On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:38:34 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

I don't read newspapers even on their issue date :-)

And so nothing bad ever happens in your neck of the woods!

(Talk about the complacency of middle Britain!)

MM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 21:52:17 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:


"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
.net...

snipped
.."

I don't read newspapers even on their issue date :-)


The last time I read a newspaper, I think Dunkirk was being evactuated. :-)

That figures...

MM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:41:58 +0100, "Mike" wrote:


"Toby Sleigh" wrote in message
...
Who watches the watchers? Not Blunkett.

1 to 1 might be difficult, but East Germany got up to 1 to 6.5
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/b...p?story=532434
Published : 18 June 2004

"in the snooper's state of East Germany, the Stasi secret police employed
one informer for every 6.5 citizens. Its agents monitored every aspect of
.."

But they had crap computers. Okay so do our government but that could be
dealt with. With modern techniques it should be possible to monitor
everybody on perhaps a 100:1 ratio.

As most of us have mobile phones our location is already usually known to
800m or so and this will come down significantly with the future GPS equiped
phones.

Think I'll move to the Isle of Man.

Shame there's not an Isle of Woman, as I'd prefer to move there.

MM

On Fri, 20 May 2005 01:48:31 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:

Yes, I remember well the SUSS laws, and I
still thought they were a good thing. Even after being stopped and asked who
and what I was on numerous occasions. But an ID card would have help in those
situations.

How? You get stopped the first time for whatever suspicion the
police may have. They find nothing but a marker goes on your record
showing you have been stopped. Next time, another marker. Next time
its down to the nick and a very close examination - after all with
your record of being stopped there must be something, no smoke
without fire is there?

Showing a valid card would have allowed the police to ID me in a
couple of minutes,

Indeed, as a suspicious character. A crime happens near your home -
a child vanishes. You have a record of having been stopped a number
of times so the police pop around for a chat. The neighbours see a
marked car outside your door - does you no harm does it?

All this is actually being used now in certain places,

There is nowhere else in the world where such a draconian system as
being proposed for the UK is in use or even contemplated.



--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:10 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"BigWallop" wrote in message
.uk...

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"Toby Sleigh" wrote in message
...
Who watches the watchers? Not Blunkett.

1 to 1 might be difficult, but East Germany got up to 1 to 6.5
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/b...p?story=532434
Published : 18 June 2004

"in the snooper's state of East Germany, the Stasi secret police
employed
one informer for every 6.5 citizens. Its agents monitored every aspect
of
.."

But they had crap computers. Okay so do our government but that could be
dealt with. With modern techniques it should be possible to monitor
everybody on perhaps a 100:1 ratio.

As most of us have mobile phones our location is already usually known to
800m or so and this will come down significantly with the future GPS
equiped
phones.

Think I'll move to the Isle of Man.



We'll still find youuuuuuuuuu!!!! :-)

He might have been bluffing, might have meant the Isle of Wight ...

Do you mean, the Isle of Right, as maybe said by Jonathan Woss? No
need for anyone to move then! We've got it "right" here on the
mainland!

MM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:28:34 +0100, "Mike" wrote:


"BigWallop" wrote in message
.uk...

"in the snooper's state of East Germany, the Stasi secret police
employed
one informer for every 6.5 citizens. Its agents monitored every aspect
of
.."

But they had crap computers. Okay so do our government but that could
be
dealt with. With modern techniques it should be possible to monitor
everybody on perhaps a 100:1 ratio.

As most of us have mobile phones our location is already usually known
to
800m or so and this will come down significantly with the future GPS
equiped
phones.

Think I'll move to the Isle of Man.

We'll still find youuuuuuuuuu!!!! :-)

Yeah - but there's less laws to break there. No National Insurance to pay.
No speed limits outside town.

Yes, but do you ever get out of third gear? It's a small place.

MM

On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:22:09 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Mike wrote:

As most of us have mobile phones our location is already usually known to
800m or so and this will come down significantly with the future GPS equiped
phones.

Did you know by using low level primitives in the GSM protocol stack you
can command the phone to enable its mic and transmit audio without any
action taken by the owner...

No problem. When I talk to myself, I use German. Ja, der Angriff wird
bestimmt heute Abend stattfinden!

MM

On Fri, 20 May 2005 09:17:16 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


I haven't looked at that but Americans have to have ID.

