Explain digital ID or watch it fizzle out, UK PM Starmer told UK prime minister Keir Starmer avoided mentioning the mandatory digital ID scheme in his keynote speech to the Labour Party conference amid calls for him to put meat on the bones of the plans or risk it failing fast. Keir Starmer Campaigners urge UK PM Starmer to dump digital ID wheeze before it's announced READ MORE …
They will build nondescript buildings in industrial estates which employ a handful of people and be hooked up to the existing water an electricity supplies causing tariffs to be raised.
That is what the UK will get out of AI.
This post has been deleted by its author
If they are choosing us, it's because they are being bribed with tax exemptions and free data to train the AI that will then be paid for by our taxes to do image processing on xrays. Does it never occur to them that they could do this AI stuff using open source AI run as a nationally owned company and keep the money in the UK rather than it ending up in tax havens?
"Does it never occur to them that they could do this AI stuff using open source AI run as a nationally owned company and keep the money in the UK rather than it ending up in tax havens?!
How would that benefit their corporate and billionaire paymasters?
"a nationally owned company"
Would that not mean a quango with civil service pay scales? ie no matter what genius level someone is, if they don't have a big team reporting to them, they get paid a pittance.
Are clueless.
They will spin whatever is required to remain in post/power/appointment.
They will be driven by external "advisors" that are not interested in the United Kingdom's best interests, only the shareholder value of whatever they are selling.
Of course, there's no easy solution here, politics will be politics and little will change before I'm long gone from this planet I'm sure.
Digital ID has been touted as a way to stop illegal immigrants crossing in small boats, but so far he's only said it will be needed for getting a job or buying a house.
So how does that deter illegal immigration? Such individuals get given houses/hotels to stay in in, mobile phones & internet, food, full access to the NHS & Schools etc without contributing a penny to the costs - and that's all they are coming for anyway. All with almost zero chance of ever being deported. So what if Digital ID means they can't get a job or buy a house - they don't need to, and chances are 95% of them will eventually be given one anyway.
That seems reasonable. IF they have a valid claim to be seeking asylum here. I don't think it should fully apply to people coming over on Farage Boats, who should be subject to some form of detention in the first instance*. They broke the law to be here after illegally crossing multiple borders, including ours.
* Mahmood's plan to use former military property sounds pretty reasonable, but they'll still need to sort out healthcare, education and so on, which will upset the Reform types out there.
- IF they have a valid claim to be seeking asylum here. I don't think it should fully apply to people coming over on Farage Boats,
So you need to hear their case - and treat them with dignity in the mean time.
The issue is that there you can't come over by plane or ferry if you don't have a visa, and many asylum claimants can't get those.
If you are claiming asylum then there is no such thing as illegal entry. Your asylum claim may subsequently be refused and you would then be deported.
They are functionally the same:
Approx 50,000 "irregular" arrivals:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2025/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-irregularly
And approx 50,000 asylum claims from those irregular arrivals
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2025/how-many-people-claim-asylum-in-the-uk#:~:text=Half%20of%20asylum%20seekers%20in,to%20a%20route%20of%20entry.
Ergo - almost all irregular arrivals (illegal immigrants) claim asylum, and are therefore treated as such and given all the provisions mentioned above
This post has been deleted by its author
Refer to my further post below - I pointed that out myself
Half of all asylum seekers arrive by legal routes
Almost all illegal immigrants claim asylum and are then afforded all the provisions I detailed - therefore, Digital ID will act as no deterrent to illegal arrivals
I am perfectly capable of understanding the difference and nothing anyone has said so far has actually proposed any counter-argument to my original point - feel free to actually make one
"Digital ID will act as no deterrent to illegal arrivals". True, but when the ID is required for every monetary transaction, then it will be difficult to live in the UK without the ID. Of course, no-one will actually want to live under those cicrumstances either, so those that can leave, will. Before the east coast is under water.
"Almost all illegal immigrants claim asylum"
And your solution is to kick all asylum seekers, rather than to expedite the process of handling claims?
My approach would be to let them work, and pay tax.
Far more dignified for them, and they become a net benefit to society whilst their claim is being heard.
Those whose claim is accepted (the vast majority) can continue working, paying tax - those whose claims are not accepted can be deported without anyone kicking up a fuss.
"Such individuals get given houses/hotels to stay in in, mobile phones & internet, food, full access to the NHS & Schools etc without contributing a penny to the costs - and that's all they are coming for anyway."
That rant is clearly suggesting that they shouldn't be getting even this minimum.
Of course we could allow them to work, and that would get rid of the "not contributing" idiocy that is spouted by the right wing hate mongers.
As for your "point", you think you should allowed to spout hatred without it being called out - shame on you.
This post has been deleted by its author
Oooh! Where?
