Blair says "fingerprint all the children"

[InsaneApache]

Well not in so many words.....


CHILDREN aged 11 to 16 are to have their fingerprints taken and stored on a secret database, internal Whitehall documents reveal.

The leaked Home Office plans show that the mass fingerprinting will start in 2010, with a batch of 295,000 youngsters who apply for passports.

The Home Office expects 545,000 children aged 11 and over to have their prints taken in 2011, with the figure settling at an annual 495,000 from 2014. Their fingerprints will be held on a database also used by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1466943.ece

The faster this lunatic buggers off, the better the UK shall be, c'mon Tony you know it makes sense ..... GO NOW!

[rory_20_uk]

What is the fear? The home office can't keep track of known criminals on existing databases.

If information is only available to police and related authorities it should be an asset - current crimes from up to 40 years ago are solved thanks to modern DNA techniques. Bieng able to clear / convict people in a crime scene sounds like a good plan.

If a person's fingerprints were wanted that badly they could be obtained. Just arrest them and get them that way for one!

I don't feel that this is the step before all people have a barcode tattoed to their face at birth.

~:smoking:

[Scurvy]

If the government are planning to fingerprint everyone for passports then i can't see why it should be any different for children...

however the whole fingerprinting thing is a bit much --> fingerprints should only be taken after arrest...

:2thumbsup:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While I have no actual fear of this I have to say it seems a bit much.

It's another pointless database the government will either never use of screw up.

[KukriKhan]

Questions:

So if 11-year old Rodney vows to never leave Yorkshire all his life, he'll not need a passport, and avoid fingerprinting?

How would such a policy change/be scrapped, by a change in leadership?

[InsaneApache]

Questions:

So if 11-year old Rodney vows to never leave Yorkshire all his life, he'll not need a passport, and avoid fingerprinting? *

How would such a policy change/be scrapped, by a change in leadership?

It would be dumped by the Conservatives, who argue that it would be a waste of time and money. This is on top of the road pricing scheme that would force motorists to have a 'black box' installed in their cars, so that the authorities know when, where and how far you drove on a particular day, at a particular time. All in the name of security/global warming of course. Nothing to do with this invasive governments fetish for spying on/controlling the population. Then there is the introduction of postal ballots for all, that has produced an exceptional amount of voting fraud, unheard of ten years ago. IIRC international election observers are saying that the UK has a huge problem with fraudulent voting, akin to countries in the developing world. Compulsory ID cards are coming in the next 5-10 years, even though Labour left that particular gem out of their last manifesto. Hey and guess what? It is all going to cost an extradinate amount of money.....so we get shafted (again) and have to pay through the nose. Put all this together and a picture emerges. :thumbsdown:

*Around about 85-90% of Brits have a passport. :wall:

[Scurvy]

It would be dumped by the Conservatives, who argue that it would be a waste of time and money. This is on top of the road pricing scheme that would force motorists to have a 'black box' installed in their cars, so that the authorities know when, where and how far you drove on a particular day, at a particular time. All in the name of security/global warming of course. Nothing to do with this invasive governments fetish for spying on/controlling the population. Then there is the introduction of postal ballots for all, that has produced an exceptional amount of voting fraud, unheard of ten years ago. IIRC international election observers are saying that the UK has a huge problem with fraudulent voting, akin to countries in the developing world. Compulsory ID cards are coming in the next 5-10 years, even though Labour left that particular gem out of their last manifesto. Hey and guess what? It is all going to cost an extradinate amount of money.....so we get shafted (again) and have to pay through the nose. Put all this together and a picture emerges.

:laugh4: --> i thought the conservatives were exactly the same as labour, the only way to change anything is to vote lib dem... :2thumbsup:

...having said that i basically agree, i dont like the idea of id cards and the boxes, and worry about how much it will cost

[KukriKhan]

*Around about 85-90% of Brits have a passport

So I've read. Do you think that if this fingerprinting scheme gets implemented, that %age will decrease, from people avoiding being id'd/tracked/monitored? Will there be fewer Brit international travelers in 10 years, as these kids hit the age of majority?

There may be other 'costs' than just database mangement and passport issuance.

Oh. Another ??:

Do you need a passport for travel to/from EU countries?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Do you need a passport for travel to/from EU countries?