No they do not. There is a proposal for a national ID card under
consideration and for health and social care a social security card
is needed but Americans do not have to have ID.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:36:19 +0100, "Brian G"
wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
Grumps wrote:
The only people who might object to id cards are those who are
either illegal in this country or those who have something to
hide!!!!

I am neither, and I resent your offensive insinuations. I simply
wish to enjoy my traditional British birthright of privacy,

er-birthright?

The only birthright any person has is that of being breast fed.

er - British?

What do you think your birthright would have been before the union?

without being tracked, tagged and surveilled by an unaccountable
army of public and commercial 'security services'.

Oh come on!

Mary, you are tracked now, you cannot go onto a major motorway or road
without being 'logged' by cameras that can read your number plate AND take a
very good photo of the driver and front seat passenger. And when they
ultimately fit the 'little black box' into your car under the guise of
'paying for the road you use' then they will be able to track you on every
journey right down to the time that you got into the car and then got out
again.

BTW, if you have a mobile phone, you can be tracked by GPS to within a few
metres - even with it turned off.

I propose to install cctv in your home, grumps. I'm going to wire
it to every room, so that we can watch you night and day. You will
only object to this if you are either illegal in this country or
have something to hide...

It wouldn't bother me. You'd get bored out of you paranoid mind
watching it. Can you imagine the result of your fears? Half the
population watching the other half 24/7?

That is exactly what will happen - you will be constantly looking over your
shoulder to see who is watching or following you.

Who watches the watchers? Not Blunkett.

There will be no need, a climate of fear will have been instilled and the
population will watch each other whilst the likes of Blunkett and Clark can
sleep safely in their beds surrounded by all the trappings of the pampered.

The pampering has already begun. They've just given themselves a total
of 80 days hols in the summer. Nice job if you can get it!

MM

"MM" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 20 May 2005 09:15:33 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Brian G" wrote in message
...


Brian G

Why don't you use your name? Are you trying to hide something?

Anyone who uses his own name in these newsgroups is asking for
trouble. There are a bunch of nutters out there, and you can never be
sure that your personal safety is guaranteed any more.

I wonder why I've never had any trouble - and very many of my friends too?
What's more, I live in a high crime area - but we don't have problems there
either ...

That's why more
and more people go ex-directory

We've had the same entry in the phone book since the sixties - and the same
number. I give out our address, phone, fax, internet and web details to
several hundred people I don't know every year - not counting Usenet. I've
had my work published in magazines, books and newspapers for forty years in
my own name.

No problem.

and hide everything they possibly can.

I have nothing to hide.

This is a nation of snoopers.

er - I'm not interested in your personal details, are you in mine? If
we'renot among the snoopers who are they?

We are the most watched society in the
Western world.

Evidence?

People are willing, keen even, since we love a nice
dollop of Schadenfreude whenever we can get it, to denounce their
distant neighbours if their face doesn't fit.

Schadenfreude is one of the things I thoroughly hate - we are surrounded
with it on radio, television, newspapers, magazines, Usenet and many other
media. But, you know, some of us aren't convinced that because a famous
person says something that something is true. It's just opinion and counts
for no more than our own.

The situation is already
dire.

Why, then, are you still here? Why not go to fresh fields? I'm sure you'll
be very welcome.

I would grab myself a new moniker as quickly as poss, if I were
you.

I did that forty five years ago when I became part of the family Fisher.
It's not done me any harm and is easier to spell and pronounce than my
maiden name for simple minds. Why should I change again?

After all, why does it matter *who* you are? It's what we say
that counts.

So if it doesn't matter who you are why not say who you are?

Michael Miles is dead, isn't he... :-)

Mary

MM

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"BigWallop" wrote in message
. uk...

"in the snooper's state of East Germany, the Stasi secret police
employed
one informer for every 6.5 citizens. Its agents monitored every
aspect
of
.."

But they had crap computers. Okay so do our government but that could
be
dealt with. With modern techniques it should be possible to monitor
everybody on perhaps a 100:1 ratio.

As most of us have mobile phones our location is already usually known
to
800m or so and this will come down significantly with the future GPS
equiped
phones.

Think I'll move to the Isle of Man.