Easy to understand, and I have posted the UK govt links above, if you care to read them:
Nowhere near all Asylum seekers are illegal immigrants - actually only about half are (most of the rest either claim overseas, or arrive on student/work visas and then claim)
Almost all illegal immigrants immediately claim asylum upon setting foot in the UK
All Asylum seekers, regardless of route, legally get the provisions to which I referred in my first post
In relation to my original point, which is that Digital ID will not deter illegal immigration, my point still stands, and downvoting or gaslighting doesn't change any of that - feel free to actually counter with a real argument if you think Digital ID will genuinely make a difference
Not true - safe and legal routes from the UK Government are listed here, and well used:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-migration-bill-factsheets/safe-and-legal-routes
And the government is urgently considering adding another for refugees from the conflict in Gaza
A small boat crossing from France - a declared "safe" country, is not on that list - so that would be an illegal route then.
And the original point still remains - Digital ID will not deter people from taking that route
So how does a Gazan asylum seeker get to the UK legally today?
There are no legal routes except for a very few specific circumstances, as your link demonstrates.
What's the kicker here is that there is no such thing as an illegal route for an asylum seeker. By definition they are allowed to use whatever route is available - Article 31. There is also no obligation to stop at the first signatory country (though as part of the EU there were arrangements to return adults to their point of entry into the EU).
We are just under 1% of the world's population and we host about 1% of the world's refugees.... that's not disproportionate.
I agree, Digital ID won't solve that, but it could make prosecuting illegal employers easier (no signed ID, easy prosecution).
Now as I've said before I don't think it's likely that it will be done well.
> So how does that deter illegal immigration?
This seems to be the magic bit.
The logic seems to be: make life harder for those that get here and the gangs will go elsewhere or do something else. However, as we know the gangs don’t care too much about what happens to people once they are on a boat leaving the French beaches. Their main business is back in the source countries convincing people there is a rosy new life for them in the UK, if they just hand some money over ….
Such individuals get given houses/hotels to stay in in [sic], mobile phones & internet, food, full access to the NHS & Schools etc without contributing a penny to the costs - and that's all they are coming for anyway.
I've handily struck through everything in that statement that is demonstrably false. This does, of course, also only apply to those seeking asylum, and not any undocumented migrants, who get absolutely nothing whatsoever from the state, certainly not accommodation, or money.
The "hotels" bit is true, in the sense that they are restricted to living in a single location, not of their choice, whilst asylum claims are processed, of which there are a huge backlog, due to deliberate political choices by the last government. It was also a poltical choice to "house" them in hotels, and I use the term "house" advisedly, because it's closer to being in prison, with day release, if the poor sods contained there are brave enough to go outside and face the (unemployed and unemployable) flag shaggers outside who are hurling abuse at them day in and day out.
They aren't allowed to work (so not "steeling are jobs" or equivalent claims), and are given an absolute pittance to live on, so that they don't starve, as is their absolute basic human right. I think it's about £12 a week. You couldn't live off that, and neither could I.
As for why they are coming here; if you think that people risk their lives on a dangerous sea crossing, often after giving everything they own up in order to pay criminal gangs, in order to get access to our crumbling NHS (never mind the fact that they are more likely to end up working in it than making use of it), or education system, rather than being people in a situation of absolute desperation trying to find a way to survive, then you need to give your head a wobble.
I suggest you take your ignorant, bile-inflected drivel elsewhere, maybe try the unemployed divorced deadbeat dads in the local Wetherspoons on a Thursday morning who are desperate to blame their plight on anyone other than their own, feckless, selves.
So more gaslighting and no counter-argument - I should probably take Mark Twain's advice on discussing any further, but hey-ho...
The original point was that contrary to Mr Starmer's assertions, Digital ID will not deter illegal immigration, as virtually all illegal immigrants claim asylum, and all asylum seekers are entitled to the benefits outlined on the government's own website - regardless of whether or not you want to pretend that they don't.
Of course they are accommodated in houses as well as hotels
There are dozens of charities who will assist with mobile/internet access for such individuals, and some are provided this anyway by the home office
Of course they get access to the NHS - it is required by law and includes free prescriptions, dentistry, eye tests, and help with glasses - (read the news? £600 taxi trips to see a GP?)
Of course they get access to Education - it is required by law and includes free school meals
Cash support on top is £50/week/person - which is primarily there to pay for food & toiletries - with uplifts for children
You are right that they aren't "allowed" to work - many do anyway, not that I've made any mention of "steeling are jobs" - the people they work for have no interest in UK regulations, just in cheap illegal labour that they know won't complain.
So if such an individual is sat perfectly safe on a beach in France, why would they "risk their lives on a dangerous sea crossing, often after giving everything they own up in order to pay criminal gangs", if it wasn't because they know there's a far better payday waiting for them on the UK side of the channel? Why does even Macron say that the UK is a "soft touch" and that they keep coming for exactly that reason? Why are the vast majority adult men, rather than a broad demographic? Digital ID will not make one jot of a difference to their decision
If you think the UK should bankrupt itself trying to save the entire world from poverty, I have no problem with that - you're entitled to your opinion, but how about rather than resorting to insults, you try to stick to the point and tell me how Digital ID will somehow discourage illegal immigration?