Yes.

[InsaneApache]

BQ is correct. Apart from the Republic of Ireland UK subjects need a passport to travel to other EU countries as we (UK) opted out from the Schengen (http://www.eurovisa.info/SchengenCountries.htm) agreement. Although it's my experience that the only people who actually look at your passport are the airline staff when boarding. When I drove up from Greece a year or so back the only customs staff to look at my passport were the ones in Harwich.

[KukriKhan]

Yes.

OK then. If English Assassin hopped on his motorcycle in London tomorrow, determined to visit KrooK 900 miles away in Warsaw... what kind of paperwork would he need to make the trip?

[InsaneApache]

If EA suddenly felt the urge to 'go east' then all he would need would be a current full British passport.

[KukriKhan]

If EA suddenly felt the urge to 'go east' then all he would need would be a current full British passport.

I see. And if Louis VI decided to make a similar trip in his Peugot from Paris? No passport required?

[InsaneApache]

Louis would not need a passport until he reached the German-Polish border. Then he would, most probably, have to produce one.

[KukriKhan]

Louis would not need a passport until he reached the German-Polish border. Then he would, most probably, have to produce one.

Thanks. As a guy who can travel 2,000+ miles North, East & South unencumbered by a passport, I find that info fascinating. :bow:

Now... back to your topic: If 11-year old Rodney's parents decide they don't want the UK gov't keeping track of their son's whereabouts, and therefore avoid ever getting him a passport... in 2017, when Rodney is 21, he'll not be able to leave the UK, yes? The authorities won't have his fingerprints, but he'll be stuck on the island. If enough parents avoid gov't fingerprinting by never getting their kids passports, you may have a next generation of non-travelers.

Perhaps the Tories could use that as an arguement against the fingerprinting scheme. Or is it your opinion that Labour would just try some other way to catalogue its citizens?

[Pannonian]

Thanks. As a guy who can travel 2,000+ miles North, East & South unencumbered by a passport, I find that info fascinating. :bow:

Now... back to your topic: If 11-year old Rodney's parents decide they don't want the UK gov't keeping track of their son's whereabouts, and therefore avoid ever getting him a passport... in 2017, when Rodney is 21, he'll not be able to leave the UK, yes? The authorities won't have his fingerprints, but he'll be stuck on the island. If enough parents avoid gov't fingerprinting by never getting their kids passports, you may have a next generation of non-travelers.

Perhaps the Tories could use that as an arguement against the fingerprinting scheme. Or is it your opinion that Labour would just try some other way to catalogue its citizens?
Any government of any party will think up a new wheeze whenever it feels the need to placate the Daily Mail readers of Tunbridge Wells. Labour, whom Disgruntled of TW is traditionally averse to, feels the need more than most. No-one takes these initiatives seriously - the police can't keep up with the data they already have, let alone the extra which is being proposed. I just wish their annual Home Office brainwaves would cost less money - a "crackdown on hoodies" with existing resources which can be forgotten about 2 months on would suit me fine.

[KukriKhan]

I just wish their annual Home Office brainwaves would cost less money

Indeed:


from IA's article: "...The government says the scheme will cost £6 billion to implement. However, in 2005, the London School of Economics estimated it would cost £19 billion..."


A pretty hefty pricetag.

[BDC]

This is all a conspiracy to get the Tories in at the next election. They can stand on an anti-ID stand, they win.

Blair mysteriously gets a new house, invites pissed off Gordan Brown over for whiskies every weekend.

[lars573]

Thanks. As a guy who can travel 2,000+ miles North, East & South unencumbered by a passport, I find that info fascinating. :bow:
Is the US 2000 miles north-south? :book: Cause to get into Canada or Mexico you'd need a passport.

[Scurvy]

Is the US 2000 miles north-south? :book: Cause to get into Canada or Mexico you'd need a passport.

since when did you need a passport to get across the mexican border? :laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

Any government of any party will think up a new wheeze whenever it feels the need to placate the Daily Mail readers of Tunbridge Wells. Labour, whom Disgruntled of TW is traditionally averse to, feels the need more than most. No-one takes these initiatives seriously - the police can't keep up with the data they already have, let alone the extra which is being proposed. I just wish their annual Home Office brainwaves would cost less money - a "crackdown on hoodies" with existing resources which can be forgotten about 2 months on would suit me fine.

hehe .... I just might change my name :2thumbsup:

Back OT:

Maybe it's a generational thingy but I just have this quaint idea that the government administers because we have better things to do.