We'll still find youuuuuuuuuu!!!! :-)

Yeah - but there's less laws to break there. No National Insurance to
pay.
No speed limits outside town.

and :

No part P !!!!!!!!! :-)

Bye!

waves

Mary

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:23:58 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Mary
Fisher writes
It wouldn't bother me. You'd get bored out of you paranoid mind watching it.
Can you imagine the result of your fears? Half the population watching the
other half 24/7?

Who watches the watchers? Not Blunkett.

Ah, but you see, Blunkett is part of the 10+% for whom Iris scanning
won't work

On a more serious note, iris scanning won't work for a large number of
the population, namely those in certain racial groups. The contrast
between the iris and the rest of the eye is not sharp enough. Will
this give the police carte blanche for a whole new bunch of 'sus'
laws? Look for an even less cohesive society than now (if that's
possible). Still, that won't worry middle Britain! Safe in their ivory
towers.

MM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:24:01 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Peter Parry
writes

so what's the objections?.,

You don't mind being forced to carry an RFID card which can track
where you go even though it never comes out of your pocket? You
don't mind the police tracking you because you are going out with a
policemans daughter and the father doesn't think much of it? You
don't mind your local politician asking for an eye to be kept on you
because you criticised (or just failed to support) some pet project
of theirs? You don't mind a quite word being dropped to your
employer that "surveillance evidence" puts you in some pretty
disreputable places and maybe you shouldn't be working there any
more? (Never mind whether the evidence exists - the employer knows it
may - and if they are doing government work...?). If you are a
teacher you don't mind a policeman coming around (told you not to go
out with his daughter didn't I) and asking the headmaster why you
were tracked staying in Mothercare for 3 hours each Saturday and
sitting in a playground all Sunday? It won't affect you at all will
it, after all, what have you got to hide?


Nicely put Peter

Indeed it was, but most apathetic Britishers will just shrug and say,
can't happen here, mate!

MM

On Fri, 20 May 2005 10:24:34 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:


"Kieran Mansley" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:36:53 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

Not that I can see ID cards solving anything....

Perhaps not but I can't see them doing any harm either. It's worth a try.


It's a pretty expensive thing to just try and see if it does anything!
Can't you think of anything else that you'd rather see 3 billion ukp spent
on?

There may be financial benefits. You don't know until it's tried.

My point is that there are many other things that we could spend that
money on that would be much more likely to result in a benefit. Why risk
such a large amount of money on something when there are so many other
better uses for the cash? If there were a potential very large reward,
then the risk might be worth it, but there is no potential very large
reward that I'm aware of, so on balance I don't think the risk is worth it.

Kieran

"Brian G" wrote in message
...

I am neither, and I resent your offensive insinuations. I simply
wish to enjoy my traditional British birthright of privacy,

er-birthright?

The only birthright any person has is that of being breast fed.

er - British?

What do you think your birthright would have been before the union?

without being tracked, tagged and surveilled by an unaccountable
army of public and commercial 'security services'.

Oh come on!

Mary, you are tracked now, you cannot go onto a major motorway or road
without being 'logged' by cameras that can read your number plate AND take
a
very good photo of the driver and front seat passenger.

I know. That's why I always smile :-)

And when they
ultimately fit the 'little black box' into your car under the guise of
'paying for the road you use' then they will be able to track you on every
journey right down to the time that you got into the car and then got out
again.

We log our own journeys so that's nothing new. Except that we also log the
reason for our journeys.

BTW, if you have a mobile phone, you can be tracked by GPS to within a few
metres - even with it turned off.

Yes ... and your point is? That could be an advantage.

I propose to install cctv in your home, grumps. I'm going to wire
it to every room, so that we can watch you night and day. You will
only object to this if you are either illegal in this country or
have something to hide...

It wouldn't bother me. You'd get bored out of you paranoid mind
watching it. Can you imagine the result of your fears? Half the
population watching the other half 24/7?

That is exactly what will happen - you will be constantly looking over
your
shoulder to see who is watching or following you.

Not me.

I understand that people compete to be on Big Brother.

Who watches the watchers? Not Blunkett.

There will be no need, a climate of fear will have been instilled and the
population will watch each other whilst the likes of Blunkett and Clark
can
sleep safely in their beds surrounded by all the trappings of the
pampered.