It's not recognisable as a hotel. It's a detention centre and is truly miserable - even arguably inhumane.
Labour have made a huge amount of progress towards closing them all, mostly by - shockingly - actually bothering to process asylum claims.
Sadly, you buried your point under a mix of misleading and false rhetoric.
You're correct that a digital or physical ID "card" will have exactly zero effect on the number of unauthorised migrants arriving. It feels like an excuse because someone in the Home Office desperately wants to hand more money to Palantir.
BTW, the numbers are actually pretty small. You could easily seat every single irregular arrival in 2024 in Sunderland's Stadium of Light, and the total asylum backlog was a little over one Wembley Stadium.
“ 1991-2016” ? Lacking in recent years data…
1991-2022: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/migration-statistics-over-time
[Aside: This one contains the interesting note “ lthough the Covid-19 pandemic led to a significant fall in immigration, Britain's post-Brexit immigration rules greatly liberalised the migration system in 2020 leading to a record-breaking surge in immigration post-Covid.”; an indication of just how much the Conservatives have been two faced about tackling immigration.]
2013-2024: https://data.london.gov.uk/blog/recent-migration-trends-in-the-uk-and-london/
From these, you can see why, post 1997, immigration has become a major issue, with illegal immigration being a relatively minor yet highly visible component. A question is whether there is a correlation between high levels of legal migration and increased levels of illegal migration.
Interestingly, I would expect the recent legal migrants to have current Id that is recognised by the UK government. I wonder whether part of the desire for a single digital ID is to effectively give these people a readily recognisable standard ID. I.e. we all know what a UK photo drivers license looks like, so we can quickly spot whether a proffered licence is, is not or possibly is genuine.
1991-2016 statistics, because the post I was replying to referred to migration figures in the early '90s. It would hardly be contextual if it covered a different range of years, would it?
As far as I can see, there was only one year there, where the difference between immigration and emigration was a low enough number to fit inside a football stadium.
It's also very noteworthy, that these are total migration figures, the vast majority of which is done, "legally" within the system, and says nothing about undocumented migration (the majority of which is modern slavery related), or what portion of the figures correspond to irregular arrivals / asylum claims.
The original Wembley stadium had a 82,000 seated capacity. From the source you gave, all net immigration figures prior to 1998 had net immigration well below 82,000.
Interestingly, even during Covid net migration didn’t fall to sub 100,000 levels.
Agree, the figures are probably more indicative rather than definitive.
So - which bit of asylum law are you familiar with - because you've pretty handily demonstrated a lack of understanding of most of it.
No the UK shouldn't bankrupt itself, but we are part of the cause for alot of the conflicts around the world.
We must treat those asking for help with dignity.
What you are doing is conflating illegal immigration with asylum seekers, and then mixing in the numbers for overall migration. I'm not surprised, the media have been deliberately doing it for years. They are not the same thing.
The other thing I rather suspect is that, in common with many people, you'd describe a brit living in Spain as an expat... no they're an immigrant.
"So if such an individual is sat perfectly safe on a beach in France, why would they "risk their lives on a dangerous sea crossing, often after giving everything they own up in order to pay criminal gangs", if it wasn't because they know there's a far better payday waiting for them on the UK side of the channel? Why does even Macron say that the UK is a "soft touch" and that they keep coming for exactly that reason?"
Firstly, bear in mind that more claim Asylum in France than the UK, and also that currently France has bettered the UK in standard of living and disposable income in recent years, so your arguments of the UK being a soft-touch or a better payday compared to France is demonstrably false.
"If you think the UK should bankrupt itself trying to save the entire world from poverty,"
This is the real problem, many people in the UK have become so obsessed with the idea that illegal migration is our number one problem, which is consistently leading to idiotic voting patterns, based on slogans rather than logic, and obviously the problem just gets worse.
We're doing very well at bankrupting ourselves without factoring in illegal migration. Most councils are bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy, Government Debt continued to rise despite years of "Austerity", with public services scrapped/reduced, a massively increasing Social cost and Welfare bill (and no, not to due immigration). But most people don't seem to notice or care about these critical issues, it's the boats that gets them worked up, even though their lives have never been impacted in any way by it.
"Firstly, bear in mind that more claim Asylum in France than the UK, and also that currently France has bettered the UK in standard of living and disposable income in recent years, so your arguments of the UK being a soft-touch or a better payday compared to France is demonstrably false."