When a government embarks on a series of policies that could be used at some future date, by any ruling government of any flavour, to monitor it's cashcows population at all times questions should be asked. Why should the government need to know where I've been/going/travelling to? Why should I have to produce my ID to some jumped up official in a peaked cap? (Papers please!). Why should I be alarmed that the government would wish to fingerprint my grandkids before I can take them to visit their great-grandad? Why should I care if councillors and politicians are elected frauduently? There again the last time I read the Daily Mail was in 1975 so I guess I'll just have to keep asking why?

[Scurvy]

the last time I read the Daily Mail was in 1975

:speechless:

--> the problem is that the government have to do something about security, because if something happens, they get blamed if they havn't, the government(s) seem to think that greater security comes through having greater control and greater serveillance of its population... something which im not sure is true, and object too...

however its a lose/lose situation for the government

[KukriKhan]

Is the US 2000 miles north-south? :book: Cause to get into Canada or Mexico you'd need a passport.

I've crossed both borders without a passport dozens of times.*

Although, I hear that airline travel (not auto) to and from Mexico and Canada will soon require one for re-entry to the US.

*I have a US passport & carry it when travelling, but it's never been asked for by Canadian, Mexican, or US officials.

[Adrian II]

What is the fear? The home office can't keep track of known criminals on existing databases.This is the umpteenth indication that British democracy is seriously eroding. Go ahead, treat all your citizens as 'known criminals' and become the laughing stock of Europe. It's your freedom, not mine.

[Fisherking]

I've crossed both borders without a passport dozens of times.

Although, I hear that airline travel (not auto) to and from Mexico and Canada will soon require one for re-entry to the US.
Yes and to get home again, if I am not mistaken.

Not sure the feds trust driver's licences and most other picture ID any more…can't say I do either, but it will be a pain.

I had my US passport stamped by a US Border Agent when returning to the US from Canada.

[BDC]

This is the umpteenth indication that British democracy is seriously eroding. Go ahead, treat all your citizens as 'known criminals' and become the laughing stock of Europe. It's your freedom, not mine.
It's ok, we can just move to your country anyway...

Besides, Labour will be out soon, Cameron will be voted in on a massive anti-stupidity stance, so will have to at least try some sensible stuff.

I'm still not sure what the justification for ID cards is. Even the government seems to have decided 'terrorism' isn't really cutting it.

[HoreTore]

"Any society willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security, deserve neither and will lose both"

Wise words...

[rory_20_uk]

"Any society willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security, deserve neither and will lose both"

Wise words...

As long as you are prepared to live in a lot of anarchy.
Laws all infringe in people's liberties. In a different light we call if "Civilisation"

Far from wise, the words are conceited and do not stand up to the glare of reality.

~:smoking:

[lars573]

I've crossed both borders without a passport dozens of times.*

Although, I hear that airline travel (not auto) to and from Mexico and Canada will soon require one for re-entry to the US.

*I have a US passport & carry it when travelling, but it's never been asked for by Canadian, Mexican, or US officials.
Crossing the US/Canada border as of Jan. 1 '07 requires a passport. In either direction.

[KukriKhan]

Crossing the US/Canada border as of Jan. 1 '07 requires a passport. In either direction.

No kidding. I bow to superior info. :bow: (link?)

A shame, after all these years.

So OK: I can travel by car 1,000 miles North, 4,000 miles East & 2,000 miles south (to the Mexico-Guatemala border) without a passport.

[Pannonian]

No kidding. I bow to superior info. :bow: (link?)

A shame, after all these years.

So OK: I can travel by car 1,000 miles North, 4,000 miles East & 2,000 miles south (to the Mexico-Guatemala border) without a passport.
How far can you travel west? Do you need to show your passport once your car leaves the continental shelf?

[Crazed Rabbit]

As long as you are prepared to live in a lot of anarchy.
Laws all infringe in people's liberties. In a different light we call if "Civilisation"

Far from wise, the words are conceited and do not stand up to the glare of reality.

