on having real people doing real police work (hopefully sensible people like yourself). That would be far greater value for money. Given that most people feel safer with a "bobby" walking their streets, most people hate Gatsos and automated "justice" and most people (like me) have very little real contact with the police outside of "inspector Morse" unless they know an officer personally, I think most people would rather have more "bobbies" than another ineffective tool that costs a fortune.

Sorry Mark. Again these are issues of pragmatism rather than principle. In that respect I haven't answered you very well. In principle I am opposed. If you arrested me under s.25 PACE simply as I didn't have ID I would do everthing in my power to piss you off. I would refuse to give you any details of anything. I would be as rude to you as I thought I could get away with and I would argue at every point that you were infringing my liberties. I am sure you would hate me. But I would do it just to waste your time and annoy you.

If you, on the other hand, respectfully asked where I was going at this time of night you would get an honest answer.

I am sure YOU would do the latter. Give me and you a card to argue about and maybe you would not. I don't know. I guess neither of us can be sure until we either get them of ditch them.

You see only benefit, I see only problems. Let's hope the truth is half way..

Chris

[Paul Oliver]

Originally Posted by chrisch

Thats a staggering £83 grand each.

Bollocks.

Its this sort of stuff that drives the idiotic press to want these things.

Chris

No i have only counted the ones who would have claimed assylum in the figures. Some of those would have been fast tracked out but some would have run up the full total of about £200K per indevidual.

This does not include the NHS bill as percentage wise from the countries they come from several would have had aids and been straight into the treatment system.

Several were also just trying to get in to work so i did not include them in the fugures.

[HelenM]

Blunkett changes ID card scheme




Plans to combine new compulsory identity cards with passports and driving licences have been dropped by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

The changes to the controversial scheme comes in response to MPs who said the plans were badly thought out. Mr Blunkett also promised to allow the scheme to be overseen by the watchdog who has raised fears about Britain becoming a "surveillance society". The Bill to allow ID cards is expected to feature in the next Queen's Speech.