Campaigners urge UK PM Starmer to dump digital ID wheeze before it's announced Seven campaign groups have written to UK prime minister Keir Starmer urging him to scrap plans for a mandatory digital identity system – a project that is expected to be announced imminently, as part an effort to tackle unauthorized migration. "Mandatory digital ID would fundamentally change the relationship between the …
Perhaps the illegals issue could be solved by simply not paying people to come here? Boatloads turn up daily and we put them in hotels etc. They've trekked through at least two other safe countries so if they're really in peril they could stay in those. But they'd rather come here as we give away money.
We already have ID - NI card. If you don't have one then you get nothing and don't stay. Legal immigrating could be allocated one as we'd want them paying tax etc.
1. We don't pay people to come here. Providing housing for asylum seekers (75+% of whom are successful in their claims) is expensive, even when using disused hotels. They are explicitly NOT allowed to work to pay their own way, which is daft (some do, apparently, work in the black market to make some income for themselves).
2. It's irrelevant which countries asylum seekers have come through, they are free to claim asylum in any country of their choosing. Given that some (a small percentage) decide that it's worth risking their lives to cross the Channel in dinghies to get here. Most likely due to family ties, languages spoken, and a country with a decent rule of law.
If Russia invades the UK, and makes life here hell, would you prefer to claim asylum in France or somewhere English-speaking? Would you cross the Channel in an inflatable boat for an "easy life"?
"would you prefer to claim asylum in France or somewhere English-speaking?"
Nothing wrong with France. I live here. If you would rather go someplace English speaking, that's either Ireland or a vastly larger bit of water to cross (and you might find yourselves unwelcome the way things are going).
You're thinking of EU agreements - we left the EU with Brexit. Hence the appearance of small boats crossing the Channel so dangerously.
See: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/about-unhcr/overview/1951-refugee-convention. Particularly the FAQs.
Don't forget - it's not all about money - all immigrants come here to do nothing whilst simultaneously stealing all our jobs, girlfriends, houses, cars, and eating all our cats and dogs.
They are also attracted here by the warm welcome they receive from the hard-of-thinking "reform" types who just love cheering them on, and are even known to give them house-warming presents.
In fact, it's also the politicians fault. Not once have politicians and right wing media persuaded their sheep that the immigrants (and trans people) are the source of all their problems. No, politicians readily admit that they are the cause of our misery, and all immigrants should be welcomed with open arms. After all, it's not like we've squandered far more than the cost of immigration by leaving the EU. No-one would advocate for that, would they?
By the way, any news on Michelle Mone, the other 'fast-track' scandals, or the Russian report?
"we've squandered far more than the cost of immigration by leaving the EU"
And don't forget the 5+ million EU citizens who have been granted settled status here and can claim benefits and we can't change that without renegotiating the Brexit 'deal'. Vastly outnumbering those from outside the EU with settled status both in total numbers and cost to the benefits system.
I think you've overdosed on the BBC's narrative. It's a state control mechanism but you'll never know that no matter what injustices are visited upon you because you've adopted the state narratives as a religion. And "state" is not a political party but the consistent forces behind the theatre of democracy. Go watch a bit of "Yes Minister" that was the most truthful thing shown on mainstream media. I'm surprised they got away with it.
You're absolutely right but the point is, the majority are coming for economic reasons not threat of death, they are young, male, aggressive and without families. Many of us here want to retain our existing culture and do not feel obligated to give away the wealth we worked & fought for over centuries. Regardless, if it came from unfair treatment of other peoples because at that time everyone would do it, just that the industrialising nations of Europe were stronger. I feel no obligation to increase the wealth of other nations or people that would happily do to us what we once did to others.
Yes, it would be better if they worked and were assimilated into more liberal views or stopped and removed. The LEGAL immigrants who fit in are most welcome. But legal and fit in, i.e., not try to make Britain the place they left.
"It's irrelevant which countries asylum seekers have come through, they are free to claim asylum in any country of their choosing."
This is manifestly untrue.
Asylum seekers can claim asylum in any country they first reach (emphasis on 'first'), but within the EU the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation determines which member state is responsible for processing a claim. Generally speaking, this will be the initial point of entry into the EU.
'National Insurance' (card) is NOT an ID system, not even a de facto one, and was never intended as such. The NI system is simply a means to help manage the bureaucracy surrounding employment and taxation. There are many more NI numbers in circulation than there are people using them, some people have more than one NI number, and some NI numbers have more than one person attached to them. The whole system is rather messy, but on the whole works for what it is intended to do. It is absolutely not intended as any kind of useful ID system, and would make a very poor and expensive foundation for one.
@SomeRandom1
"Perhaps the illegals issue could be solved by simply not paying people to come here?"
How the hell you are downvoted equal to upvotes I do not know. Maybe by people in France trying to cross the channel
*and in the time to post this it seems the crazies have come to downvote more
"How the hell you are downvoted equal to upvotes I do not know. Maybe by people in France trying to cross the channel"
Bastard asylum seekers! It's bad enough they come over here, getting free hotels, rape our womenfolk, get zillions from social security, etc, etc. Now they downvote postings on EL Reg. When will these affronts to the Farage/Yaxley-Lennon/Badenough nutjobs end?
If their life is really so cushy, here's what you can do.
Give away / abandon all of your belongings, and most of your friends and family. Keep only a few thousand pounds. Go to France. Find some dodgy trafficker, pay him all your money, and then, with only the clothes on your back, get into an overcrowded dingy headed for Britain, and hope that with all the dangers you don't drown.
If you make it alive, you too can then experience the luxury of people like your current self treating you as less than human, and blaming you for all their problems. You'll have the luxury of knowing that you are now hated, and have a good chance of being beaten up, or worse.