~:smoking:

The water warms, but none of the swimmers notice, it would seem.

I agree strongly with AdrianII - how long are you British* going to lay back and take these successive infringements on your liberty and refuse to consider the consequences, refuse even to be alarmed, but merely continue on like sheep?

Your presumption that freedom must be curtailed to avoid anarchy is absurd. Liberty is freedom to do as you wish so long as you do not harm others. That does not mean anarchy.

Lars, I think you still don't, and still won't, need a passport for US- Canada travel until January 2008:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070304/FEATURES07/703040555/1032

CR
*Generality. See my rule about how I feel about generalities. (Generally, I don't care).

[lars573]

Lars, I think you still don't, and still won't, need a passport for US- Canada travel until January 2008:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070304/FEATURES07/703040555/1032

CR
*Generality. See my rule about how I feel about generalities. (Generally, I don't care).
No you do. By sea and air appearantly (by land is for '08). My sister had to forgo a trip to disney world in Florida with her boyfriends family because she couldn't afford the $90 for a passport. My grand-father got the application forms for a passport this past friday. As it's almost time for one of his anual jaunts to some car show in Vermont. He's 88 and this is the first time he's needed a passport.

[rory_20_uk]

The water warms, but none of the swimmers notice, it would seem.

I agree strongly with AdrianII - how long are you British* going to lay back and take these successive infringements on your liberty and refuse to consider the consequences, refuse even to be alarmed, but merely continue on like sheep?

Your presumption that freedom must be curtailed to avoid anarchy is absurd. Liberty is freedom to do as you wish so long as you do not harm others. That does not mean anarchy.

Lars, I think you still don't, and still won't, need a passport for US- Canada travel until January 2008:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070304/FEATURES07/703040555/1032

CR
*Generality. See my rule about how I feel about generalities. (Generally, I don't care).

Your presumption that all will act like good little worker ants without curtails to freedoms is equally absurd.

Ah, "harm others". How is that defined? An offensive mural - is that harming them? Nazi swastickas on the arms?

Driving without a seatbelt doesn't harm others, but is still illegal.
Taxation could be viewed as harming the taxed, but is still legal.
Passports, Driving licenses, National Insurance numbers are all compulsary or almost so. Why aren't we up in arms about that? Possibly they have a definitive use?
Many argue that a gun is neither a positive thing or a negative thing, and that it can be used safely or irrisponsibly, and so banning is not appropriate. Others would argue that knowing who has guns could help prevent their misuse (obviously not in counrties like the USA as it is far too late for that).

A database of information is neutral. Knowledge is neutral - it is how it is used that determines whether it is bad or not.

I accept the argument that it could be massive waste of time and money.
Far more important things (which seem to have gone unnoticed) are such acts as passing legislation allowing stop and search in London on terrorism grounds of anyone without reason. the police could be detaining people in their thousands - the legislation is there - but they don't. Often it is not the laws but the way they are enforced.

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I agree strongly with AdrianII - how long are you British* going to lay back and take these successive infringements on your liberty and refuse to consider the consequences, refuse even to be alarmed, but merely continue on like sheep?

My sympathies are with Adrian II's and your position as well.

However, I think you're a bit harsh characterising the British as sheep. Like most voters in Western democracies, they are being sold a line that "safety" requires the government to control their lives. Since governments of all shades have steadily been grasping power to themselves and disenfranchising the people, the people have become uninterested in politics. Perhaps this actually means they want to be mollycoddled into a secure golden cage - isn't that their democratic right? :shrug:

Anyway, it's not just a British problem. I didn't see any armed insurrections over the Patriot Act, for example.

[Fisherking]

My sympathies are with Adrian II's and your position as well.

However, I think you're a bit harsh characterising the British as sheep. Like most voters in Western democracies, they are being sold a line that "safety" requires the government to control their lives. Since governments of all shades have steadily been grasping power to themselves and disenfranchising the people, the people have become uninterested in politics. Perhaps this actually means they want to be mollycoddled into a secure golden cage - isn't that their democratic right? :shrug:

Anyway, it's not just a British problem. I didn't see any armed insurrections over the Patriot Act, for example.
Yes and until the general public realises this it is not going to get any better.