Since, according to you and MM and others - we're already being watched, why
isn't there already a climate of fear among the majority of people - i.e.
those with nothing to be guilty about?


Mary

Brian G

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Mary Fisher
writes
It wouldn't bother me. You'd get bored out of you paranoid mind watching
it.
Can you imagine the result of your fears? Half the population watching the
other half 24/7?

Who watches the watchers? Not Blunkett.

Ah, but you see, Blunkett is part of the 10+% for whom Iris scanning won't
work

Who's Iris?

Mary


--
geoff

In article ,
Peter Parry writes:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 01:48:31 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:
Yes, I remember well the SUSS laws, and I
still thought they were a good thing. Even after being stopped and asked who
and what I was on numerous occasions.

How? You get stopped the first time for whatever suspicion the
police may have. They find nothing but a marker goes on your record
showing you have been stopped. Next time, another marker. Next time
its down to the nick and a very close examination - after all with
your record of being stopped there must be something, no smoke
without fire is there?

`The innocent have nothing to hide'... `Round up the usual suspects'...
--
SAm.

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Peter Parry
writes

so what's the objections?.,

You don't mind being forced to carry an RFID card which can track
where you go even though it never comes out of your pocket? You
don't mind the police tracking you because you are going out with a
policemans daughter and the father doesn't think much of it? You
don't mind your local politician asking for an eye to be kept on you
because you criticised (or just failed to support) some pet project
of theirs? You don't mind a quite word being dropped to your
employer that "surveillance evidence" puts you in some pretty
disreputable places and maybe you shouldn't be working there any
more? (Never mind whether the evidence exists - the employer knows it
may - and if they are doing government work...?). If you are a
teacher you don't mind a policeman coming around (told you not to go
out with his daughter didn't I) and asking the headmaster why you
were tracked staying in Mothercare for 3 hours each Saturday and
sitting in a playground all Sunday? It won't affect you at all will
it, after all, what have you got to hide?


Nicely put Peter

In a way it is, I wonder why he's spending all that time in Mothercare ...
G

--
geoff

"Brian G" wrote in message
...
Grumps wrote:
The only people who might object to id cards are those who are either
illegal in this country or those who have something to hide!!!!
In one way or another we carry id cards now! either a driving licence
or credit/debit card so what's the objections?.,
Grumps



carrying driving licences and credit cards with you is NOT mandatory. If
you leave them at home and then stopped and asked for ID you are NOT
commiting an offence by not having them on your person.

Introduce a mandatory scheme, and then if you don't show the card when
asked
by ANYONE who has been granted the necessary authority (not just the local
plod, but literally the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker if
they have been given the authority to do so) , you can/will be arrested.

Big brother is coming - a little late, but he is coming!

Well, you'll be in IoM so you'll be OK.

Bye ...

Mary

Brian G

"PJ" wrote in message
...

As I understand it, as I walk around my town surveillance cameras can
monitor my movements.

I do not have any store cards but my action within that store could be
followed using the security cameras.

Police have cameras which identify car number plates so my location and
travels can be monitored.

I have to wear a photo security badge at work.

Do I worry about being monitored? My only fear would be that I might be
liable for the eventual psychiatric medical expenses of the person doing
the monitoring.

LOL!

It must be the most boring job in the world!

I had a friend in the 70s who was paranoid about phone calls. If there was
any extraneous noise on the line he was sure it was tapped.

Can you imagine having to listen to most people's conversations? Worse than
looking at holiday photographs!

Mary

On Thu, 19 May 2005 20:12:48 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:

Just think of the implications if someone is arrested after breaking in to a
house.

Well as things stand, they'd be arrested for burglary.

We don't have a problem with burglars being caught, then let loose when
they claim to be householders, we have a problem in _catching_ them. ID
cards will do nothing to help here.

The fundamental flaw of all "licensing" schemes is that they track the
law-abiding, not the miscreants.

On Fri, 20 May 2005 00:13:30 +0100, PJ wrote:

Do I worry about being monitored? My only fear would be that I might be
liable for the eventual psychiatric medical expenses of the person doing
the monitoring.

Did you know that the police now take AND KEEP a sample of your DNA if
you are arrested? That is, not charged, not prosecuted, just arrested
on suspicion, a small protest march, perhaps, where you might have
been a little too boisterous or argumentative. They then let you go.
But your DNA sample stays on file FOR EVER. Ideally, the police want
to capture the DNA of the entire population.