With three crucial bits of information missing:
a) Due to what we can all (i hope) agree is an utterly broken asylum system, the UK currently grants more than double the percentage of applications that France does - so the % chances of being accepted here are far higher
b) Due to what we can all (i hope) agree is the disaster of Brexit, the UK can currently not check any asylum claims already lodged in France (or elsewhere in Europe), therefore coming to the UK represents a "second bite at the cherry" after potential failures of claims elsewhere
c) Traffickers prey on these people selling them the dream of roads paved with gold, for the explicit purposes of extracting huge amounts of cash - you can walk the length of Europe to get to a beach in France, but you can't walk the channel - you need to pay the ferryman
"If you think the UK should bankrupt itself trying to save the entire world from poverty,"
For goodness' sake, so now I'm being flamed for a bit of hyperbole? I suppose I'm surprised to be honest that I haven't had a patronising response from anyone yet about a sovereign country being unable to go bankrupt - although the last 15+ years of government seem to have tried *really* hard to have a go
Again, miles away from the point I was originally making, but also from the governments own figures at cost of around £4.5 billion/year, if the system was properly fixed, a significant amount could very definitely be better spent elsewhere
I agree with you about the issue of digital ID. It will do nothing whatsoever to deter "illegal migration".
The underlying issue with the "black economy" of illegal workers is not the same as the one of asylum seekers though.
Since there are no "safe and legal" routes for people to legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they come from many places, people desperate to come here and do so (for whatever reason) are forced to come in small boats, or hidden inside lorries. It's extremely dangerous, and nobody in their right mind would do it if they had any option. Once in the asylum system, such people are left in limbo while their claims are processed (with the huge, politically created, backlog). Whilst this happens, they have to be housed and fed. They get given nothing more than this, and are not entitled to work to support themselves. These are human beings, and all humans have basic needs, which in this case are barely being met. The language being used to describe them as "illegals", and words like "swarm" and "invasion" are exactly the same as those used in 1930s Germany to scapegoat people; dehumanisation allows people to do terrible things.
The black economy, on the other hand, of undocumented people working illegally, is a completely different issue. These aren't people in the asylum system, they are people who have been smuggled into the country, often in conditions of modern slavery. They enjoy no rights, no social security, no access to healthcare or education, nada, as far as the state is concerned, they do not exist. These people are absolutely victims. I actually know someone who was lucky enough to escape from this situation; he was lured from his home country with the promise of work, and when he arrived here had his identity documents and passport taken, was forced to work unpaid, and when he escaped, his family at home were threatened. He was then recaptured by his slavers, tortured (he has scars all over his back from cigarette burns), before eventually escaping again, and finally managing to claim asylum, through a very long and difficult process. He is now a successful business owner who contributes towards the UK economy. This all happened in the early 2000s, if it had happened today, he would probably be dead instead.
The point is that such people aren't "sat safely on a beach" in France. They are often under the control of criminal gangs from the moment they leave their home country. Many have escaped from war zones or from countries where they are being persecuted as a minority, or due to their sexuality or religious beliefs. They will have endured a dangerous journey in conditions under which it would be illegal to transport cattle. Many won't even know which country they are headed towards, or their final fate. Those who are deliberately trying to come to the UK are almost all doing so to reunite with family members. If your spouse had escaped from a war zone to a safe country, it seems only fair that you might want to try to join them. The safe legal routes to do so, which used to exist, have been removed by previous governments. As it is, most refugees don't come to the UK; pretty much every country in Europe takes vastly more immigrants than we do.
In any case, you misunderstand my point, the digital ID stuff is clear and obvious bollocks, as I have said in another thread, those employing modern slaves in the black economy already don't do the existing mandatory employment checks, and they won't check ID cards either. If anything a new mandatory ID will give modern slavers another thing which they can seize from a victim and use to control them. Not all modern slaves are immigrants, many vulnerable people who are UK citizens get exploited by the same types of criminal. Look up "cuckooing" and county lines gangs for some good examples.
I simply take a strong objection to the increasing characterisation of other human beings as untermenschen. I don't like fascism, and when I spot it, I tend to call it out. Any right thinking person should do the same. "Illegal immigrants" are an easy target, because they are pretty much the most vulnerable people on the planet, with very few rights or ability to defend themselves. They make a very convenient target for the rich powerful people who want you to be distracted from their own activities of pillaging the public purse.
I do agree with you on one point here, the UK shouldn't "bankrupt itself". Follow the money; it isn't going to immigrants, it's going to billionaires. Use your brain, join the dots, don't listen to the well-funded far-right propaganda.
Fair enough – we’re not a million miles apart then
I’ll concede my original remark should have been a little less flippant, and a little more considered on such an emotive subject…
I think we can agree that the system is massively broken as it stands, that subsequent governments over many years have used it as a political football for points scoring rather than getting to grips with the issues, and also that the incentives for gangs exploiting these individuals both inside and outside the country need proper solutions.
We certainly agree that Digital ID is not the answer
I still think we disagree a bit on the motives for many people who cross the channel, and the truth probably lies somewhere in between, but I can live with that, and I suspect you can too.
One thing I will say is to be careful who you label a “fascist” – it’s a serious term used far more liberally these days than it should be, and if you seek to label every “unemployed divorced deadbeat dad in the local Wetherspoons” with the monicker, simply for being angry with politicians continually kicking the can down the road, all you will succeed to do is drive people straight to Mr Farage
It’s been a blast – a bientot
"Such individuals get given houses/hotels to stay in in, mobile phones & internet, food, full access to the NHS & Schools etc without contributing a penny to the costs "
Of course, how can they contribute to the cost when they aren't permitted to work? It's quite easy to moan about people "not paying their way", when they're in a situation where they can't.
The high costs for housing etc.. are due to the continuing backlog of processing the claims. Other countries in Europe seem to do this far quicker than us.
Temporary access to services is necessary, unless you want to live in a Country where there's 50,000 extra homeless people dying on the streets each year whilst waiting for claims to be processed.
The last statistics I saw quite some time back, showed that there was a higher percentage of tax paying immigrants compared to the average British public.
When you have treatment in a hospital, there isn't someone monitoring your case. Your GP is too busy to do that. You may well see a different doctor or consultant for each outpatient appointment (most consultants seem to be hired on a day-basis). They will check the screen, see what you had done last, and refer you to whatever is next. Departments don't talk to each other much and tend to offload (say urology to bladder and bowel) if they are busy, without checks. You can stay in the system for months without getting anything done. Plus local services are frequently shut down and moved to other hospitals as they are low on staff.
The staff are really good at what they do, particularly at consultant level, but the admin/co-ordination is bollocks. Each party comes into power, plans a massive reform, and it fails.
The majority of people who need the most care are those who are unlikely to use tech or ever be able to use tech.
New online/in person triage rules will see people dying in their homes of things that could have been fixed, for want of paying staff at GP surgeries to answer phones. Sick people who can't access online triage will be too sick to go to a doctor just to fill out and hand in a form, and then totter home.
The latest reforms will lead to most people getting sick at home until they qualify for A&E care, overloading A&E. My last trip to A&E had me sitting on a seat for four and a half hours, until they could drag a consultant out of another part of the hospital.
The system is so badly managed that a hospital doctor, a nurse sitting next to him, once handed me a form to take to my GP to get a blood test. There must have been several hundred people in the hospital capable of doing it. I contacted the GP and they said they couldn't do it for three weeks. I had to go to a testing centre.
If you can get treatment, it will usually be top class treatment, but you need to research your illness online and convince any consultant you see to treat you or refer you to some one who does it. Then you have to hope for a cancellation. And you may have to travel some distance for it.
The likelihood is that everything will get worse, especially if Reform get it. The NHS is heavily dependent on migrant labour, got pushed to the edge of the abyss by Brexit and will not survive whatever anti-migrant stuff Reform brings in.
Private care in the UK is simply too expensive for ordinary Brits - it is priced for the corporate insurance market, not individuals. If the waiting list is really long, you might be able to get it done in somewhere like Poland for a third of UK prices. Check out the facilitators online.
If you are not rich, try to stay healthy, because life will get unpleasant for you as you age if you get obese, drink too much, smoke, or do stuff that has a high risk of injury. If you are male, older and your pee flow decreases, get to your GP asap for a referral. Alphablockers may save you from a worse fate.
Any attempt to insert a parallel digital procedure into this will be a disaster.
That stuff about retirement was all BS. Once you get old, you are unlikely to be well enough to enjoy yourself, and it only gets worse.
You didn't even look at that document, did you?
Go look at the graph on the fifth page - percentage of known nationality.
EU staff stopped coming and there's a continuous decline, right at the 2016 referendum. It's the most obvious knee I've seen in a graph for years.
The absolute numbers aren't comparable for the reasons given in chapter 1.1, but the percentage-of-known is a rough proxy.
Yes of course I read the document, but I read all of it, especially the bit on p7 which clearly says "For example, in June 2016 there were 58,702 NHS staff with a recorded EU nationality, and in June 2023 there were 74,142 – an apparent rise. But to present this as the full story would be misleading because there are around 60,000 more staff for whom nationality is known now than in 2016. It is very likely that there has been an overall increase in the number of NHS staff with EU nationality since 2016, but we can’t be sure about the scale of the change, and it would be misleading to calculate an increase based solely on the two numbers above"
It's quite clear that, looking at the reliable numbers collected since 2106, the number of staff from the EU has changed very little and has always been outweighed by those from other places. Brexit in 2021 had little significant effect.
Some time ago I badly damaged my left thumb while being a bit too vigorous with a knife in the kitchen. Washed it out and wrapped it up as best as I could and tottered down to the nearest health-related place. I believe they call it a surgery, and without even any irony!
"Are you registered here?"
"No but I just need someone to help me bandage up my thumb, you see I can't ..."
... as far as I got before I could say "can't do it myself because the thing that's damaged is the thumb I'd use to do the bandaging."
"This is a local surgery for local people. Fuck off. Maybe try Boots."
(The "try Boots" part *literally happened*)
About an hour away was a walk-in centre of some sort so off I go.
"You're not old and we don't do that here" or some equally stupid excuse.
"But I only need a nurse to help me for two minutes, surely you have a nurse on staff? I don't even know where the nearest A&E is and the only reason I'm not dealing with this myself without bothering the NHS is because the thumb I'd use to do the bandaging is the thing that needs bandaging."