I can think of a dozen quotes, but I'll spare you this time.

[rory_20_uk]

So all institutions that control us should be done away with.

Schools obviously are a form of indoctrination.
Armed forces rely on orders. Definite lack of rights there.
Police. Detaining people for hours days only to be released. Infringing citizens / subjects in the street.
In fact, all the government does is constrict our liberties. There isn't one activity that it undertakes where information about us is not collated and indexed. Be that taxes or social benefits receipts.
Ownership too constricts the rights of individuals. As do artificial boundaries such as defining areas as National Parks or Nature reserves.
In fact, the notion of Nation is also something that restricts our liberties... :inquisitive:

Oh, but I'm being silly. Only the bad laws and regulations need to be removed. The others are clearly good and should remain.

~:smoking:

[Fisherking]

So all institutions that control us should be done away with.

Schools obviously are a form of indoctrination.
Armed forces rely on orders. Definite lack of rights there.
Police. Detaining people for hours days only to be released. Infringing citizens / subjects in the street.
In fact, all the government does is constrict our liberties. There isn't one activity that it undertakes where information about us is not collated and indexed. Be that taxes or social benefits receipts.
Ownership too constricts the rights of individuals. As do artificial boundaries such as defining areas as National Parks or Nature reserves.
In fact, the notion of Nation is also something that restricts our liberties... :inquisitive:

Oh, but I'm being silly. Only the bad laws and regulations need to be removed. The others are clearly good and should remain.

~:smoking:
You can't help someone who doesn't want it. And it isn't a problem if you don't think it is.
As long as you buy the line "We're from the Government and we are here to help" you get pretty much what you are asking for.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So all institutions that control us should be done away with.

Alternatively: so all institutions that control us should be able to do so without restriction. :inquisitive:


Oh, but I'm being silly. Only the bad laws and regulations need to be removed. The others are clearly good and should remain.


Assuming you were being sarcastic, it astonishes me that you think these sentences are somehow flawed. Of course bad laws should be removed and good ones remain.

That's why the people have to be active in any democracy. It is madness to leave things to governments. All governments, benign or otherwise, try to draw power to themselves - after all, politicians stand for office precisely because they believe they know what's good for the rest of us.

In the UK, you don't even have a written constitution to protect your fundamental rights - you are subjects rather than citizens, and rely entirely on a history of precedent and generally well-behaved governments to keep you from tyranny. That's why surveillance and destruction of rights has gone so far in the UK - there are precious few barriers to the whim of the controller.

Mr Blair has already ridden rough-shod over many cherished "rights" and with weak oppositions and feeble parliamentarians, that trend will only continue.

[Adrian II]

A database of information is neutral. Knowledge is neutral - it is how it is used that determines whether it is bad or not.The bureaucracies that gather and manipulate databases are never neutral. You should shred this presumption of benevolence instead of shredding the presumption of innocence.

Of course my words 'It's your freedom, not mine' were off the mark. I do care, I love Britain and I hate to see these surveillance principles take hold in what was and is otherwise a model democracy.

For God's sake man, there are plans afoot to fingerprint people before they can buy a beer in a British pub :dizzy2:

[Scurvy]

I agree strongly with AdrianII - how long are you British* going to lay back and take these successive infringements on your liberty and refuse to consider the consequences, refuse even to be alarmed, but merely continue on like sheep?


thats a really unfair statement to make... many people are alarmed by the changes, the government are struggling to get ID cards etc through, and they are largely unpopular


Your presumption that freedom must be curtailed to avoid anarchy is absurd. Liberty is freedom to do as you wish so long as you do not harm others. That does not mean anarchy.

how else do you do it?



So all institutions that control us should be done away with.

a compromise is needeed, people have to have freedom of action, but equally need security etc.



For God's sake man, there are plans afoot to fingerprint people before they can buy a beer in a British pub


plans --> very little of this sort of thing actually gets through, the UK is still very much supportive of individual freedom, their seems to be an assumption that their isn't.

:2thumbsup:

[rory_20_uk]

It boils down to whether people are prepared for one person to be wrongfully charged to convict another 99, or for 99 to go free to ensure that 1 mistake is not made.

