You don't have to carry your ID with you at all times, but if you've got nothing to hide, why not? A quick bit of research and I see you have to be able to show your ID to a police officer or at a police station within four hours of being stopped. (https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-a...u must be able to,places in France is illegal.) Yep...I have only ever been asked for my ID when crossing borders, or during the height of COVID restrictions when we were only allowed out for an hour's exercise each day. The police don't wonder the streets demanding to see your ID for no good reason. Also, as you say, anytime I have started a new job I've been asked for a copy of my passport and post-Brexit a copy of the titre de sejour (work permit equivalent).
But then don't we just have the same with passports? Passports are required at the start of any new job I've had, and obviously to get across borders etc. What's the need for something different?
Not everyone has a passport, though - only 76% in England & Wales held a UK passport at the last census, with 17% holding no passport at all. As I mentioned, mine has expired, and I will only spend the £75 to renew it if I decide to travel overseas again - something I feel less and less inclined to do. If ID is to be required at polling stations the government should provide free national ID cards (or even full passports) to every citizen.
I abhor this “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear” mantra. I have something to hide, same as everyone else. It’s not the business of the state where I go, what I do and why. It’s not the business of the state to hold me to account for my movements and motives. Covid has accelerated the tipping of the scales. There is an inexorable trend towards more and more tracking, more and more data on us. We’re seeing more shops etc. refusing to take our cash, for example. Bloody covid passports, for example. If we have ID cards I absolutely guarantee they’ll be used in increasingly different ways that we’ve yet to imagine. Sorry, I just don’t happen to think it’s a good thing.
Maybe for the conspiracy thread, but do you turn off your mobile before you leave the house every day? Do you have your privacy settings set to the highest level? Companies like Alphabet and Meta (Google and Facebook to most people) hold so much data on you, and will continue to farm this data. They'll then bombard you with ads for something you were talking about with your friends. And you're worried about our government having your data...
From what I can see, ID cards are: 1. Cheaper, as Strolls has said. 2. Smaller - just like a bank card kept permanently in the wallet 3. They can be used digitally/ with biometrics etc So for domestic use, good. But obviously, going abroad, a passport is better
Exactly. Compared to the amount of personal data that corporations have stored about people, a card with your name, dob and expiry date isn't much information at all. Also, the idea that they'll be checked constantly and used to track movement hasn't been my experience at all.
But most countries in Europe have them, except Denmark, Ireland and I think one other. Many are compulsory. But the experience of the citizens of those countries is that they are used in a limited way. If we had them, it would be only on the basis that an act of Parliament was needed to expand their use. If you remember, there was a lot of concern about CCTV. Probably is still, with a minority. But most people think it's a real positive. That poor Irish invalid that was stabbed to death would probably not have got justice without video evidence. We have to move with the times, Ubes. Shed your long flowing robe and sandals...!
That article would be by Kate Plummer who works for the ironically called, "Independent" would it? Maitlis has received praise in Remainer circles. Maitlis, Sopel, Marr and others show their true colours when they leave the BBC and become left wing presenters on LBC - which of course, everyone knew they would.
Tim Davie, the BBC Director General, is a Tory donor and ex Tory candidate. Robbie Gibb, who is currently acting as 'arbiter of impartiality' for the BBC is an active Tory party agent and former no.10 chief of communications for a Tory PM. This is not ensuring impartiality, it's ensuring partiality in favour of the Tories. Maitlis, Sopel, Marr and O'Brien are all excellent and conscientious journalists who are disgusted with this enforced partiality. As for 'both-sideism', do you think that the BBC, when reporting on man-made climate change - something accepted as real by the vast majority of scientists - should be forced to give equal weight to the opinions of someone who doesn't believe it exists? Or perhaps a programme on evolution should be forced to give equal time to a creationist? When James O'Brien was on Newsnight he secured an interview with Pascal Lamy, who had been Director General of the WTO. He was forced under 'impartiality' rules to give equal time to Andrea Leadsome, a know-nothing (in this respect) Brexiteer. An ex-WTO Director General stating actual facts about how leaving the EU on WTO terms would affect the UK and a pro-Brexit politician telling him he was wrong.
What does it matter? Not everyone has a passport and if a copper wants to see my ID, I'm not going to start screaming "I'm being oppressed". As said previously, we're tracked throughout our lives by everything we do and if you've nothing to hide, what's the problem?
How can Maitlis and the others complain about enforced partiality when they've been partial for years with a definite left leaning? O'Brien even got sacked from Katz's left wing Newsnight for being too left. The BBC has been known to be left-wing orientated for years. That's fact. And new journalists like Labour supporting Lewis Goodall, are now more political activist than they are journalist. But now, perhaps, we're getting some balance in the BBC. I want to hear both sides of the argument. On climate change, for as long as there is a credible argument that it may not be happening, the BBC should give some air time to those proponents. Look what happened when the BBC sensibly invited Nick Griffin onto Newsnight - he became a laughing stock from which he's never recovered. As far as Pascal Lamy is concerned, you cannot put a Frenchman on to talk about Brexit (in which France has skin in the game) without having someone to oppose him. I don't know whether Leadsome was the right person, I didn't hear the interview. The public don't want left wing monologues. They want both sides aired.
The BBC has always had strict impartiality rules. Some of its journalists may have been left-leaning, but they were never allowed to promote their own views. Similarly with its right-leaning journalists such as Andrew Neil or Nick Robinson. O'Brien wasn't sacked, he resigned from Newsnight because he wanted to make his own views clear and couldn't whilst working for the BBC. As for Pascal Lamy, he's not some random Frenchman, he was Director General of the WTO for ****'s sake. That's why O'Brien wanted him on, to state the facts about what it would mean for the UK to have to trade on WTO terms. He wasn't giving an opinion about whether Brexit was right or wrong. The earth is round, but in the interests of impartiality, here's Andrea Leadsome to tell you it's flat.
Who says I’m paranoid, Col? Yes, I’ve made the point myself about how much tracking already takes place. I don’t want anymore even though I’ve acknowledged it’ll no doubt happen anyway. If the majority want to increasingly present an ID and justify their existence to jumped up little twats in every walk of life then I’m happy to be in the minority.
Not true about O'Brien. He was given his marching orders for his extreme views on Brexit and Trump: MediaGuido had heard a few whispers about why James O’Brien had been canned by Newsnight – chiefly that BBC bosses were fed up with his Trumpian hyper-partisan attention-seeking both on their programme, on Twitter and elsewhere. One insider says they simply ran out of patience with him always going off on one. He was a pain and people were delighted to see him go. Pascal - he can have any position you like, he will still be partial to his own country and the power project that France and Germany started up. No one's saying he shouldn't be giving his views on the BBC. But it's essential to have an opposing view as something as important as Brexit. And it's interesting that the Armageddon prophecies of the Remain economists have not come to pass. There was barely a trickle of talent out of the City, and plenty coming the other way to continue to do business in London. So the Andrea Leadsome's got it right, even if they didn't have a flash title.