"No. Are you local? Fuck off."
Headed back home to work out where A&E was and order a taxi where I waited the requisite several hours. By the time I did get to see a nurse I had to waste nearly an hour of his time to wash away the junk that had accumulated in the wound before he could spend 30 seconds wrapping it up. It didn't even need stitches, not even the sticky ones. How much did that cost you taxpayers? How many people's care was delayed while my thumb was sitting under a tap in a cramped A&E?
My thumb is fine. The nurse was fantastic. The administrators can all die in a fire.
None of that would have happened if you had a Tonycard. You wouldn't even have been forced to show it to the goons who were blocking access to the medics. Or provide a DNA sample to validate your Tonycard to the all-seeing Palantir/Oracle/Crapita/Fushitu database. The Tonycard would have bandaged up the cut thumb all by itself. It fixes everything.
Let that be a lesson to you citizen.
That will come with a kit to check your heart-rate, blood pressure, take a blood sample, assess your skin tone, your breathing/lung capacity, see how you move, check your tongue and throat?
These fools have no clue how medical diagnosis works.
I only have first-instance paramedic training (long ago) and even I can see the idiocy of this.
There is a significant difference between “must pay” and “has paid”, I expect very little if any monies actually get recovered by the NHS/government, but there will be lots of hand wringing and words to the effect of how well they did to get the court ruling, in the full knowledge their reelection fund has received monies from linked sources…
It's covered on the BBC News website too:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1792rk7ynko
And from their article, surprise, surprise, the company is reported to have conveniently gone bust:
"The judge ruled the company much pay £121,999,219 in damages, plus interest, however, it remains unclear how Medpro will pay the fee, with the company appointing administrators the day before the court decision.
Its last set of accounts said it only had £666,025 of shareholders' funds.
The court said the firm had until 15 October to pay the damages to the government."
Weird how the 2024 accounts showed £2 million. After £3 million in 2023, £3.5 million in 2022, and about £4 million in 2021.
Also rather more accounting period and directorship changes than is usual.
Personal liability is an option in many cases, and the criminal investigation is ongoing. One can hope.
I like Companies House records. Years ago we were going to get into a contract with a battery maker, I think to go electric. For some reason, I was asked to double check some of their forms (I was only 2nd line IT), so I did but while I was at it decided to look them up on Companies House. The director had been a director in about 8 different companies, all wound up, all in battery tech. Looked rather odd and not a company I'd trust. I told the powers that be who found it interesting and was glad I'd checked Companies House, they'd not thought of it (you'd think it would be the first thing finance would do).
That's good, they won't go with that company now then due to the shady history.
Nope, they ignored that and just went with him anyway.
Not privy to what happened next but I'm guessing it didn't end well. Not heard about them over the years.
It's idiocy if it's mandated for every type of medical condition, but there are many appointments this could work for - eg routine renewal of scripts, receiving blood test results, getting referrals that sort of thing. We use telehealth in Australia for things like that and it's a godsend. Nothing worse than wasting an hour in travel time and the waiting room for a routine 5 minute consult. Also reduces the chances of catching something in the medical centre from all the other sick people.
But totally agree if you have a serious condition that would need a Paramedic telehealth is the wrong option.
Or just people with jobs.
Telephone interviews are fine for most of my appointments... There are absolutely times when I need to go in and get prodded, but that fact prevents me from seeing consultants from "anywhere in the country" because there is a very good chance that I'll need to be at least occasionally prodded.
This would be why the Bank of England has recently been told to become enthusiastic about the new digital currency that they would very soon be developing. A nice Blockchain system where every transaction can be seen, checked against Tonycard records and rejected if they don't meet up; welcome to the new world of regulated AI-cash, citizen!
Don't ask awkward questions! Tony Bliar said his ID scheme fixes everything - and he's never wrong. Palms have been greased. Backhanders have been sorted. Thiel and Ellison (and Musk) are delighted because billions of our money will be heading their way,
BTW, Stasi Starmer's lying bastards can't even keep their lies consistent. We were told Tonycards would just be to stop illegal working (as if). Now the fuckwit Home Secretary said they'll be used to stop welfare fraud. Perhaps the fuckwit Health Secretary will tell us tomorrow Tonycards will be the only way for everyone to get NHS treatment. And the day after that the fuckwit Education Secretary will tell us Tonycards must be used in schools - because paedophiles.
Obviously, never had cause to have a one-to-one video call with an OAP. The iPad is probably in another room on charge or discharged. Even if they can reach the iPad from the bed, their ability to use it is questionable, before we get to the important bit - getting the iPad to show their face etc. without it shaking or moving erratically…
My mother-in law can use a mobile phone, you ring her, she won’t hear but will see on the screen you called her, so she will call back. She has largely forgotten how to initiate a phone call from the mobile, using the list of missed calls as her contacts/directory…
And posture, body movements - make sure you have secured your phone to a tripod before calling, so that it can show a full body image which doesn't bounce around.