People fingerprinted before buying beer... terrible. Of course there are also people carrying guns before they can drink too. Oh, and knives. Not many, but what threshold do you have? I'd like my children to pass through metal detectors if that's what it takes. I'd rather this invasion of their privicy than to have the risk of knives at school.

What are bad laws, and what are good laws? That is utterly subjective. Searches without evidence will catch more criminals, but is an invasion of privacy. Suspect stratification catches more criminals, but alienates the groups that are picked on.

The bus bombers were caught on video footage. Another invasion of privicy to some, but it made capture so much easier.

~:smoking:

[scooter_the_shooter]

People fingerprinted before buying beer... terrible. Of course there are also people carrying guns before they can drink too. Oh, and knives. Not many, but what threshold do you have? I'd like my children to pass through metal detectors if that's what it takes. I'd rather this invasion of their privicy than to have the risk of knives at school.


~:smoking:


What wrong with carrying guns or knives, I have carried a knife on me since I was 8 or 9....


No offense to you guys but the UK is disgusting to me now. it's going to be 1984 meets clockwork orange in the next few decades:thumbsdown:

[rory_20_uk]

As opposed to the US Utopia. When our rates of crime related deaths get anywhere near yous I might get more worried.

~:smoking:

[Del Arroyo]

If you crossed the US-Mexico border by land, and either hired a car or had a bus driver who was too lazy to stop at the immigration station on the edge of the "tolerance zone", you could indeed get to the Mexico-Guatemala border without a passport. If you had a lot of patience, a good cover story, rudimentary Spanish and money for bribes, I have no doubt that you could make it to Panama, ride a boat to Colombia, and from there probably access the rest of South America through one route or another.

Good luck getting back, though. I was in Mexico over New Years, and my understanding is that the 1 Jan 2007 policy applies to Mexico as well. I think the only other document which has been accepted for some time now has been a birth certificate, and this document is no longer acceptable.

[scooter_the_shooter]

As opposed to the US Utopia. When our rates of crime related deaths get anywhere near yous I might get more worried.

~:smoking:

According to the CDC our gun deaths have been falling for the last 3 years, yours on the other hand are rising.


Anyway back to the Uk....why do you guys put up with this stuff. If all the "security improvements" were being planned here there would probably be mass protest. If they were put into effect we would have isolated compounds willing to die and kill if necessary to avoid this. (think Waco)

The patriot act got through because 1 people didn't know about it 2 it was soon after 911.


But in the UK this seems like nobody cares. Why the big difference? the UK may be a bit farther left. but the societies are not that different.

[Scurvy]

As opposed to the US Utopia. When our rates of crime related deaths get anywhere near yours I might get more worried.


:laugh4:



What wrong with carrying guns or knives, I have carried a knife on me since I was 8 or 9....

if i saw an 8 year old carrying a knife i would be seriosuly worried....



Anyway back to the Uk....why do you guys put up with this stuff. If all the "security improvements" were being planned here there would probably be mass protest.


there is protest, you just dont hear about it, very simply, how else do you improve internal security without infringing on some personal liberties?

--> it has to be a compromise, its the cost that should really worry us...


But in the UK this seems like nobody cares. Why the big difference? the UK may be a bit farther left. but the societies are not that different.

people do care.

:2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

As opposed to the US Utopia. When our rates of crime related deaths get anywhere near yous I might get more worried.

~:smoking:

The rates are converging - the US is dropping, the UK is rising. You might to do well to begin worrying.

I was a bit harsh when I said the British were sheep.

I confess protests and groups complaining against this might not be as prominent as the law itself, and so I do not hear about it.

But when I see ever increasing restrictions on freedom, and people not really doing much about it, except to complain about the cost - never the invasion of privacy - I feel bad for what a great, strong nation Britain was.

BG - your point against the Patriot Act has some ground. Caesar pointed out the two main reasons it passed, and even now there is strong opposition to it from many people, from both sides of the aisle. People brood on it and want to overturn it.

I do not see that in Britain. Perhaps because I don't read enough about them, or perhaps because there is no groundswell to get past infringements ended.

In this thread we see some casual accepting the new law, and the motto of oppression - "why worry if you have nothing to hide" - as though the gov't is right to assume every man is a criminal, and throw out any presumption of innocence.