And then a criminal breaks in to your house or car and steals an item
of clothing. It's considered a minor crime by the police, who may not
even come to your house. The criminal takes the clothing he stole and
commits a much more serious crime elsewhere, carefully leaving the
clothing in a conspicuous place.

How are you going to mount a defence? For a start, you WERE arrested,
so the police will say, ooh, dodgy character. And then there's this
DNA evidence, m'lud. What do you have to say for yourself? You could
be looking at a ten-year stretch for being completely innocent. Look
at the number of cases that have been thrown out recently, sometimes
after the people have been in prison for several years. Don't forget,
too, that with this government it is all about targets. Targets are
everything. They don't give a damn about individuals. We are all just
numbers on a piece of paper as far as Blair et al are concerned. Mind
that you don't become a statistic over which future generations will
muse as they say, how could a thing like that happen in Britain of all
places?

MM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:23:57 GMT, raden wrote:

In message , Grumps
writes
The only people who might object to id cards are those who are either
illegal in this country or those who have something to hide!!!!
In one way or another we carry id cards now! either a driving licence or
credit/debit card so what's the objections?.,
Grumps

Can you refrain from top posting please, and sort out your sig sep ?

So, you have a driving license ?

is that not sufficient ID for most purposes?

Have you thought of

a) the consequences of someone incorrectly entering your details

b) someone being able to access your details for malevolent purposes
(it's happened several times recently)

Yes, we haven't heard the whole story behind that so-called child rape
in Essex, which the police now say was all invented. Many people's
lives will have been altered by that and aspersions cast.

It's getting so that I am loathe to type the words "child rape in
Essex" into Google for fear that some monitoring busybody somewhere
might immediately jump to attention.

MM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:11:47 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"raden" wrote in message
...

For those who have switched off from VE day Warplanes ...

http://www.snipped

If people are serious about objecting to ID cards, rather than signing
up to a meaningless web page, may I suggest that you write directly to
the Home Office (stating valid and reasoned arguments as to why you
consider ID cards unworkable etc.) with a CC to your own MP.

Sorry, Jerry, but that will be about as much use as a chocolate
teapot for all the good it would do. The only thing a Draconian
government understands is a Draconian electorate. Only if major,
massive protests are organised against ID cards will the government
even begin to sit up and take notice.

The above approach can and *has* forced ministers to modify or rethink
policy / Bills before Parliament.

With this government? When exactly? The nonsense about control orders
(closely followed by the revelations that the ricin scare was totally
exaggerated and no ricin was actually found) was reined in somewhat
by the so-called 'old duffers' in the Lords. The people grumbled a
bit, but that was not enough to put the brakes on Clarke. Clarke is
like an automaton. Listen to him. Watch him. He never thinks about
what he is going to say. He just mouths the mantra. He was incredibly
irate over the way the Lords blocked him at every turn. He doesn't
believe he should be stopped in anything he does.

MM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:24:02 GMT, raden wrote:

In message ws.net,
":::Jerry::::" writes

"raden" wrote in message
...

For those who have switched off from VE day Warplanes ...

http://www.snipped

If people are serious about objecting to ID cards, rather than signing
up to a meaningless web page, may I suggest that you write directly to
the Home Office (stating valid and reasoned arguments as to why you
consider ID cards unworkable etc.) with a CC to your own MP.

The above approach can and *has* forced ministers to modify or rethink
policy / Bills before Parliament.

Well at least it got a decent discussion going

With the current administration, one has to ask whether listening Tony
actually gives a toss

Blair is interested in one thing and one thing only, and that is
himself and his place in history. He brought Labour back from the
brink and made it electable again. He thought that therefore he must
be able to walk on water, since no such miracle had ever worked
before. Since then he had two massive landslides, which in his eyes
only confirmed his invincible position as Man of The Century (and
quite possibly, the last one, too). He is thinking only of how he will
be judged by future generations and is desperate to get the Iraq mess
behind him. He is in a bind, electorally, he is ill, he is running out
of time, and his majority has been cut drastically. He also believes a
lot that is just not true, like when he was confronted by the Question
Time audience and did not know what detrimental effect his 'targets'
society was having down on the ground. He is so out of touch with
Britain and the electorate, and increasingly his own backbenchers,
that I think we are, or could be, on a slippery slope to disaster and
Tony still won't give a toss. He simply won't understand. But it will
be too late.