"If you make it alive, you too can then experience the luxury of people like your current self treating you as less than human, and blaming you for all their problems. You'll have the luxury of knowing that you are now hated, and have a good chance of being beaten up, or worse."
Illegal migration != seeking asylum.
There's nothing inherently wrong with seeking asylum and genuine refugees deserve our compassion; however there are rules and processes for doing it. Namely; claiming asylum in the first safe country you reach, and following the legal framework while your application is processed. Within the EU, this is governed by the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation, which determines which country processes your claim and where you ultimately end up.
Those coming over in small boats from France are - by definition - illegal. They are attempting to illegally bypass the process. They do NOT deserve our compassion as refugees, they deserve to be treated as the criminals they are.
Guess what.
If idiots hadn't voted Brexit to "secure our borders", it would be easier to return the to EU countries
But people fell for the lies.
Look up the Dublin agreement on asylum seekers for a little education.
But im sure the right wing knuckle draggers will come out and admit that voting Brexit was a fucking stupid idea and made it worse.
The irony. It is YOU that should look up the Dublin agreement. It is YOU that needs the education. Here's the numbers, here's the sod all diff the Dublin Convention made.
2018 209 transferred out, 1215 transferred to the UK
2017 314 transferred out, 461 transferred to the UK
2016 362 transferred out, 558 transferred to the UK
2015 510 transferred out, 131 transferred to the UK
But please, don't let that stop you repeating your bigoted rubbish. You just carry on.
All ignoring the glaring reality that the majority of 'asylum seekers/economic migrants actuallystop their journey somewhere in continental Europe. Only a minority head for Blighty, and an even smaller minority get wet crossing the Channel.
Doesn't mean there's no problem, but always good to be honest about the overall picture. But no, some of us demand to play the victim card rather than try to deal with reality in sober and constructive ways.
"Only a minority head for Blighty"
Do you have data on that? Asking because I honestly don't know.
What I will say is; every single migrant who crosses the channel on a small boat is illegal, a criminal by definition, and should be deported. Every single one. Until such time as they can be deported, they should be safely locked away in a secure environment so they are neither interacting with nor benefitting from UK society.
Such secure environment should be constructed such that it affords the rights necessary to ensure basic physical and psychological wellbeing befitting temporary internment, but should quite intentionally be a less than desirable destination in order to actively discourage others from making the journey.
@IGotOut
"If idiots hadn't voted Brexit to "secure our borders", it would be easier to return the to EU countries"
So somehow you think having an open border with the EU would solve the problem of people migrating here by letting us send some people back maybe? Vs our borders are now ours so we can choose how open they are and this is why we can put the blame on our government for not dealing with the problem. Instead of this being some negotiation thing with the EU this is purely a UK gov problem. Solvable directly here.
"Look up the Dublin agreement on asylum seekers for a little education."
This being an EU agreement which we are no longer part of the EU and so can do our own thing. Because UK borders are now under UK control and it is entirely down to our government to fix the problem. Why do you think this is any better with an open border and another government on top of ours? It makes no sense.
"But im sure the right wing knuckle draggers will come out and admit that voting Brexit was a fucking stupid idea and made it worse."
More likely we wonder where you get your crazy ideas from.
Sweden manages to deport non compliant UKers.
Spain has refused residency to dodgy Brits who lived for years on undeclared earnings.
You of all people, as a former EU resident, (which country was it again?) should know many of the EU countries had residency rules concerning ability to support oneself financially. They just never enforced them until post Brexit. Another Brexit bonus for your list!
True, but I believe it was generally felt that if/when war came, then those countries you mention would not be safe - and they were right because I know some jewish refugees def did settle in France only to find themselves rounded up a few years later by the French police and handed over to the Boche.
Simplest method I could see to discourage this is that the BBC seem to be able to track down the illegal boat gangs at push off from the beach.
I have only seen the Gendarmerie there once puncturing the big rubber dinghy’s
Seems so much easier than a national ID scheme.
Perhaps we could pay them a bonus in Wensleydale or Stilton.
I’m actually surprise some Brexiteers have ‘vibe all ICE and started snatching dark skinned people off the street and (cough) repatriating to France. A reverse Dunkirk if you may. (Operation Electrical Motor as opposed to Dynamo).
It's not going to be easy to stop. Every step of the way our legal professionals are cashing in. Every asylum tribunal and appeal is a three way money spinner. The claimant's team gets paid, the Home Office team get paid and so does the presiding judge.
Note, I'm not saying that they should work from free: just making the observation that the more time consuming and complex they make the process the more money they earn from it.
Boatloads you say? As someone who lives on the coast I've never seen ANY. I did, however, go to a site today and see the local English benefit scroungers hanging round the side of the charity shop, chatting, drinking, coming and going as they do daily, one brings their big dog. All English, all white. All appear to not doing the jobs they claim are being "stolen". Yet pretty much all our local Uber etc delivery drivers are foreign because they actually bother to try and find work.
"Boatloads turn up daily and we put them in hotels etc."
That's the case in the US as well. The vast majority of the people entering are economic refugees. It's not criminal to seek a better life, but the way one does it might be. The US will often hand people a free mobe, a benefits card and housing/housing subsidies. There's even shouting that people that have entered informally be fast tracked for work permits so they can support themselves. Bonkers, sheer madness. If people were made to feel that they have to hide in the cracks and eat fast food leftovers from the bin to survive, they might reconsider applying for residency the proper way.