Crazed Rabbit

[Banquo's Ghost]

BG - your point against the Patriot Act has some ground. Caesar pointed out the two main reasons it passed, and even now there is strong opposition to it from many people, from both sides of the aisle. People brood on it and want to overturn it.

I do not see that in Britain. Perhaps because I don't read enough about them, or perhaps because there is no groundswell to get past infringements ended.

There is certainly opposition, but it is somewhat muted - and because of the huge majorities enjoyed by New Labour there has been very little in the way of political "fear" to limit Mr Blair's attacks on freedom.

In addition, remember that the British have no written constitution to appeal to as a higher authority. They are entirely at the whim of the executive, and when that executive has a stranglehold on Parliament (which is supposed to hold them to account but has been made up of feeble placemen under Labour) there is very little short of open rebellion that can change the law. Most people seem to think this is not worth a poll tax type rebellion.


In this thread we see some casual accepting the new law, and the motto of oppression - "why worry if you have nothing to hide" - as though the gov't is right to assume every man is a criminal, and throw out any presumption of innocence.

Indeed. But charge them for a phone-in competition when they have no chance of winning and the entire British nation starts frothing at the mouth. :wink3:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's why the people have to be active in any democracy. It is madness to leave things to governments. All governments, benign or otherwise, try to draw power to themselves - after all, politicians stand for office precisely because they believe they know what's good for the rest of us.

In the UK, you don't even have a written constitution to protect your fundamental rights - you are subjects rather than citizens, and rely entirely on a history of precedent and generally well-behaved governments to keep you from tyranny. That's why surveillance and destruction of rights has gone so far in the UK - there are precious few barriers to the whim of the controller.

Mr Blair has already ridden rough-shod over many cherished "rights" and with weak oppositions and feeble parliamentarians, that trend will only continue.

I agree with you but what am I supposed to do? I voted Conservative, our Conservative MP got in and just last week I signed a petition against top-up fees. I can't run for Office until at least next year and I need an education and after that a job.

Being politically active isn't easy in Britain, it's not really something we're used to. Plenty of people protested the War in Iraq, plently protested the hunting ban, plenty protested the firearms ban.

They don't listen to us.

The current brainwave. Ban Samuri swords because they were involved in maybe 80 crimes last year.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Crossing the US/Canada border as of Jan. 1 '07 requires a passport. In either direction.

Cross border travel requirements (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html)
Clarification.

[InsaneApache]

We need another Glorious Revolution.

[Adrian II]

We need another Glorious Revolution.We are on stand-by. 'Prince Pilsener' as we call him can be over the dropping zone in 45 minutes.

https://img86.imageshack.us/img86/3339/arparachutehy8.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[rory_20_uk]

Did I miss something? Has torturing subjects been allowed? Has the right to a lawyer been binned? Is evidence still required for convictions?

As far as I am aware the answer is "yes".

he US appears to have illegal wiretapping with the President defending it. The Patriot Act with the excuse that everyone was busy looking elsewhere at the time.

Fingerprints on file mean that instead of trawling neighbourhoods for suspects (possibly even looking for people fitting a garbled discription) they can see if there is any data already available. So one suspect can be interviewed under due process.

Was the subtext that suspects caught on the fingerprint database are taken away by vans in the middle of the night and shot at dawn? :inquisitive:

Our society has masses of problems ranging from teenade prgnancy to drugs along with the use of knives and guns. Yet the biggest problem is not any of these - it's a theoretical database that hasn't even been made yet.

~:smoking:

[Del Arroyo]

We are on stand-by. 'Prince Pilsener' as we call him can be over the dropping zone in 45 minutes.

https://img86.imageshack.us/img86/3339/arparachutehy8.gif (https://imageshack.us)

If Prince Pilsener jumps from the aircraft in front of the propellers, his chute will obviously be shredded. From your depiction, however, he seems to bear some resemblance to a super-ball, so perhaps he'll be fine.

[Fisherking]

Hello UK! Anyone awake?

As long as you think government is providing you with security rather than limiting your liberties it is only going to keep going the way it is.

Wait until the tell you they are putting cameras in your flat to protect the children. That is more security after all and you have nothing to hide.

Of course the government may compromise and only put cameras in the hallway or on the lawn. Your love of security and willingness to compromise is going to be the end of your liberties.:wall:

It is not planed it is just what governments do; you have to be the ones to shout ENOUGH! before they tell you that you can no longer do that.

They will provide you with security and make sure you don't hurt your self until Nanny won't let you do anything at all without express permission.:whip:

[Pannonian]

There isn't really a threat to freedoms because the police will complain and start ignoring this as soon as the paperwork gets too much for them. It's the British way, to overturn unpopular laws by overloading the system. The last PM to be overthrown by this method of protest was Thatcher, and there will undoubtedly be others in the future.

[InsaneApache]

I disagree. Its my opinion that we are heading for trouble. Perhaps the next 'initiative' would be to tattoo barcodes on babies heads, you know, just in case they get lost or summat. Perhaps a small chip inserted under the skin, as in my dogs, just in case you get lost or summat. The war on terror has been a godsend for politicos like Blair. It has let him off the leash and we are staring into the abyss.

Oh and Thatcher was deposed by her own party. She was savaged by a dead sheep. I remember it well.

[Pannonian]

I disagree. Its my opinion that we are heading for trouble. Perhaps the next 'initiative' would be to tattoo barcodes on babies heads, you know, just in case they get lost or summat. Perhaps a small chip inserted under the skin, as in my dogs, just in case you get lost or summat. The war on terror has been a godsend for politicos like Blair. It has let him off the leash and we are staring into the abyss.

Bodily invasion is a rather different matter.


Oh and Thatcher was deposed by her own party. She was savaged by a dead sheep. I remember it well.
I got the impression that it was the unpopularity of the Poll Tax that got the Tories looking for an excuse to get rid of her. Europe was the excuse, but the Poll Tax was the reason. In comparison, Major didn't change much in European policy or approach, but he quickly got rid of the Community Charge, replacing it with the Council Tax.

One in five yet to pay poll tax (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/14/newsid_2495000/2495911.stm)

[Fisherking]

Bodily invasion is a rather different matter.

No it is just another security measure. :yes:

[Adrian II]

If Prince Pilsener jumps from the aircraft in front of the propellers, his chute will obviously be shredded. From your depiction, however, he seems to bear some resemblance to a super-ball, so perhaps he'll be fine.I don't think so. In his case V=u+αt in which 'α' represents the amount of beer awaiting him.

His glorious predecessor had to be carried ashore by a fisherman. The Oranges have a knack of bouncing back, though, you may have a point there.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Oranges have a knack of bouncing back, though, you may have a point there.

I thought bouncing oranges were Nell Gwyn's forte?

:wink:

[Adrian II]

I thought bouncing oranges were Nell Gwyn's forte?

:wink:They may have been - before Pilsener got married to a well-sprung woman from Argentine.

I think I just invented a new idiom... :inquisitive:

[KukriKhan]

...It's the British way, to overturn unpopular laws by overloading the system...

I never looked at it quite that way before; I must say, from the outside, looking in, I think you've got it right.

We Yanks could learn a lesson there. We do a lot of yelling and screaming when sometimes it might be better to engage in benign neglect of silly laws, or swamp the beaureu's assigned to administer them.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I never looked at it quite that way before; I must say, from the outside, looking in, I think you've got it right.

We Yanks could learn a lesson there. We do a lot of yelling and screaming when sometimes it might be better to engage in benign neglect of silly laws, or swamp the beaureu's assigned to administer them.

Pannonian has a point about the Brits, but I suspect the Blair government has countered. They have introduced so much bewildering bureacracy, and stitched people's entire livelihoods to the targets integral to the endless reporting, that professions such as teachers and the police are literally drowning in the paper. Pannonian's tactics worked some while ago, but not now. The New Labour government has enacted more bills than any other during its time and they waste colossal amounts of money changing their minds every year. The benign neglect has been crushed by the bureaucrats swamping first and swamping hardest.

It also has to be understood that the British administration is obsessed with silly laws and their enforcement. The EU likes to come up with lots of irritating little regulations to justify their bureacracy, and it is pretty much only the British who bother to implement these.

I mean the British actually account for and audit EU monetary grants!! :laugh4: