The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Personally, I don't object to the introduction of ID cards. What I do object to is the government trying to scare us into accepting them. I'm ripping off something that someone else raised here, but...
If they help prevent terrorism, how come Spain (which has ID cards) got bombed?
If they protect kids from paedos, how come Marc Dutroix raped and murdered kids in Belgium (which has ID cards).
If they stop illegal immigrants, how come all of Europe still has an illegal immigrant problem?
I'd rather a government was honest and said "It helps us track our citizens". Scaremongering arouses the ire of civil libertarians everywhere.
If they help prevent terrorism, how come Spain (which has ID cards) got bombed?
If they protect kids from paedos, how come Marc Dutroix raped and murdered kids in Belgium (which has ID cards).
If they stop illegal immigrants, how come all of Europe still has an illegal immigrant problem?
I'd rather a government was honest and said "It helps us track our citizens". Scaremongering arouses the ire of civil libertarians everywhere.
Page:
If ID cards are introduced I want everyone to have to have one, including Royalty and so called celebrities. I don't want to read about the ignamy of any scenario, where some actor is aghast about being asked to provide their ID card. 'But I'm so famous and important little policeman, why do you need to see my card?'
But that's one of the criticisms - everyone already has identification. Why not make us carry around their NI cards instead, and improve the security surrounding them?
Lets not forget National Insurance numbers and cards. A fingerprint just increases the security surrounding it.
I think these ID cards are a good idea.
A lot of you are saying you object to having to carry them with you at all times. Well I don't know about you, butI do that all the time with my Cash/credit cards, Driving License etc. and I don't have a problem carrying those.
Even if you lose it, by the time these cards are introduced, biometric technology should be all over the place so if you lose/forget your card, a simple fingerprint/eye test would confirm you are who you say you are.
This may sound stupid, but the eye-scanning technology in Minority Report (where the people have to look into the 'camera' unit at the entrance to get through safely) should be developed. It can't be that hard, what with all the advances in technology these days. This would also combat people walking around with stolen cards.
A lot of you are saying you object to having to carry them with you at all times. Well I don't know about you, butI do that all the time with my Cash/credit cards, Driving License etc. and I don't have a problem carrying those.
Even if you lose it, by the time these cards are introduced, biometric technology should be all over the place so if you lose/forget your card, a simple fingerprint/eye test would confirm you are who you say you are.
This may sound stupid, but the eye-scanning technology in Minority Report (where the people have to look into the 'camera' unit at the entrance to get through safely) should be developed. It can't be that hard, what with all the advances in technology these days. This would also combat people walking around with stolen cards.
monkey_man wrote:
> Anyone want to chip in and buy our own island?
We could build a new life for us all under the sea. I've got some waterproof cloth we could use as shelter and my parents have some fishing rods in Spain. Think of it: fish and chips every night, scuba party fun time, Seals doing tricks, underwater love pumping and no ID cards (apart from the barcodes everyone would need before they were allowed into the waterproof camp site).
I cannot find a single flaw in my proposal, so what do you say? We can even run some leads down to allow us to go on the internet and maybe if we install some electric cookers we can do catering.
> Anyone want to chip in and buy our own island?
We could build a new life for us all under the sea. I've got some waterproof cloth we could use as shelter and my parents have some fishing rods in Spain. Think of it: fish and chips every night, scuba party fun time, Seals doing tricks, underwater love pumping and no ID cards (apart from the barcodes everyone would need before they were allowed into the waterproof camp site).
I cannot find a single flaw in my proposal, so what do you say? We can even run some leads down to allow us to go on the internet and maybe if we install some electric cookers we can do catering.
I feel quite helpless about the whole thing, actually. It's a good idea, if used for the right reasons, but that still doesn't convince me that I want to have to carry one all the time. What if I want to go to the shops, and I leave it at home? What if my wallet gets stolen - how do I prove who I am until a replacement card arrives? There are still loopholes and flaws. I honestly have nothing to hide from anyone, but I do think the era of Nazi-esque stop and searches is not too far off, and that goes beyond what I'm willing to accept as a citizen of this country.