There was just a story in the last few days of an older lady that was in the US without status for 30 years that was deported back to India. The whining has been at loud levels that she should be allowed to stay since she has family/friends as if staying below the radar for so long is good enough to override the illegal entry. IIRC, she had been issued a deportation order.
Harjit Kaur, who had unsuccessfully applied for asylum in the US, was arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials on 8 September, sparking shock among the Sikh community.
Hmmmm, shock. Why shock? Maybe I'm a bit more fatalistic, but if the power company didn't bill me for 2 years and suddenly discovered their error and started sending bills again, there's no way I could whine that I should keep getting free electricity. I'd have to start paying. In reality, I'd be more proactive since the chances would be good they'd bill me retroactively as far back as they could and present a huge bill payable all at once.
I should add that Ms Kaur has been employed as a seamstress in a sari shop for a long time. That employer must have overlooked the absence of a Social Security Number or tax ID number or fiddled the books to pay her under the table. If the "community" is outraged, why didn't they club together to send her home years ago so she could apply for residency a different way. The article doesn't state the underlying reason for the asylum application. As it was denied, they weren't buying it. That doesn't mean somebody couldn't apply for simple residency. There's even points for having family in the country (legally) and there being a job waiting.
The more concerning aspect, especially in the UK, is the people who enter the country and disappear into what is effectively a slave trade of illegal workers. Zero protection.
There was a story of a guy who'd been in the US 20 years, married a US citizen and had not applied for legal right to live there due to 'pride'. He should have just called himself Donald R. DeCicco.
Definitely quite a bit in the MSM recently about digital id so clearly somebody has made plans & the push to roll 'em out has now started.
My guess who the somebody is, is elements of the civil service, the Uniparty, certain left wing think tanks, and especially the "Tony Blair Institute for Global Change" who completely coincidently have today published
https://institute.global/insights/politics-and-governance/time-for-digital-id-a-new-consensus-for-a-state-that-works
And it's a fantastic(al) read!
So yes, maybe this time around digital id will become law, what with Lab's unerring ability to always choose policies unpopular with the electorate combined with their incessant drift towards totalitarianism.
But while it might become law I doubt it'll ever become an actual thing because by the time the legislation passes, then the system is built, and then there'd have to be a roll out period, it'll easily be 2029 and Lab will be out and Ref will be in, and Ref swear they'll ditch any id scheme.
ID is Blair's baby, rather than starmer's. He's agitated for it since the 90s.
The reality is, starmer is a dead man walking, so they're using him to float all the unpopular policies before he's forced to resign. Amy that survive the chaos will be quietly implemented by the replacement cabinet.
And never forget that Starmer isn't just a politician, he's also a lawyer. Not having a "plan" is not the same as not having an "intention". A "plan" is something concrete, costed, route to completion etc, while an "intention" is far more nebulous. It easy to correctly say "we have no plan..." at some specific moment in time while having very strong and clear intentions that you don't talk about in public. You could be creating a plan, even have it almost ready, and still truthfully say "we have no plan for...". Especially when dealing with politicians who have legal training. He also seems to one of the best I've seen at not answering interviewers questions in a way that almost (if not quite) makes it seem as if he did.
And just how long do you think that will remain the case.
Like the investigatory powers act - once it's in, it's scope will creep. Bit by bit, it'll become more and more essential to doing anything - and while it might not be made mandatory to carry it, we can imagine it getting to the point where if you can't show it "on demand" to the authorities, then the assumption will be that you are up to no good and will get taken in while they sort things out. Just look aver the pond at what's happening there - ICE turn up, round up hundred of workers based on "they don't look like white americans", and then they have to sort it all out which can take a couple of weeks during which they are treated as the worst sort of scum.
If it gets through, I don't see it being long before Ihre Papiere bitte becomes a common phrase.
"Like the investigatory powers act - once it's in, it's scope will creep. Bit by bit, it'll become more and more essential to doing anything - and while it might not be made mandatory to carry it, we can imagine it getting to the point where if you can't show it "on demand" to the authorities, then the assumption will be that you are up to no good and will get taken in while they sort things out."
That's my thought, but the mechanism will be the requirement to show it for more and more things in daily life that the government finally making it mandatory will be redundant.
I had an online dating account and at first they had text as an option to verify on demand. It was then more prevalent, but could be worked around with a CSR to the point where the only way to access the service was with a phone. It was a bastard to get the account deleted since calling them was usually met by an automated system that said to do it through the app. I finally got through to a human but, of course, that didn't really work as evidenced by emailed updates about my "account".
Here it comes again, round and round we go. Each iteration slightly more rancid and panicked than the last. The thing is, it's never really about effectively 'IDing' someone, but always about how many databases we can attach to the ID, how many agencies (and random quangos) can we give access to the data, and how much can we ensure that we have to take no responsibility for the misery and chaos our system will inflict on people when it goes wrong?
IOW, it's about a politician/civil servant's fantasy of 'bureaucratic nirvana' where 'the people' are entirely subject to the authority of 'the system'. Losing sight of the purpose of 'the system', which (in theory) is there to serve 'the people' (as is 'the state')—at least that is what most sensible and compassionate people hope for.
The arseholes at the Home Office who keep fanning the flames for a national ID card scheme should be permanently deported to North Korea. That way, they can get to enjoy the full experience of all-pervasive state surveillance of everyone. That also goes for their politician cheerleaders like Starmer, Blunkett, and Bliar. And the likes of Crapita, Fushitu, IBM and KPMG who are salivating at the prospect of never-ending multi-billion pound contracts for an IT system that will never work.
Notice too how the propaganda for ID cards changes to suit the flavour-of-the-week bogeyman. When that stupid bastard Blunkett was first pimping this snake-oil, he called it a social security entitlement card because welfare fraud dominated the headlines back then. Today, it's asylum seekers. Maybe we'll be told next time that ID cards will put an end to overdue library books or litter on our streets.