MM

On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:55 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"BigWallop" wrote in message
. uk...



If everyone of an innocent nature was carrying an ID card, then you
wouldn't be
worried at all about being stopped in the street by the police and asked
to show
your ID. I think you'd only fly off the handle and object if you knew you
had
something to hide, or had just done something that is against the rules of
society, normally called the moral code.

Who in their right minds would think that, in a population of millions of
people, that they, and they alone, would be picked out and scrutinised by
the
big brother state? Answers on a post-card to: :-)

Only them with a paranoid disposition are going to think they're being
watched
from on high. Time to bring out the aluminium foil hats folks.

That won't stop the sky from falling on their heads ...

And aluminium foil wouldn't be much use if it did. Okay for cooking
oven chips, though. Sorry, the use of the word 'oven' there was purely
coincidental.

MM

On Fri, 20 May 2005 01:19:51 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:


"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
.net...

"BigWallop" wrote in message
k...



If everyone of an innocent nature was carrying an ID card, then you
wouldn't be
worried at all about being stopped in the street by the police and asked
to show
your ID. I think you'd only fly off the handle and object if you knew you
had
something to hide, or had just done something that is against the rules of
society, normally called the moral code.

Who in their right minds would think that, in a population of millions of
people, that they, and they alone, would be picked out and scrutinised by
the
big brother state? Answers on a post-card to: :-)

Only them with a paranoid disposition are going to think they're being
watched
from on high. Time to bring out the aluminium foil hats folks.

That won't stop the sky from falling on their heads ...

Mary


But it will stop Sky from tracking them down. :-)

Could I receive Sky through my helmet? I have an old one with a spike
on top.

MM

"raden" wrote in message
news

Together with other recent pieces of legislation, we will end up wit a
significant proportion of people just living outside the law

So what's new?

Mary

"raden" wrote in message
...

With the current administration, one has to ask whether listening Tony
actually gives a toss

There are no indications of that.

Mary

--
geoff

"Brian G" wrote in message
...


If everyone of an innocent nature was carrying an ID card, then you
wouldn't be worried at all about being stopped in the street by the
police and asked to show your ID. I think you'd only fly off the
handle and object if you knew you had something to hide, or had just
done something that is against the rules of society, normally called
the moral code.

What about the freedom just to walk about without having to explain
yourself
to all and sundry. Remember, it just won't be PC plod who will have the
power to stop you.

For some it might be nice to be talked to :-)


Who in their right minds would think that, in a population of
millions of people, that they, and they alone, would be picked out
and scrutinised by the big brother state? Answers on a post-card to:
:-)

Ask that question to those people who have been stopped and searched under
the 'Suss law' - even though they have been going about their lawful
business. You, like me are old enough to remember that one, with people
being stopped just because they had long hair - I last saw that law being
used a few years ago when driving through a major city and four plods had
just stopped a young lad for no apparent reason in the 'club-land' area
and
were searching him.

"apparent" is the key word.

Only them with a paranoid disposition are going to think they're
being watched from on high. Time to bring out the aluminium foil
hats folks.

They will watch and you don't need to be of a paranoid disposition to work
that out. BW, you are being 'watched' now. Just jump into your mode of
transport and drive on any major road and you will be photographed at some
stage and your vehicle number checked - could be a bit awkward if you were
'playin away' in the wrong area of town and there was a purge on.

Why are you playing away? No need to answer that, I'm not interested, but
it's something to examine your own conscience about.

Mary

Brian G

"BigWallop" wrote in message news:Plbje.35728




And did the lad have any outstanding behavoural problems? Was he known to
carry
or supply drugs, weapons or things? Yes, I remember well the SUSS laws,
and I
still thought they were a good thing. Even after being stopped and asked
who
and what I was on numerous occasions. But an ID card would have help in
those
situations. Showing a valid card would have allowed the police to ID me
in a
couple of minutes, rather than having to check for my identity over half
the
country before letting me go with a "sorry sir" ringing in my ears.

We live in Yorkshire Ripper country, we knew some of the victims and worked
at the place where the first was found. But we weren't questioned.