Anyone want to chip in and buy our own island?
Anyone want to chip in and buy our own island?
I thought the idea was you didn't have to carry them around with you all the time, just produce them if asked to, like a driving licence.
The point about technology is a fair one. Whatever figure they put on the budget you can double or treble it. When was the last time the government put a nationwide scheme in place, based on technological advances, that actually worked?
The point about technology is a fair one. Whatever figure they put on the budget you can double or treble it. When was the last time the government put a nationwide scheme in place, based on technological advances, that actually worked?
As a voluntary thing it seems a bit of a waste of time and money.
As a compulsory thing I'd hate it.
Having to carry around a card with you at all times...
I'd always be forgetting or losing mine or what not! :-S
Besides, it's pointless.
As a compulsory thing I'd hate it.
Having to carry around a card with you at all times...
I'd always be forgetting or losing mine or what not! :-S
Besides, it's pointless.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Whatever tagging device next will they make compulsory?
Do you have any point to make with this seemingly random comment...?
> Whatever tagging device next will they make compulsory?
Do you have any point to make with this seemingly random comment...?
Light wrote:
> Personally, I don't object to the introduction of ID cards. What I do
> object to is the government trying to scare us into accepting them.
> I'm ripping off something that someone else raised here, but...
>
> If they help prevent terrorism, how come Spain (which has ID cards)
> got bombed?
>
> If they protect kids from paedos, how come Marc Dutroix raped and
> murdered kids in Belgium (which has ID cards).
>
> If they stop illegal immigrants, how come all of Europe still has an
> illegal immigrant problem?
>
>
> I'd rather a government was honest and said "It helps us track
> our citizens". Scaremongering arouses the ire of civil
> libertarians everywhere.
Here's the argument for:-
There is no doubt that on the doorstep, in local communities, immigration has suddenly become very high on the agenda. Why? It is not, incidentally, an exclusively British issue. This is a worldwide phenomenon. Immigration has dominated elections in countries like Denmark, Austria and Netherlands in recent years. Le Pen rose to prominence in France. In Australia and New Zealand, it has been a central question, sharply dividing the main parties. Migration flows across the world, with increased opportunities to travel and globalisation, drives the issue. And beneath the surface, all of us on the centre left, know what we fear: that concern slips into prejudice, and becomes racism. But we cannot simply dismiss any concern about immigration as racism. In part, what has put immigration back up the agenda - with public concern at its highest since the 1970s - is that there are real, not imagined abuses of the system that lead to a sense of genuine unfairness.
This morning I made a speech setting out the government's policy of controlled migration. I have attached a full copy for your information. In the speech I argue that the vast bulk of the British people are not racist. It is in their nature to be moderate. But they expect Government to respond to their worries. They can accept migration that is controlled and selective. They accept and welcome migrants who play by the rules. But they will not accept abuse or absurdity and why should they? So now is the time to make the argument for controlled migration simultaneous with tackling the abuses we can identify; and then, longer term, put in place a system that gives us the best guarantee of future integrity in our migration policy.
We will neither be Fortress Britain, nor will we be an open house. Where necessary, we will tighten the immigration system. Where there are abuses we will deal with them, so that public support for the controlled migration that benefits Britain is maintained.
Our strategy has a number of interlocking elements:
(1) A recognition of the benefits that controlled migration brings not just to the economy but to delivering the public and private services on which we rely.
(2) Being clear that all those who come here to work and study must be able to support themselves. There can be no access to state support or housing for the economically inactive.
(3) We will continue to tackle abuses in the asylum system, including through the legislation currently before Parliament which will establish a single tier of appeal and clamp down on asylum seekers who deliberately destroy their documents and lie about their identity.
(4) Action on illegal immigration through the introduction of ID cards and millions invested in strengthening our border controls in ports and airports across the world: and heightened enforcement in the UK too.