"how many agencies (and random quangos) can we give access to the data, and how much can we ensure that we have to take no responsibility for the misery and chaos our system will inflict on people when it goes wrong?"
Such as when North Korea tunnels in and creates a right mess. How would government fix that? New ID system to replace the old? Another Billion down the waste pipe? Lather, rinse, repeat.
A national database is a fat juicy target so it will require an enormous amount of resources to keep protected. It's like there being one key that will unlock every door in the Empire State Building. Somebody getting that could do a lot of damage and it would mean every lock would have to be re-keyed if there was a suspicion of it being in the wrong hands. In many cities in the US there is a requirement for commercial buildings (usually retail) to have a "Knox Box" so emergency responders can access a business by using a master key to open the box and retrieve keys to the shop. Those master keys are often lost, stolen and reverse engineered. They often don't get updated either which can leave businesses vulnerable. Upscale that to an entire country.
There's nothing wrong with a photographic ID card that can easily be used to show you're British enough to see a doctor, find a job, etc etc.
However, I would certainly think twice before having a digital ID because the government doesn't exactly have a track record of competence with anything that has a plug attached...
"There's nothing wrong with a photographic ID card that can easily be used to show you're British enough to see a doctor, find a job, etc etc."
Yes there is. Photographic ID cards are easily forged. Ask any teenager in the US who uses fake ID to buy beer.
There's no point in having photographic ID cards unless they can be verified/authenticated. Which means they'd have to get checked in real time against a database every time you're made to show it. Those transactions will be logged. And monitored. Think about it.
You think he makes the decisions? How much evidence do you require that the whole cabinet obeys orders. That's the deal. The people with real power which includes central banks finds semi-intelligent but corrupt and egotistical people, offers to make them rich and feed their egos and any other corruptions they have. This, along with the threat of exposure and destruction if they step out of line.
Because the government don't want to do anything decisive or effective about illegal (or indeed legal) migration, but that's resulting in losing support from some voters. Rather than publicly admit that actually they're pretty much happy with the current migration scenario, they think it better to try and claim they're doing something about, whilst making sure that the "something" won't make much difference. 'Twas the same under the Tories.
Does that stack up?
As you say, if they do something about immigration then Lab would lose support from *some* voters. But thing is, they'd then regain *lots* of voters that have left them for Ref. So no, I don't think that's the reason they do nothing.
Suggest real reason Lab (& Con before them) do nothing is because mass immigration into this country is and always has been an ideological thing for all governments since and starting with Blair.
I’ve just spent the last few years working and living in the Netherlands and they have an mobile app called DigiID which gives access to essentially all Government sites and some financial institutions (pension providers etc.).
This is a lot of help in having SSO to everything government, and is on the websites (sort of like “login with Google”, and if you think the US security services don’t have access to that I have a bridge to sell you!).
People get far to prissy about ID cards in the UK and have to be physically restrained from mentioning the Gestapo or KGB when it’s mentioned, but many other countries have them without losing civil liberties, and if it allows services to be made more straightforward and convenient then so much the better.
If you’re truly worried about the Government tracking you, or looking into your affairs do you seriously think not having a bit of plastic or a personalised id number is going to stop them?
The boys and girls in Cheltenham and the police and security services have rather a large number of people and resources to throw at this and if they are looking your way you’re sunk, lack of computer records didn’t stop the Gestapo, KGB or Stasi.
People will say “but what if the government goes rogue?” Well what of it, we only have to see what’s happening across the pond to see how able people are to resist a government gone bad.
For the average person it’s likely the security services are just not that into you :)
A little ironic that you chose to go AC when posting that.
I'm not particularly worried about GCHQ, or even really about the police, if they want to track me. What I am worried about is the concept that it matters who I am for 99% of things I do!
I certainly don't want commercial entities knowing anything about me, or having an easy or "normalised" way to track me or target me. I don't want it to be normalised that people carry (or have) ID and it could be asked for by anyone. How long before you have to show ID to go to a concert? Or into an expensive shop?
And most importantly, I (and, I am sure, you) are in the luxurious position that it wouldn't matter if I had my name and ID number in flashing lights on my hat. However, many other people are not in that position: some are socially excluded, some are just poor, some are hiding from an ex or a former employer, some just like to keep themselves really private, some may be delusional. Whatever the reason, the normality must be that people are private and not required to identify themselves except in very exceptional conditions.
We have managed for thousands of years with no ID cards and we don't want them now.
Well, if it's a big enough concert all the faffing about with phone-apps and the like to ensure ticket validation gets pretty close already.
And if you want to go clubbing in Islington -- at least in those venues where I might want go -- it is already the case that you need ID, and that it will be electronically scanned, and your photo taken ( I presume this has been added as a licensing condition, but it is not clear). So if at all possible, as it usually is, I go elsewhere. Even ignoring the privacy issues, if I'm going to be staggering home in a moderately advanced state of refreshment at 3am, I don't want to be carting around anything valuable like a drivers license or a passport.
"And if you want to go clubbing in Islington -- at least in those venues where I might want go -- it is already the case that you need ID, and that it will be electronically scanned, and your photo taken "
And that's solved the association of night clubs with drugs and disorder? No, I didn't think so.
And that's the issue, having some form of ID tracking doesn't address ANY major social problems, it just becomes costly and creates a vast amount of data that's more likely to be abused than fairly used.
-- We have managed for thousands of years with no ID cards and we don't want them now. --
I agree with the second part of the sentence but I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned we did have them in WW2. I, personally, look forward to having to produce my ID when shopping in Tesco!