However, we were often stopped for road checks - and didn't mind at all. We
were pleasedthat the police were being vigilant.

What did upset us was nothing to do with the police - it was when a 13 year
old son was accosted by women's libbers when he and other choirboys left the
church they'd had their practice in.


Only them with a paranoid disposition are going to think they're
being watched from on high. Time to bring out the aluminium foil
hats folks.

They will watch and you don't need to be of a paranoid disposition to
work
that out. BW, you are being 'watched' now. Just jump into your mode of
transport and drive on any major road and you will be photographed at
some
stage and your vehicle number checked - could be a bit awkward if you
were
'playin away' in the wrong area of town and there was a purge on.

Brian G



All I'm hearing here is extreme cases of "what ifs",

Yes - and a lot of stuff from armchair experts who seem to know everything.


If the majority of people lived by allowing others to live, then all these
"silly" and "extreme" laws would be put out to pasture. But, as long as
people
out there are only out there to make other peoples lives a misery, then
these
"silly" and "extreme" laws will need to be upheld.

Yes.

All this is actually being used now in certain places, so why not extend
it to
encompass all of us. Maybe then it will be put to good use.

Yes.

Mary

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...

The only people who'll be screwed by this will be the law-abiding UK
nationals.

That sounds like one of the many arguments I hear against speed cameras. My
heart bleeds for the 'law-abiding' ...

Mary

I admit that I can't see any problem with having them.

And you'd be quite happy to pay £80 (which will probably be
significantly
more) for it, or did you forget that bit ?

I object to paying for something which is imposed and about which, unlike
say road fund tax, there is no choice.

So do a lot of people. They'll still charge you for it though.

In message , Mary
Fisher writes

We live in Yorkshire Ripper country, we knew some of the victims and worked
at the place where the first was found. But we weren't questioned.

However, we were often stopped for road checks - and didn't mind at all. We
were pleasedthat the police were being vigilant.

We were stopped on one occasion at the slip road to the M62 when the
ripper hunt was on - had to explain to the police that we were taking
the baby for a drive on the motorway in order to get her to sleep :-))
They did believe us I think it was so feeble an excuse it had to be real
--
Sue Begg
Remove my clothes to reply

Do not mess in the affairs of dragons - for
you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

Al Reynolds wrote:

FWIW, I do think it will cut crime, but I don't even have a
supermarket loyalty card because I don't like people collecting data
on my shopping habits, so the potential abuses of the proposed ID
card scheme horrify me.


Ah, but it's worth it when Tesco decide you haven't visited the wine &
spirits aisle often enough and send you a personalised =A35 voucher.

MBQ

Brian G wrote:
BTW, if you have a mobile phone, you can be tracked by GPS to within
a few
metres - even with it turned off.

Now you're just showing your ignorance.

MBQ

"Kieran Mansley" wrote in message


My point is that there are many other things that we could spend that
money on that would be much more likely to result in a benefit. Why risk
such a large amount of money on something when there are so many other
better uses for the cash?

Such as?

We - the population - won't feel it.

If there were a potential very large reward,

For what?

then the risk might be worth it, but there is no potential very large
reward that I'm aware of, so on balance I don't think the risk is worth
it.

We're not all money minded ...

Mary

Kieran

"Jethro" wrote in message
...
I admit that I can't see any problem with having them.

And you'd be quite happy to pay £80 (which will probably be
significantly
more) for it, or did you forget that bit ?

I object to paying for something which is imposed and about which, unlike
say road fund tax, there is no choice.

So do a lot of people. They'll still charge you for it though.

For the ID card? Yes I know. As I indicated, I'm not happy about that. But
it's not a sensible unhappiness, if we weren't charged directly we'd pay in
tax so what's the difference?

Mary

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 May 2005 22:38:34 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

I don't read newspapers even on their issue date :-)

And so nothing bad ever happens in your neck of the woods!

I don't understand that question. If you want an answer you'll have tobe
more specific.

(Talk about the complacency of middle Britain!)

Nor do I know what's meant by middle Britain.

Mary

MM

"MM" wrote in message
...

Clarke is
like an automaton. Listen to him. Watch him. He never thinks about
what he is going to say. He just mouths the mantra.

That's New Labour. They all do it.

Worse, many believe them.

Mary