(5) Celebrating the major achievements of migrants in this country and the success of our uniquely British model of diversity. But alongside that an explicit expectation that rights must be balanced by responsibilities. That there are clear obligations that go alongside British residency and ultimately citizenship - to reject extremism and intolerance and make a positive contribution to UK society.
(6) An acknowledgement that there is no longer a neat separation between the domestic and the international. In a world of global interdependence our policies on migration cannot be isolated from our policies on international development or EU enlargement.
Those who do come here make a huge contribution, particularly to our public services. Far from always or even mainly being a burden on our health or education systems - migrant workers are often the very people delivering those services. Take the nursing staff from the West Indies recruited by then health minister, Enoch Powell in the 1960s. By 1968, there were almost 19,000 trainee nurses and midwives born overseas - 35% of whom were from the West Indies and 15% from Ireland. Now, a quarter of all health professionals are overseas born. Or consider the 11,000 overseas teachers now working in schools in England. Or the 23% of staff in our HE institutions are non-UK nationals - that's 33,530 out of 143,150. Our public services would be close to collapse without their contribution.
And never forget those migrants from the Commonwealth and Eastern Europe who gave more than just their labour. 138,000 Indian soldiers served the British Army on the Western Front in the first world war. Thousands of Polish airmen flew alongside the RAF during World War Two. And it was Polish mathematicians who helped break the enigma code.
So each decade brings it's own particular needs, its own skills gap and our immigration system too must keep respond to these gaps in a targeted and controlled way.
Yesterday, David Blunkett published the detailed draft legislation which will pave the way for the phased introduction, from 2008 of a national identity card - first on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports and driving licenses, then once key conditions have been met, and after Parliamentary approval, on a compulsory basis. For the first time, employers and those regulating access to public services will have a secure, fraud-proof way of testing whether a potential worker or service user is legally in the UK and eligible to work or access services. As population flows into and out of the UK and across the EU grow the case for such a card grows ever more irresistible. As the barriers to the free movement of people and goods go down across Europe - bringing huge benefits for individuals and business - it becomes more important than ever that each of us is able, unambiguously to prove that we are who we say we are.
Britain as a whole is immeasurably richer - and not just economically - for the contribution that migrants have made to our society. Our literature, our music, our national sporting teams - all bear the indelible impact of centuries of migration. British race relations has in general been a quiet success story. We've avoided ghettos and Jim Crow laws or anguished debates about religious dress codes. Successful migrant populations have moved onwards and outwards over the generations. From the East End to Golders Green; from Southall out to leafy Hertfordshire. Harrow and Croydon are now as racially mixed as Lambeth or Southwark. But there is still some way to go and progress is patchy.
The UK will continue to welcome migrants who come and contribute the skills we need to for a successful economy. But migration is a two-way deal: there are responsibilities as well as rights. British residency and eventually citizenship carries with it obligations as well as opportunities. The obligation to respect our laws, for example, and to reject extremism and intolerance. There can be no place for those who incite hatred against the very values this country stands for. And we will take firm action against those who abuse the privilege of British citizenship to do so. The obligation to pay taxes and pay your way. To look after your children and other dependents. The obligation to learn something about the country and culture and language that you are now part of - whilst recognising that there never was and never can be a single homogeneous definition of what it means to be British.
There are responsibilities too on government. To protect you from exploitation and harassment, for example. To stamp out prejudice and discrimination. To provide healthcare and other essential services when you are legally here and paying your way. Getting the balance between rights and responsibilities isn't always easy - for individuals or for government. Labour in government has had to take difficult choices: the first new race relations legislation in 25 years - but some tough new laws to prevent abuse or our asylum and immigration systems too.
Over the coming months, we will do two things at once: make the argument for controlled migration as good and beneficial for Britain; act to root out the abuses that disfigure the debate and bring the system into disrepute.
This should not become a party-political issue. That would do real damage to national cohesion. It is above all an issue to deal with, not exploit. But all people of good sense and moderation can agree the way forward. These are challenging and fast moving times, but there is no reason to abandon our values or lose our confidence. We all have responsibilities: Government to put in place the policies and rules that make migration work for Britain; migrant communities to recognise the obligations that come with the privilege of living and working in Britain; the media in giving as much attention to the benefits of migration and successes of diversity as to the dangers and fears; local authorities and community groups in working for integration and cohesion on the ground. And ordinary decent British people - including generations of migrants themselves - to keep faith in our traditions of tolerance and our historic record of becoming stronger and richer as a result of migration and diversity.
Tony Blair
> Personally, I don't object to the introduction of ID cards. What I do
> object to is the government trying to scare us into accepting them.
> I'm ripping off something that someone else raised here, but...
>
> If they help prevent terrorism, how come Spain (which has ID cards)
> got bombed?
>
> If they protect kids from paedos, how come Marc Dutroix raped and
> murdered kids in Belgium (which has ID cards).
>
> If they stop illegal immigrants, how come all of Europe still has an
> illegal immigrant problem?
>
>
> I'd rather a government was honest and said "It helps us track
> our citizens". Scaremongering arouses the ire of civil
> libertarians everywhere.
Here's the argument for:-
There is no doubt that on the doorstep, in local communities, immigration has suddenly become very high on the agenda. Why? It is not, incidentally, an exclusively British issue. This is a worldwide phenomenon. Immigration has dominated elections in countries like Denmark, Austria and Netherlands in recent years. Le Pen rose to prominence in France. In Australia and New Zealand, it has been a central question, sharply dividing the main parties. Migration flows across the world, with increased opportunities to travel and globalisation, drives the issue. And beneath the surface, all of us on the centre left, know what we fear: that concern slips into prejudice, and becomes racism. But we cannot simply dismiss any concern about immigration as racism. In part, what has put immigration back up the agenda - with public concern at its highest since the 1970s - is that there are real, not imagined abuses of the system that lead to a sense of genuine unfairness.
This morning I made a speech setting out the government's policy of controlled migration. I have attached a full copy for your information. In the speech I argue that the vast bulk of the British people are not racist. It is in their nature to be moderate. But they expect Government to respond to their worries. They can accept migration that is controlled and selective. They accept and welcome migrants who play by the rules. But they will not accept abuse or absurdity and why should they? So now is the time to make the argument for controlled migration simultaneous with tackling the abuses we can identify; and then, longer term, put in place a system that gives us the best guarantee of future integrity in our migration policy.
We will neither be Fortress Britain, nor will we be an open house. Where necessary, we will tighten the immigration system. Where there are abuses we will deal with them, so that public support for the controlled migration that benefits Britain is maintained.
Our strategy has a number of interlocking elements:
(1) A recognition of the benefits that controlled migration brings not just to the economy but to delivering the public and private services on which we rely.
(2) Being clear that all those who come here to work and study must be able to support themselves. There can be no access to state support or housing for the economically inactive.
(3) We will continue to tackle abuses in the asylum system, including through the legislation currently before Parliament which will establish a single tier of appeal and clamp down on asylum seekers who deliberately destroy their documents and lie about their identity.
(4) Action on illegal immigration through the introduction of ID cards and millions invested in strengthening our border controls in ports and airports across the world: and heightened enforcement in the UK too.
(5) Celebrating the major achievements of migrants in this country and the success of our uniquely British model of diversity. But alongside that an explicit expectation that rights must be balanced by responsibilities. That there are clear obligations that go alongside British residency and ultimately citizenship - to reject extremism and intolerance and make a positive contribution to UK society.
(6) An acknowledgement that there is no longer a neat separation between the domestic and the international. In a world of global interdependence our policies on migration cannot be isolated from our policies on international development or EU enlargement.
Those who do come here make a huge contribution, particularly to our public services. Far from always or even mainly being a burden on our health or education systems - migrant workers are often the very people delivering those services. Take the nursing staff from the West Indies recruited by then health minister, Enoch Powell in the 1960s. By 1968, there were almost 19,000 trainee nurses and midwives born overseas - 35% of whom were from the West Indies and 15% from Ireland. Now, a quarter of all health professionals are overseas born. Or consider the 11,000 overseas teachers now working in schools in England. Or the 23% of staff in our HE institutions are non-UK nationals - that's 33,530 out of 143,150. Our public services would be close to collapse without their contribution.
And never forget those migrants from the Commonwealth and Eastern Europe who gave more than just their labour. 138,000 Indian soldiers served the British Army on the Western Front in the first world war. Thousands of Polish airmen flew alongside the RAF during World War Two. And it was Polish mathematicians who helped break the enigma code.
So each decade brings it's own particular needs, its own skills gap and our immigration system too must keep respond to these gaps in a targeted and controlled way.
Yesterday, David Blunkett published the detailed draft legislation which will pave the way for the phased introduction, from 2008 of a national identity card - first on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports and driving licenses, then once key conditions have been met, and after Parliamentary approval, on a compulsory basis. For the first time, employers and those regulating access to public services will have a secure, fraud-proof way of testing whether a potential worker or service user is legally in the UK and eligible to work or access services. As population flows into and out of the UK and across the EU grow the case for such a card grows ever more irresistible. As the barriers to the free movement of people and goods go down across Europe - bringing huge benefits for individuals and business - it becomes more important than ever that each of us is able, unambiguously to prove that we are who we say we are.
Britain as a whole is immeasurably richer - and not just economically - for the contribution that migrants have made to our society. Our literature, our music, our national sporting teams - all bear the indelible impact of centuries of migration. British race relations has in general been a quiet success story. We've avoided ghettos and Jim Crow laws or anguished debates about religious dress codes. Successful migrant populations have moved onwards and outwards over the generations. From the East End to Golders Green; from Southall out to leafy Hertfordshire. Harrow and Croydon are now as racially mixed as Lambeth or Southwark. But there is still some way to go and progress is patchy.
The UK will continue to welcome migrants who come and contribute the skills we need to for a successful economy. But migration is a two-way deal: there are responsibilities as well as rights. British residency and eventually citizenship carries with it obligations as well as opportunities. The obligation to respect our laws, for example, and to reject extremism and intolerance. There can be no place for those who incite hatred against the very values this country stands for. And we will take firm action against those who abuse the privilege of British citizenship to do so. The obligation to pay taxes and pay your way. To look after your children and other dependents. The obligation to learn something about the country and culture and language that you are now part of - whilst recognising that there never was and never can be a single homogeneous definition of what it means to be British.
There are responsibilities too on government. To protect you from exploitation and harassment, for example. To stamp out prejudice and discrimination. To provide healthcare and other essential services when you are legally here and paying your way. Getting the balance between rights and responsibilities isn't always easy - for individuals or for government. Labour in government has had to take difficult choices: the first new race relations legislation in 25 years - but some tough new laws to prevent abuse or our asylum and immigration systems too.
Over the coming months, we will do two things at once: make the argument for controlled migration as good and beneficial for Britain; act to root out the abuses that disfigure the debate and bring the system into disrepute.
This should not become a party-political issue. That would do real damage to national cohesion. It is above all an issue to deal with, not exploit. But all people of good sense and moderation can agree the way forward. These are challenging and fast moving times, but there is no reason to abandon our values or lose our confidence. We all have responsibilities: Government to put in place the policies and rules that make migration work for Britain; migrant communities to recognise the obligations that come with the privilege of living and working in Britain; the media in giving as much attention to the benefits of migration and successes of diversity as to the dangers and fears; local authorities and community groups in working for integration and cohesion on the ground. And ordinary decent British people - including generations of migrants themselves - to keep faith in our traditions of tolerance and our historic record of becoming stronger and richer as a result of migration and diversity.
Tony Blair
Page: