"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Yup just like now, only without the safguards of multiple incompatible
distributed and non connected databases that limit the scope of an error,
and provide alternative routes to perform sanity checks and consistency
checks on the data when something goes wrong.

Can you put that into Plain English please?

Also don't forget the new scope for data mining exercises correlating your
innocent behaviour to that of a known problem groups.

And that.

Mary

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

information will not use it for wrongdoing.... by malice, or more
likely, incompetance.



Just like now you mean....

Yup just like now, only without the safguards of multiple incompatible
distributed and non connected databases that limit the scope of an
error, and provide alternative routes to perform sanity checks and
consistency checks on the data when something goes wrong.

Also don't forget the new scope for data mining exercises correlating
your innocent behaviour to that of a known problem groups.

--
On the other hand consider this. The way our government works has not been
changed for centuries. There are, IIRC, about 14 major government
departments and on each of them you can have multiple identities. They do
not communicate between them because of bureaucracy, so the maths says that
the opportunity for fraud is proportional to Factorial 14. The bit that
gets me is the scroungers who know this and take advantage of it that is
costing me and you hard earned cash. I am not talking of the genuine single
parent who is having a hard time - its the professional lazy *******s who
are parasites to our society. A single identity across all of government
would eliminate the great majority of that. Think of how many hospitals
could be build by the savings.

Mike

John Rumm wrote:

Yup just like now, only without the safguards of multiple incompatible
distributed and non connected databases that limit the scope of an
error, and provide alternative routes to perform sanity checks and
consistency checks on the data when something goes wrong.

So, to expand this out for the hard-of-reading.

Currently, it's impractical to conduct mass surveillance of 'ordinary'
people. People have different identifiers in different databases - your
loyalty card number in one, your NHS number in another, your employee-ID
in a third, and so on. That limits the amount of information which any
single bent insider can gain - i.e., someone whose job gives them
authorised access to the information on one database, and is willing to
take a peek at someone's data for 50-100 quid. You'd have to really
*want* the information to slip tens of people that sort of money, sort
out the false hits between them, and so on. The State may have the
resources to get the necessary access in 'extreme' cases, and most of us
would want it to; even the State doesn't have the resources to do it
routinely.

Behind John's two words 'not connected' are two deep, and distinct,
concepts. Firstly, they're not connected at the 'operational' level:
that means someone whose job gives them access to one database - the car
registration database, say - doesn't have access to medical information.
Nor do the computer systems which query or update the database have
access to those other databases.

Secondly, they're not connected at the 'logical' level, precisely
because there isn't a reliable, common identifier for the 'same' thing
across them. Where that 'thing' is a person, they've got a different
'unique within this database' identifier, as mentioned above
(loyalty-card number, NHS number, employee number). Their 'human
readable' name will vary: it may be Elizabeth R Windsor in one, Liz
Windsor in another, Elisabeth Winsor in the third. For reliable
'linking', a common identifier - as the National ID Register intends to
introduce - is all you need: it's then irrelevant whether you have one
big database or lots of little ones, as the common identifier allows the
information in each one to be reliably associated with the same person.
And it allows whoever's paying the bent insider to be sure they're
getting details on the right subject - not just someone with a similar name.

John then points out that having these 'multiple, incompatible
distributed and non connected databases' acts to 'limit the scope of an
error'. This is what he means: if there's information which is wrong on
one or two of them, it only affects the uses to which those one or two
databases are put. So, if your hospital, gas supplier, and
corgi-appreciation-society all show your address as being 'The Castle,
Windsor', your post reaches you at that correct address from all those
organisations. If the Dunkirk Veteran's Association database misrecords
your address as 'Castle Drive, Staines', only that bit of post goes
missing, and when you notice you haven't had the newsletter and
invitation to the annual dinner-dance, you convince just that one
organisation to fix their records; sometimes, showing them a copy of
your gas bill and corgi-soc post, showing the right address, can help.

Once you've a single point of change, an error affects *all* of your
interactions with *all* of the many organisations who decided it would
be Efficient to use that single point as the Right And Proper way of
getting your address. On the plus side, this means you notice errors
quicker, and have more incentive to keep it up to date; on the minus
side, the effects of an error are greater, and it can be harder to get
the bureaucracy to fix them. Within one organisation, it's worth having
a 'single', authoritative point of change - you'd want, say, Amazon to
not have different databases for their shipping department, their
billing department, and their mailing-out-special-offers department
(note, though, that you *do* want their one database to allow you to
specify a different address for a particular delivery (gift to a
friend), for your bills (usually home, please, but to an employer's or
client's address for a particular purchase)). Across all of your
dealings as a citizen or resident of the UK, though, it's a lot less
clear that the advantages of a single point of change outweigh the
risks: and that's one of the pieces of analysis which simply hasn't been
published, whether or not it's been done.