Oh, and don't forget to run the display to a secondary screen, so that you can check that the camera is showing the GP the correct side of your neck where that rash has come up - hang on, just adjust the fill light so it is coming from the side, not head on like the phone's torch, or the lumps won't show up.*
* Was asked to send in a photo of a suspicious patch on the wife during covid, to avoid in-person as much as possible. I thought I was an okay photographer, but trying to cope with exactly that issue: at least I *have* some LED lighting with a tripod mount, but balancing it on the bed as I moved to angle the camera... It was a very great relief to get back to simpler stuff, like closeups of the aphids on the blackthorn so she could tell how the garden was getting on!
Both my parents have mobiles.
However, my dad only switches his on when he needs to make a call, and my mum's dementia means that every time I visit we have the same conversation about how to answer a call.
The landline it is when I need to call them.
there is much more clarity, detail, and a proposal that genuinely benefits the needs of the 'citizens' first, the 'government systems' second, and the 'money grubbers' last, this proposal will join the other dead 'ID ducks' nailed to the fence, within six months, maybe even within six weeks.
"Artificial intelligence is transforming healthcare. I have seen it for myself. I have spoken to patients alive because of it," he said, citing stroke patients where AI is used to identify the precise location of blood clots.
Well, you wouldn't be speaking to patients who aren't alive because of it, so I'd be very careful about making claims of the effectiveness of "AI" in diagnostic practice. Are the false positives and false negatives being recorded, or is this sort of thing being used to suggest things for clinical practitioners to look at and verify, and they just focus on the "hits" and discard the "misses".
I'm not suggesting that ML pattern recognition systems can't be made to work in this way (and let's call a spade a spade, it's not AI), or that this doesn't work, but I'm very sceptical of exaggeration in these sorts of claims, simply because of the track record of both politicians' claims, and claims about "AI".
"We have taken on-board the comments from the public that not everybody does, in reality, have a phone that can be used to store the Digital ID, so we will be issuing it as a simple plastic card that can be easily carried by anybody."
"Which is good, as we got the trial results back yesterday and these cards can be interrogated much more reliably at a distance when the scanner is mounted to the lamppost; far better than most of the cheapest phones. Say, this mic isn't still on, is it?"
They don't need the scanner - they'll use free public wifi for wifi scanning or use bluetooth beacons like in Australia to scoop up all the bluetooth IDs. If they have the ID card on the phone they'll ask permissions for the MAC addresses etc and then they'll be able to track everyone (or at least their phones) easily.
Remember back during the COVID-19 epidemic when the UK government brought out their very own outsourced attempt at a tracker app? Remember what an absolute dog's dinner of a thing it was, with no power saving, permissions required for pretty much everything on the phone and the ability to drain a battery in hours?
Remember how both Apple and Google told them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine and also declined to give it root access on their operating systems? (They then cooperated for the first time ever and brought out their own tracking system, which worked, worked well and wasn't a privacy problem or a battery hog).
The same will happen with the Tonycard. The app will be a privacy-violating, battery-sucking monstrosity which will make smartphones almost unusable as a userland app, and will kill the hardware if given root. So, neither Apple nor Google will give it root on unrooted hardware, meaning that to run it as the Government want users would have to root their phones and void the manufacturers' warranties.
Guess how well that will go down, eh?
The joke of it is that there already is a place to put ID documents on Google phones (and presumably Apple too, although I don't have one so cannot say): Google Wallet. That stores the ID safely, won't expose it to the world unless told to do so, and actually only grants minimal permissions to the document.
What was quoted:
"Tech companies [are] queuing up to back this country, saying that we are indispensable for the AI future. Those companies can invest anywhere in the world but they are choosing us, they are choosing Hartlepool, Warrington, Belfast, the East Midlands."
what i understood:
Tech companies [are] queuing up to harvest our/your data, saying that we are indispensable for the AI future. Those companies can harvest anywhere in the world but they are choosing the UK, they are choosing us (UK Gov) as we are utterly clueless about IT and the value of data (so we'll pay them to harvest and pay again when as usual the project overruns)"
With the UK GOV One Login, and the GOV UK Wallet, most of the infrastructure is already in place for a digital identity.
It will start off being voluntary and may be even useful, and then as the majority of the population start to use it, it will effectively become essential for every day life.
Making it mandatory will be a none event, in the public interest, we will (are) already in the trap.
Big changes are bought in slowly over time in a boil the frog kind of way.
The announcement on Friday regarding BritCard was just taking the temperature of the population to determine the pace of the already in progress roll out.
The one chance we have is that the original 2010 legalisation to disband the previous ID card is still in law, so would need to go back to Parliament to remove this.
I might be wrong, but this is how it looks.
You can't avoid the government ID stuff if you (like me) run a business in which case you need a Government Gateway ID to submit your VAT return, you may also need a GG ID to do things relating to your new driving license and passport renewal. Companies House have just implemented a new ID verification system which is compulsory from Nov 25.