I, personally, look forward to having to produce my ID when shopping in Tesco!
Last time around we were told that it would make buying alcohol easier and more convenient.. Which was the creeping compulsion Blunkett et al used to try and ram this through. Now, as free-gear Kier says-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g54g6vgpdo
"We all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did 20 years ago, and I think that psychologically, it plays a different part," he added.
Technology has moved on, and you'll now be able to tap your phone on a Tesco's self-service checkout to buy alchohol! Especially with the lifting of limits on contactless payments. Which means whoever's just nicked your phone will be able to steal more stuff! Labour, always making life easier and more convenient. Immigrant rent-boys will also find it quicker and more convenient to buy petrol and committ arson attacks. The future is bright, the future is Labour!
(give or take boring little details like cost, enrollment procedures, replacement when phones are lost/stolen/broken/bricked)
@Jellied Eel
I have zero financial payment apps on my phone...So if my phone was stolen no draining of accounts.
As a mobile phone is a so easily (and frequently) stolen item then it just seems common sense to not have stuff on there that could cause financial pain (even though you could probably get bank to refund it it is time & effort).
Cash or card can also be stolen, but "ride by" phone theft is currently a very popular crime (easier & quicker for a crim to snatch a phone from someone's hand than get card / cash which is hidden on their person)
"I have zero financial payment apps on my phone...So if my phone was stolen no draining of accounts."
Me neither. I could drop my debit card in the loo and it would still work (after being drenched in all sorts of industrial cleaners). Couldn't expect the phone to work after that especially if it has a water sensor inside that will brick the phone.
Many people have all of their accounts on their phone so if somebody can't grab it unlocked or force you to unlock it for them, they can drain your retirement in minutes along with checking, savings, Christmas Club and anything else. If I get mugged, I'll not be pleased to lose what's in my walk around debit card if forced to give my PIN at an ATM, though there's a daily cash limit that will only let them get so much. All other accounts are very specifically not online at all. I've never had any situation come up where I've needed to do things differently, ever.
'... many other countries have them without losing civil liberties...'
Have you taken note of what previous attempts under the label of 'ID Cards' by successive administrations actual entailed?
And, have you taken note of the UK Govt's success rate in implementing large scale and complex IT projects?
It's not an encouraging scene, regardless of how other countries have managed things.
People get far to prissy about ID cards in the UK and have to be physically restrained from mentioning the Gestapo or KGB when it’s mentioned, but many other countries have them without losing civil liberties, and if it allows services to be made more straightforward and convenient then so much the better.
Maybe the Dutch have done a better job here on safeguarding their civil liberties. I don't know. They should have, given their WW2 experience. The national identity register they had back then made it trivial for the SS to round up and murder almost all of the nation's Jews.
Westminster simply can't be trusted to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place. They're beyond useless at IT. And have been for decades. All the bollocks we're hearing indicates their plans for ID cards are half-assed, the scheme's being pushed forward in haste (why?) and no proper thought been's given to deployment. In other words, think about implementation detail once the scheme has been approved and it's too late to kill. This is standard procedure for all big budget epic fail UK government projects: any MoD procurement, HS2, NHS reform, Universal Credit, Crossrail, Hinkley Point, etc
Starmer's pond life claim ID cards will end illegal immigration. (As if...) But they can't/won't say how. Or provide an impartial cost/benefit analysis of these claims. Or show how the billions that'll be pissed away on ID cards could be put to better use on border controls or whatever. This has to be challenged.
You are doubly wrong about a government "going rogue". First of all, Reichsfuhrer Trump is pissing all over the US constitution while the courts and congress let him. Nobody and nothing has been able to bring him into line. That could happen here too - especially if Farage gains power. Next, there are other, less illegal, ways for a government to go rogue: selling access to the National ID database, mission creep, outsourcing it to Palantir or Meta or Amazon, giving Crapita or Fushitsu a free pass every time they fuck it all up, etc, etc.
Now think of the impacts of false positives and negatives. We've all heard about the fuckups from database errors at DVLA, HMRC and DSS - people being told they're dead when they're not, getting speeding tickets that weren't theirs, losing welfare payments they're entitled to, and so on. Untangling these problems and dealing with a faceless bureaucracy is already bad enough. They'll be much, much more difficult when the errors are in the National ID database and someone's in a Kafkaesque nightmare: no papers citizen? fuck off!
These idiots are so obsessed with the rightness of their ID card Kool-Aid, they won't even run a public consultation or put their proposal to a referendum or an election. ID cards mean a major and far-reaching change to the relationship between the public and the state. This needs detailed and considered discussion which leads to a public consensus. It can't just get done on a whim because Starmer's running scared of the Daily Fail's headlines and Fuckwit Farage's poll ratings.
The national identity register they had back then made it trivial for the SS to round up and murder almost all of the nation's Jews.
To be fair, the Dutch people (like the French, Belgian, Czech, Hungarian ...people) were all too willing to dob in their Jewish neighbours. Anne Frank wasn't caught by chance or by database.
To be fair, there was very little dobbing in left to be done by the Dutch. There were hardly any Dutch Jews living in the country after the Nazis exploited the very efficient Dutch identity register to find their victims and send the overwhelming majority of them to the extermination camps.
The Frank family was one of a tiny minority who avoided that mass round-up. And then got dobbed in by a neighbour.
You're missing the point. CENTRALISED id is an enabler. It's what you can do with a mobile phone and AI/Analytics in the datacenter with the streams of data from your mobile geo-locator, interactions and digital currency. The CENTRAL planners can simply issue orders instantly that can be digitally enforced and democracy is gone. How you going to protest? You can't get anywhere to protest, you can't associate with the "wrong" people in a bar. For all the Reform haters remember you could be handing this to them or any extreme left or right party that comes to power.
"People get far to prissy about ID cards in the UK"
Mostly because we know that UK Govt. (whatever the colour) love to "gold plate" stuff like this and feature creep is more or less built in.
Example. (e)CRB certificates. When first introduced (as DBS), every school I went in asked if I had one and many asked to see it. They had no right to see it, only to ask for the number, which they could look up and get a yes/no answer. And there are conditions[*] under which one is required, which all these years later, I have never met. But I still have to have one and it can be demanded by some schools, even though my infrequent, one-off, escorted visits don't meet the requirements to need one. It's tailed off over the years and I am only very rarely asked to confirm, mostly it's an arse covering box-ticking exercise based on my honesty when signing in during the site visit, I never get asked for the cert number any more.
Minimum 2 un-escorted site visits within 2 weeks and I don't work with the vulnerable or underage people there.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Metropolitan Police have rep in the area of forging identities:
- Mark Kennedy aka Mark Stone
- Jim Boyling aka Jim Sutton
They also have rep in the area of using warrant cards as the entry point for serious assaults.
I'm wondering about the sanity of ANYONE thinking that ANY identity system could "bring benefits to people's everyday lives".
The downside risks (see above) bring hell on wheels and ruin (or end) "everyday lives".
The Metropolitan Police have rep in the area of forging identities:
Perk of government. If they're officially issued, then they're not really forgeries. But that's also going to be fun with internationally sharing Digital IDs & biometrics, like how to make sure assets and NOCs aren't blown. But it's something governments have long had form for. So many people are familiar with Operation PAPERCLIP, far fewer know about Operation AERODYNAMIC and how that was used to protect war criminals.
The government do not want digital id for our benefit.
The rights organisations urging them to stop know exactly why but are still scared to say it out loud.
It is simply to protect government and institutions through currency collapse. This government, and previous also have some culpability, are unable to meet their debt obligations. This government is in fact making it worse by driving down tax revenues by pursuing their policies aimed at imposing communist like state control. They will continue these policies because that is their hidden agenda. The "state", i.e., state or state affiliated institutions of course fully support this. Corporations support this because they either feel no choice to maintain existence & profit in a coming new system or are betting on the fascist like public-private partnerships.
The poor people, us, will be driven into the ground as every iota of wealth is extracted to support the failing system and ensure we are entirely focused on feeding ourselves rather than attacking those that have done this. Alternatively, they'll take us to war. That is how the repeating cycle of economics and social upheaval works. It would be good if we learnt the lessons of history and ended boom-bust.
Fine issue Digital ID but ensure you enshrine in law, you have the right to access any and all services without it or refuse to produce it on demand by any security services unless a crime has been committed, as per current law and any breach of this law results in an instant criminal prosecution, regardless of who did it.
So why are asylum seekers fleeing France and risking their lives crossing the channels?
Whats so bad about France that it not good enough to stay after leaving their war torn country?
(Was supposed to be a reply to an earlier post about France, but the usual ooops something went wrong when submitting, and ended up out of context)
Most 'asylum seekers/economic migrants' who are in France stay in France, or a nearby continental European country, only a minority attempt to reach Britain, usually because they: a. already speak English, and/or b. have relatives already living there, and/or c. because where ever they came from has colonial connections with Britain, or d. that was where they were told to head for.
"a. already speak English"
Not a reason, and yet English is the most spoken language in the world so really not a good excuse.
"b. have relatives already living there"
Yet wont go through the legal route.
"c. because where ever they came from has colonial connections with Britain"
I thought colonialism was a bad thing, reparations and all that nonsense.
"d. that was where they were told to head for."
Who is sending them here? The French blame it on our welfare being so generous so maybe illegals are telling illegals to come?
However all of the above makes someone a migrant not an asylum seeker so we can call them criminals for illegally breaching our border and should be deported. Possibly excluded from even applying legally too.
Looks like there is no reason in the world that could justify anyone seeking a 'better life' trying their luck in Britain.
In the end we're all from immigrant stock. I come from very far from here, but ancestrally from England, Scotland, and Ireland (no links to Wales apparently), so am I really welcome? Doesn't look hopeful. A pretty high chance you come from 'somewhere else' yourself, and if you want to take it back to the the retreat of the glaciers, then a nailed on certainty. So, where do you draw the line?
Don't imagine I am, for one moment, saying there should be a free for all on entry to this country, or that everyone who comes here—legally or otherwise—comes for reasons of genuine life-threatening hardship. In fact there's a good chance the 'flood' is likely to become a deluge if climate change really begins to show its teeth; and then we will wonder what we were worrying about right now.
Whatever, miserable, bigoted, ignorant opinions and actions do no one any credit, and certainly don't help solve the problem. We should, and can, do a lot better.
@Adair
"Looks like there is no reason in the world that could justify anyone seeking a 'better life' trying their luck in Britain."
That is an exceptional leap from anything I said. There is no reason to ILLEGALLY migrate to Britain. There are plenty people using the legal route and they have to be processed along with queue jumpers who try to abuse our border.
"In the end we're all from immigrant stock."
Coloniser or illegal immigrants? Or do you mean the many wars to which such borders developed?
"I come from very far from here, but ancestrally from England, Scotland, and Ireland (no links to Wales apparently), so am I really welcome? Doesn't look hopeful."
Are you saying your countrymen in England, Scotland and Ireland are hostile or unwelcoming to each other? And considering the UK is considered one of the most tolerant countries it seems you might wish to consider your perspective. What is it that makes you feel so unwelcome?
"A pretty high chance you come from 'somewhere else' yourself"
And dont suffer that victim mentality you mention above of being unwelcome here.
"and if you want to take it back to the the retreat of the glaciers, then a nailed on certainty. So, where do you draw the line?"
The lines are drawn. They are borders. And they developed through time of repeated conflict and developing culture throughout history. Or do you think we should forget about what we learned as a species?
"Don't imagine I am, for one moment, saying there should be a free for all on entry to this country"
And yet I take issue with the mischaracterisation of migrants as asylum seekers and you take issue with it? You may notice I am not saying closed borders. That middle ground of legal migration is ok but not illegal migration and whatever we think of the French the place is not considered a warzone for asylum seekers to flee.
"In fact there's a good chance the 'flood' is likely to become a deluge if climate change really begins to show its teeth; and then we will wonder what we were worrying about right now."
That can be the concern in 100+ years if the theoretical beliefs turn out to be true assuming humans suddenly lose the capacity to adapt to the conditions of our climate.
"Whatever, miserable, bigoted, ignorant opinions and actions do no one any credit, and certainly don't help solve the problem. We should, and can, do a lot better."
100% absolutely. Now apply that to one of the most tolerant cultures importing people from other cultures. Then apply common sense reasoning to if we just let people flood in without thought or if we actually screen for people compatible with our values (such as not miserable, bigoted and ignorant who's opinions and actions do no one any credit). Imagine the high trust high tolerant country wanting to remain that way. Possibly call it border control.
Imagine the kinds of people who would wish to subvert or get around such sensible ideals. People who wouldnt be the doctors and lawyers but criminals, terrorists and such who would violate our laws to get here illegally, but somehow we are to believe they would then be model citizens with our ideals?
What exactly is 'British culture'? It is no more the 'culture' of 1000 years ago than today's 'English' is the language of 1000 years ago. 'Illegal' migration is an issue, but 'where' immigrants come from is a matter for history. People from 'other cultures' have been settling in Britain for as long as we care to go back. That is why we are where we are today, and why 'British culture' is a constantly evolving reality, and absolutely not a 'mono-culture' let alone a static thing, rather like our 'English language', which happily adopts words and meanings from wherever is convenient and relevant to what culture and communication requires.
'Illegal' migration is something that needs to be sensibly managed (which it clearly isn't at the moment—far too much hand-wringing and political scapegoating and opportunism). In the scale of problems facing this country it is not one of the major ones. It is, however, a useful distraction and tool for whipping up fear and division by those who seek to exploit such opportunities.
@Adair
"What exactly is 'British culture'?"
High trust and highly tolerant country. Very important aspects of our culture we really shouldnt forget or brush off.
"It is no more the 'culture' of 1000 years ago than today's 'English' is the language of 1000 years ago."
I am guessing you mean that cultures develop. And as our culture has developed towards being a high trust and highly tolerant culture we should prize that dont you think?
"'Illegal' migration is an issue, but 'where' immigrants come from is a matter for history."
And yet it is only the first part of that which matters.
"People from 'other cultures' have been settling in Britain for as long as we care to go back."
Legally or through violent invasion.
"'Illegal' migration is something that needs to be sensibly managed"
Which is precisely what I have been commenting and seems to be the issue the original AC is commenting about. Only you seemed to take issue with it.
"In the scale of problems facing this country it is not one of the major ones"
Extremely wrong. Firstly demonstrating the failure of government to protect the country due to the obviously failed border control. Second the cost of housing these criminals. These criminals then demand they are not treated well enough and expect better! And we cant even seem to deport them because of activists and idiots (I repeat myself) trying to keep them here. Pure insanity.
But then the conflation of an asylum seeker and an economic migrant highlights the dishonesty of the conversation in the country. One is fleeing for their life and the other for a better life. If you are doing it out of necessity to survive then yes it makes sense to take them in (within reason) while economic migrants can go about things the legal way or be shown the exit.
You seem to have an unrealistically high view of 'British culture', which, not so different to most other cultures, is 'tolerant' where it suits it to be, and very 'intolerant' where it suits, where 'justice' is reserved largely to those who can afford it, and 'wealth' is something to be taken rather than shared. We could go on, but any idea that 'British culture' is somehow floating serenely above the nasty side of human nature is delusional. 'British culture' is the sum of life as lived by everyone living in Britain—regardless of who they are or how they got here. It includes the worst as well as the best of what human beings have to give, as well as everything in between.
The difficulties cause by 'illegal migration' are part of that soup, but a part that highlights the reality of 'British culture', i.e. a bunch of human beings trying to live together, for better and for worse. Look now, Mr. Starmer seems about to tell us that 'digital ID' will help control 'illegal migrants'. Perhaps it will, but at what cost to the rest of us—it'll be massively expensive and probably won't work (at least not properly and equitably), knowing the 'success' rate of large-scale and complex Govt. IT projects?
@Adair
"You seem to have an unrealistically high view of 'British culture'"
Sorry but you seem to have an unrealistically low view of British culture. You may not like the reality that we have a high trust high tolerance society relative to others but I dont know why you would dislike that.
"We could go on"
You just spouted a load of complaining that has nothing to do with the above nor illegal immigration so dont go on. Come back to topic.
"any idea that 'British culture' is somehow floating serenely above the nasty side of human nature is delusional"
If you go somewhere else in the world you may wish to check how tolerant the society is first because it seems you may have a shock.
"Mr. Starmer seems about to tell us that 'digital ID' will help control 'illegal migrants'. Perhaps it will, but at what cost to the rest of us—it'll be massively expensive and probably won't work (at least not properly and equitably), knowing the 'success' rate of large-scale and complex Govt. IT projects?"
This stupid authoritarian scheme has nothing to do with controlling illegal migration. And it is totally unnecessary nor desired (as was discovered last time). Its an authoritarian wet dream but has nothing to do with solving any actual problems.
Lisa Nandy was on the telly box this morning and when confronted with the fact that most European countries have govt IDs AND still have illegal immigration issues AND still have illegal working issues she started stuttering about how this is just the first step in a larger plan.
Well, what IS the larger plan?
Supposedly it is hard for employers to confirm if someone has the right to work in the UK. I've never had any issues, present my new employer with my NI number and P45 from previous job showing vast amounts of tax being paid. My wife has never had any issues as she could show her passport with her visa in it saying she was entitled to work (along with no recourse to public funds!) and then that turned into the silly Biometric Residence Permit which gives the same info and now they have the eVisa which HR can use to check her status.
I'm not seeing any justification in there for a person to put their own life and the lives of those around them at risk (not to mention the lives of those who may be obliged to rescue them), likely break French law for not leaving via a border crossing, and illegally break into Britain. I'm not without sympathy for any valid asylum claimant, but that's what it is. We'll be on the receiving end of a far worse government than we have now if illegal crossings aren't effectively dealt with.
a yes ,
b. there are no legal routes, our last lot got rid of those that were left, now we just have them for special cases, afganistan, ukraine, etc.
c. point, but some of those from our previous colonies, make good citizens
d. the french are being sarcastic, or ironic ( other contries are capable, except, obviously the US :-)
@stewwy
"b. there are no legal routes, our last lot got rid of those that were left, now we just have them for special cases, afganistan, ukraine, etc."
I will need to talk to some of my friends here in England then as it seems they didnt migrate here? But yes there are special cases for actual asylum which is understandable.
"c. point, but some of those from our previous colonies, make good citizens"
Of course. And through legal entry we can accept those people who wish to migrate.
"d. the french are being sarcastic, or ironic ( other contries are capable, except, obviously the US :-)"
I assumed the French were making excuses for letting people cross but sarcasm is possible too.
to ask your silly little questions?
Questions like, "Which country did you receive an offer of residency from, during the Brexit transistion period?" ?
Or "Which countries did your "friends" migrate to the UK from?" ?
How about, "Were they granted indefinite leave to stay? Or are they now some of the illegals you so abhor? " ?
Will your "friends" be in the crosshairs to get booted out of England, as proposed by Sir Nigel PM-in-waiting?
What is so funny is that the two biggest gobs in Reform behind Nige are both first generation Brits. Both of Zia Yusuf's parents came to the UK as immigrants as did both of Laila Cunningham's. If we go by the Reform gammon flavoured rhetoric that I've seen spouted across social media both of these people should be deported to 'their home countries' as their parents were 'not invited' and have cost the country money by having children here.
And in addition to that, deport the reform supporters. they are the ones creating hate and division. They are always miserable and want to take everyone down with them.They blamed their problems on the EU, so we got brexit.
Obviously they all now realise that Brexit was a bad idea, otherwise they'd all be happy. So it's immigrants and occasionally trans who they hate now.
If they magically had their way there too, they'd still be angry little hateful people, who'd then be looking for someone else to blame.
And all the time, the only people responsible for their crappy lives are them themselves, and the politicians they love.
Make Britain great again. Deport these alt-right nutjobs to MAGA land!
I have thought, on and off, that all the legitimate needs for ID cards could be met, in the modern world, by a different approach.
Imagine a smart ID card, with your photo on it but no identifying information at all. When required to provide ID, it would not produce a name or address, or date of birth, or even a number with any meaning. It would actually display a QR code (effectively a long number), which could be used to validate information you provide. If the circumstances require that you prove you are old enough to buy alcohol, the retailer would scan the QR code and their terminal would report that the owner of that card is authorized to buy alcohol (or vote, or whatever).
The idea is that the long number changes every time it is used - and cannot be converted back to any actual identifying information (name, address) except by an extremely limited number of people (e.g. police). Essentially, the card is using public key cryptography to prove it is valid and authorizes the carrier to do various things (buy alcohol, travel on a train, enter the country or whatever). It also provides enough information for the retailer's terminal to be able to prove, later, that they checked the card and it said it was OK.
It could even prove that it was the same card as was used on an earlier occasion, if necessary (so it could be used to collect things later). All without the retailer knowing anything about the user.
You really don't undertand government's requirement spec do you. Big Brother Watch summed it up as:
"Mandatory digital ID would fundamentally change the relationship between the population and the state".
That's the whole point of it.
Ultimately, they want total control of everyone, everywhere.
And withdrawing from the ECHR will only accelerate it.
the relationship between the population and the state.
"Yes, that's exactly what we're aiming for - you're all criminals and guilty unless proven innocent" said Starmer as he tries to out-STASI Putin:
Russia is introducing mandatory tracking of migrant workers in Moscow that started September 1, 2025. Migrant workers, particularly visa-free foreign nationals from former Soviet countries, will be required to install a government-run mobile app called "Amina" that continuously shares their geolocation with authorities. They must also register biometric data and notify authorities of address changes. Failure to transmit location data for more than three business days can result in removal from the migration register and potential deportation. This pilot program in Moscow and the surrounding region is described as an experiment that could be expanded nationwide after a four-year trial period.
'...somehow manage not to resemble Russia.'
It doesn't just happen. The Brit model, as proffered to date, has always been a bureaucratic octopus, with multiple tentacles all making 'your data' into 'their data', and no responsibility when it goes wrong/is misused and stuffs up your life.