Once the databases are 'connected' - whether 'operationally' (the
computers that run them actively swapping information) or 'logically'
(one shared personal identifier across lots-n-lots-n-lots of databases),
the kind of 'mass surveillance' which is currently impractical becomes
practical. It becomes practical for the merely nosey, busybody,
vigilante, weirdo-stalker types, who can now feasibly (pay somebody to)
look up the details on the now-linked databases. And it becomes
practical for government departments to design ever more 'joined-up'
systems, which more and more tightly restrict what it is to be 'normal'.
The richer you are, the less this matters - you can opt out of many Govt
services, you can indulge your little privacy foibles; the more you're
an 'ordinary hardworking family', the more it's in your economic and
convenience-of-living interests to simply conform.

Moving by unexamined apathy into that sort of society upsets me: it
seems to me that (a) you should establish a strong genuinely-informed
consensus that 'most of us' really do want to live that way; and (b)
that you need to make some genuine provision for the 'rest of them', who
don't. The tolerance for eccentricity, self-determination, and each
citizen having their own weird ways of *not* conforming - whether it's
Morris-dancing, thinking that what Chris de Burgh produces is music,
urban chicken-keeping, or building barbeques out of emptied propane
cylinders - is the single most attractive aspect of living in the UK.
(Note the crafty link to both uk and d-i-y there ;-)

Also don't forget the new scope for data mining exercises correlating
your innocent behaviour to that of a known problem groups.


John's already explained what 'data mining' means - it's looking for
patterns in the data that's held about a Thing (a person, say, or a car)
to find Interesting New Patterns from which Interesting Conclusions can
be drawn. The uses of this technique are legion. For example, a
supermarket might find that people who often buy nice, hand-made pasta
also buy fancy olive oil (unsurprising) and travel magazines (less
obvious), and decide to put together some Targetted Promotion. Or your
credit card company finds that a long period of disuse followed by
repeated mid-value purchases indicates fraud - great if your card's
nicked and the unauthorised spending's brought to your attention early,
not so great if you've been holding off spending until having all the
grandchildren over for your 75th birthday for which you're buying them
each a pressie.

Because data mining produces only 'correlations', its 'predictions'
aren't 'certain'. This doesn't matter much if it makes your marketing
just 'rather' better, so 'only' 88% of your mailshots are ignored,
instead of 94%. It matters a bit more if your spending/activity patterns
match those of some rightly-suspect group (e.g., you're a foreign-named
keen d-i-y'er and planespotter who spends lots of time buying military
surplus gear and travelling to airports), and the resulting Enquiries
turn neighbours and colleagues against you...

Hope that helps round out John's pithy comments... Stefek

In article , Grumps
m wrote:


so what's the objections?.,

See he http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post


--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

On Thu, 19 May 2005 21:38:29 +0100, "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?.,

Are you aware of the following?

1. The ID card will cost perhaps as much as £85 and when it's
compulsory, that is effectively a stealth tax just for existing.

2. The ID card will have sophisticated technology which means that you
can be tracked silently wherever you go by any government body,
council official, or nominated private company. You won't need to
proffer the card. Just being in the vicinity of a scanner will be all
it takes to capture your personal details.

3. Everyone will become a suspect. No longer innocent until proven
guilty, we will all become guilty of 'something' and it will only be a
matter of time until cross-referencing by government civil servants
finds it out.

4. There will great emphasis on "checking up" because "jobsworth"
officials will have the means, and therefore they will invent a need.
Ethnic minorities will be particularly vulnerable.

5. There will big fines or even imprisonment for those who don't
comply with the card's demands:

- A fine for not reporting lost, stolen, damaged or defective cards
- A fine for not renewing a card
- A fine for not submitting to fingerprinting
- A fine for not providing information demanded by the government
- A fine for not attending an interview at a specified place and time
- A fine for not reporting any change in personal circumstances
(including change of address)
- A fine for not attending an appointment for a scan of your
fingerprints and iris.

6. Up to fifty categories of your personal details will be stored on
the government database and these details made available to many
organisations without your knowledge.

These are only a few of the many reasons why ID cards are such a bad
idea. To them you could add the enormous cost, which stands now at
around £6bn but is likely to rise astronomically, and the fact that
the government's record on delivering functioning IT projects has been
abysmally poor, mired in incompetence, and subject to enormous wastage
of taxpayers' money which has mostly been poured into the coffers of
foreign private companies.

I think the British public is entitled to be clued up first about the
real impact the card will have before they are asked whether they
support it or not. Of course, if you tell someone that this magical
juju will protect their wife and kiddies from the terrible monsters
that lurk over the mountain, of course many are going to want one. But
you might as well pull the wool right down over their eyes and
hoodwink them properly.

MM

"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.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"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.

When?

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

snip

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.

When?


Within the last couple of years, and the parliamentary Bill I'm
thinking of it was also a Home Office Bill.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

snip

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.

When?


Within the last couple of years, and the parliamentary Bill I'm
thinking of it was also a Home Office Bill.

Can't you be more specific?

Mary

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


--
geoff

"raden" wrote in message
...
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

geoff


He's an elected politician mate, so he doesn't, and never will, give a toss.
:-)

BigWallop wrote:
"raden" wrote in message
...
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

geoff


He's an elected politician mate, so he doesn't, and never will, give
a toss. :-)

BW,

WE AGREE on something outside buildings at last LMAO


Brian G

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

"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

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

"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

"raden" wrote in message
...

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

http://www.pledgebank.com/no2id


geoff


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.

"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

"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. :-)

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

MM wrote:

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

Just a little too much personal information there thanks.... ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

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

BigWallop wrote:
"raden" wrote in message
...

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

http://www.pledgebank.com/no2id


geoff


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.

With you moral code, what is 'moral' to you is 'immoral' to someone else,
even though what you are doing is perfectly legal!

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.

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

"Brian G" wrote in message
...
BigWallop wrote:
"raden" wrote in message
...

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

http://www.pledgebank.com/no2id


geoff


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.

With you moral code, what is 'moral' to you is 'immoral' to someone else,
even though what you are doing is perfectly legal!


Moral code is allowing others the freedom to live their lives, as well as you
living yours. No one wants to be frightened just walking to the shops, and
thugs who interfere with that action and bring about that fear are breaking the
moral code.

I'm not talking about people walking around doing their own thing, where is that
illegal? I'm talking about the people who are only there to make your life a
misery. That's illegal, and breaks 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:
:-)

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.


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.


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", when all that will really
happen is a card will drop through the doors of the people who register for
them. If you're on the list, then you'll get in. If you're not, then you'll
get hassled.

Playing away, as you put it, with a hooker was only made criminal by the health
and safety laws. It was known that men and women who partook in the pleasures,
were nearly a thousand times more likely to catch sexually transmitted diseases
than those who stayed at home, so to speak. So solicitation was made an
offence, and so to was the act of persuasion (kerb crawling) to a lady of the
night. But these laws were only passed because of the increased health risks to
the general population. Or, put another way, another offence against moral
codes.

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.

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.

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/

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.

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...

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?

There's often a police car outside our house. I don't think it's done us any
harm. The neighbours still think we're nutters but not criminals - not that
we give a tinker's what they think about us. While they're talking about us
they're leaving someone else alone :-) Any police record we have might well
have been stored but it doesn't affect us.

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

Evidence?

Mary

"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

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!

In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:
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.

One the evening of the Amelie Delagrange murder on Twickenham Green a
friend and I were working on alterations to the church central
heating: the church overlooks Twickenham Green. We left about
9.00p.m., the murder was AIUI about 9.30. AFAIK no one from the
police made any enquiries as to whether anyone had been on the church
premises that evening and if so when they left. A couple of nights
later, when the Green was still cordoned off and police were
everywhere I dropped something off at the church very late: none of
the police took the slightest notice - I might have expected to have
been stopped and asked whether I had been there on the Thursday
evening. As it happened I was stopped and my details taken in the
roadblock a week later, but that was really by chance, and if I had
had something to hide I would obviously taken care not to be there.
It doesn't inspire total confidence in me, sad to say.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

On Fri, 20 May 2005 11:58:48 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

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

No, not EVERYthing, Mary!

MM

BigWallop wrote:
"Brian G" wrote in message
...
BigWallop wrote:
"raden" wrote in message
...

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

http://www.pledgebank.com/no2id


geoff


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.

With you moral code, what is 'moral' to you is 'immoral' to someone
else, even though what you are doing is perfectly legal!


Moral code is allowing others the freedom to live their lives, as
well as you living yours. No one wants to be frightened just walking
to the shops, and thugs who interfere with that action and bring
about that fear are breaking the moral code.

I'm not talking about people walking around doing their own thing,
where is that illegal? I'm talking about the people who are only
there to make your life a misery. That's illegal, and breaks moral
code.

Unfortunately BW, there are some completely moral actions by others that
makes somebodies life a misery somewhere.

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.


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.

From what I saw at the time, the lad was merely walking up the street, the
same as a few hundred others were doing at the time. Suss laws cause more
ill-will than the good they do.

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", when all that
will really happen is a card will drop through the doors of the
people who register for them. If you're on the list, then you'll get
in. If you're not, then you'll get hassled.

That is the initial intentention, but after a period, these cards WILL
become compulsory to carry around with with you and when that happens, the
"extreme cases of "what ifs"" will happen - not now, not in ten years time,
but they will happen.

Playing away, as you put it, with a hooker was only made criminal by
the health and safety laws. It was known that men and women who
partook in the pleasures, were nearly a thousand times more likely to
catch sexually transmitted diseases than those who stayed at home, so
to speak. So solicitation was made an offence, and so to was the act
of persuasion (kerb crawling) to a lady of the night. But these laws
were only passed because of the increased health risks to the general
population. Or, put another way, another offence against moral codes.

You missed the point BW, being able to legally track you was the point and
NOT just stop you in the act - not the law on soliciting

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.

Not the introduction of ID cards, these WILL NOT stop those people doing as
you say - perhaps more effective, old style policing by the local plod on
the beat rather than in cars may do that?

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.

How? All it does is give the 'illusion of safety/doing something' when all
it really does is cut down the numbers of plods on the beat - the real
criminal catchers. No it used just to 'spy on the masses'.

Brian G

BigWallop wrote:

Moral code is allowing others the freedom to live their lives, as
well as you living yours.

Agreed - so sod off with trying to impose an ID card on me, please.

"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

Mary Fisher wrote:
"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 :-)

Being asked for an ID card is not 'being talked to' is it?

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.

What I saw, was a perfectly innocent lad being stopped bt four bores coppers
standing on the street - and he was let go rather quickly when a little
fraca started just up the road - as I said, four bored plods!

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.


Wife was with me at the time Mary, and after nearly forty years of marriage,
I think that's the last thing I want to do (keeping one female happy take
all the time that I have, as you will understand) but 'playing away' has
more than one connotation in my book, and it was being used as an example -
anyway, howcome you are so familiar with the term?


Brian G

"Brian G" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"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 :-)

Being asked for an ID card is not 'being talked to' is it?

Oh - you don't mean they'll use flash cards?

That will be a pity, especially for the illiterate.


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.

What I saw, was a perfectly innocent lad being stopped bt four bores
coppers

How do you know they were bores?

standing on the street - and he was let go rather quickly when a little
fraca started just up the road - as I said, four bored plods!

No, you said 'bores' ...


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


Wife was with me at the time Mary, and after nearly forty years of
marriage,
I think that's the last thing I want to do (keeping one female happy take
all the time that I have, as you will understand) but 'playing away' has
more than one connotation in my book, and it was being used as an
example -
anyway, howcome you are so familiar with the term?

I'm probably even older than you, you can't get to my dotage without picking
up street language. I've had a rich life :-)

Mary

BigWallop wrote:

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.

The Police can already ask a citizen to identify themselves. This new
system extends that power to any little Hitler or US corporation which wants
to participate. It means we all get the "1984 Clubcard", where our
movements and choices are surveilled and analysed by countless snoopers.

Terrorists and illegals will simply use forged papers, or take advantage of
the 3m rule for overseas visitors. The only people who'll be screwed by
this will be the law-abiding UK nationals.

"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

Mary Fisher wrote:
"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

Mary,

I actually agree with the CORRECT use of speed cameras - and as you infer,
if you break the speed limit and get caught - then tough and don't whinge
about it...


Brian G

"Brian G" wrote in message
...

I actually agree with the CORRECT use of speed cameras - and as you infer,
if you break the speed limit and get caught - then tough and don't whinge
about it...

I've never heard of an incorrect use of one.

Not one I believe anyway :-)

Of to make dinner, wild salmon, wilted buttered bistort, home grown mixed
salad, home made sourdough bread, good salty Welsh butter and Sancerre.

I didn't realise how hungry I was.

Mary




Brian G