It's coming in a piecemeal fashion.
If it doesn't arrive in one lump like the TonyCard it will be done piecemeal chipping away at your privacy.
Resistance is futile.
You have to be able to present a case where having it improves the lives of the average person in some way. You will only get so much support by using the "they're stealing our jerbs!" or "think of the children!" arguments based on fear.
I don't live in the UK so I haven't paid much attention to this other than seeing a few articles on the Reg, but the only argument I've seen is that it will insure that only people allowed to work in the UK can work in the UK. If I lived there unless I was looking for a job in a sector where illegal immigrants were competing with me, what would be the benefit to me? If they can't answer that, it will never win popular support. They can still pass it, and polling would indicate "support" if they measure it by "percentage of people opposed" but only because most people are going to be apathetic about something they will view as neither helping nor hurting them.
Which is why you need to enforce it on the employers, rather than giving them a slap on the wrist with a fine that's treated as a cost of doing business. If caught hiring someone for cash and it turns out they're not legally allowed to work, toss the company owner in jail for a few months, or a few years if it happens twice. That pay under the table issue would sort itself out in no time.
"If only the UK had a 2nd Amendment ... the UK is F'd Up"
Second amendment hasn't protected the US from the current executive over-reach has it? There's credible estimates of around 15m assault rifles in civilian hands, and 80+ million people owning at least one firearm...and yet the thick orange bully is stealing the country and bulldozing democratic checks and balances from under the noses of these people who (nominally) have a right to bear arms specifically to prevent an over-powerful government. Bizarre.
As far as I can work out from the garbled messaging what they are proposing is a couple of phone apps whereby an employer can verify your national insurance number via some digital certificate wizardry.
Much like the apps that confirmed your Covid vaccination status ( in the civilised world or the EU as it’s known ).
Just another example of the sheer incompetence and complete lack of political skill of he who is not Jeremy Corbin.
Ireland called its ID a Public Services Card (PSC) which makes clear what it is for - to present when you apply for benefits and other interactions with the government. It has a narrow purpose not to be carried around with you, not for showing a supermarket or pub that you're over 18, not for police to demand when you are stopped for some reason. It's also a physical card, not an "app", and so there is not a propensity for carrying it.
And that seems to be the purpose for ID in UK mostly - government services. But they called it Digital ID and they framed it as a way to stop illegal workers which is utterly absurd. It's disastrous branding with a paper thin justification by a government who can't do PR if their lives depended on it. I will not be surprised either if the rollout will be catastrophically over budget and botched because they'll choose some bluechip like Oracle to bleed them dry.
The poor chap, like half of Parliament, hasn't even got a clue what government and public digital ID strategy looks like - someone put a ballgag in his mouth and let some people who actually understand what's on the table, explain it.
Like this: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-id-scheme-explainer/digital-id-scheme-explainer.
"Digital credentials will be stored directly on your own device - just like contactless payment cards or the NHS App today."
The digital ID service is not a "National Identity Register" like Blair was pitching. It's literally a GOV.UK branded ecosystem with an app for smartphones. The functionality and use cases for it are based on what Google / Apple wallets, multiple online banking apps, the NHS app, Microsoft / Google / other Authenticator apps already do.
If you've already used a COVID process to show your identity; or if you've ever used an app to share a digital credential with a bank, an employer, an educational institution or healthcare; or if you're here on a work/study permit or here via the Homes for Ukraine scheme, then you're already using it. All the government's really saying is, instead of every different public sector body having its own process and its own sheets of paper, there should be a trust network.
And there's already a framework behind that thinking - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework-04/uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework-gamma-04-pre-release
"1.1.a. The trust framework will help people use and reuse trustworthy digital identities and attributes, with people and organisations across the United Kingdom and internationally. It is intended to accelerate innovation, investment and uptake, while ensuring that services are safely developed and deployed for the benefit of all who wish to use them."
"1.1.c. In this way, the trust framework and its associated certification process is designed to address a key barrier to the use of digital verification services: that one organisation does not know how another creates digital identities or attributes. Establishing consistent language and requirements will help organisations and people"
The CCP have a system like this specifically so they can monitor all their citizens. If we want to be CCP China, then go for it, if not, then NO.
Our local builder friend who's in his late 70s has ONLY just gotten a smart phone, there will be loads of people out there with no smart phone. The app will require a newer phone no doubt so all those with old ones would be forced to upgrade, all those people that can't afford to upgrade and so on.
The whole idea is shit.
The Swiss e-ID is an electronic version of a physical ID card. It only holds data locally for authentication, it does not rely on a massive remote database and you can choose on each transaction what data you share: https://www.eid.admin.ch/en/e-id-e#doc-1j09kufn60
So far the government response to the petition is simply to reiterate their intention to introduce the digital id cards. No real attempt to address the strength of feeling or technical and security concerns.
It does say that it will not be a legal requirement to possess or produce the id, which makes the whole thing a bit of a waste of effort. More political theatre I suspect.
