We’re not talking about the EU. the UK implemented and planned (before it was scrapped) to make id cards mandatory for citizens to carry. that’s the intended purpose of them.
We already have voluntary ‘id’ cards. A drivers license, or passport. So if your arguing for that, well… we have them.
Counterpoint: in France the ID cards are technically mandatory, but I have yet to end up in jail despite never carrying one on me (and I’ve lived there for 18 years). I don’t see why it would be different here.
On the other hand I would pay good money to have an universally accepted way to cryptographically prove my identity both offline and online thanks to the chip.
Obtaining driving licence is expensive and sometimes unnecessary for city dwellers. Passport is not cheap either and meant for international travel. Why having ID card or Irish type passport card connected to the same database as passport is detrimental to your privacy?
I’m all for a voluntary, inexpensive ID card. My comment was aimed at mandatory ID cards and mandatory carrying of such cards.
Its £34 for a provisional license. and if you need id for something then its not unnecessary. the solution if thats still to expensive would be to reduce the cost (especially for passports which are to expensive) not implement an entirely new id system for a few billion + maintenance.
They were designed and intended to be mandatory.
They were not connected to the same database, they contained vastly more information including fingerprint information which would render your fingerprint sensor on your phone potentially useless if done wrong.
It’s just not as simple as saying sonso does it why don’t we. We have a different government with different goals and a different outlook on how they want to do things. The 2006 id scheme is just a good example of that, that people are kind of ignoring. We didn’t want to implement a voluntary id system, we wanted to implement a mandatory id system that held a huge amount of info on you with no clear reason of why it should exist outside of iding citizens.
Nothing you’ve said suggests you cant just use an existing system.
edit: I guess what im saying is if you feel the need to an id thats cheap, push the government to make current systems cheaper and easier to get. Don’t push them to implement an expensive new system when we know historically what the governments position on them is.
The Spanish ID card can be used as part of a 2FA system by buyinga card reader. It works for banking as well as government websites.
Do you have an example?
You can only use provisional licence for 2 years and then take test. You will need to pay for driving lessons. These are very expensive. My ID card was issued free of charge.
You can use a PASS card then, not mandatory, no huge database, wont cost the taxpayers billions. Or again, get things like passport costs reduced instead. There’s still no reason from anyone here to be in flavor of a government mandatory id.
PASS card are issued to youngsters who have no other neans of proving their age. As non- government issued card, you will not be able to do much with it beyond going to a night club or buying alcohol in a shop.
Pass cards can be for anyone, there’s no age limit for them.
yeah but it’s been a while since I got carded!
No.
A breach of the peace may occur where harm is done or is likely to be done to a person, or to his/her property in his presence, or he/she is in fear of being harmed through assault, affray, riot or disturbance.
Breach of the Peace is an ancient common law concept. It provides a number of powers to police officers: one of which is to arrest and another is to intervene and/or detain by force, in order to prevent any action likely to result in a breach of the peace in both public and private places.
Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986 is more likely to be used for the example you cite where a person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he/she uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour.
(There’s a couple of caveats to that regarding what is a public place and the offence can not occur dwelling to dwelling)
Detailing what acts constitute as a breach of the peace is complex, and there has been a wealth of dispute and disagreement with regards to the limits of power in this area. It is now widely accepted that an appropriate definition can be obtained from the 1981 case, R v. Howell. This case led to the definition of breach of the peace as being actions which cause harm to another person or cause harm to their property in their presence, as well as actions that are likely to instigate such harm.
Therefore if someone tries to use what they think is their freedom of speech and the police believe their comments will cause a breach of the peace, then they can arrest them.
The point I was making earlier is still that the UK doesn’t have freedom of speech and there are many laws which prove this. We have a limited right to freedom of expression.
With respect, still No.
For words that cause harassment, alarm or distress, the arrest will be for the summary offence not the common law offence.
You can use your previsional licence until you die as long as you renew it every 10 years. The theory test only lasts for 2 years, but it’s not a requirement for a provisional licence.
Source: I’ve been using my provisional as my ID for the last 4 years and I have no interest in driving and getting a full licence.
Thanks for the info but your experience just shows the whole hypocrisy of the current ID debate. People getting provisional driving licence not to drive but to be able to identify themselves to the authorities in the absence of official ID cards. Time to stop this, I say.
Just to take one tiny weeny issue here: we don’t just arrest for breach of the peace randomly. It’s actually a terrible piece of law to do much as it requires the suspect to be taken immediately to a magistrates court and as soon as they are not breaching the peace they have to be let go. In reality it’s best used to simply get someone out of a given situation.
You might be referring to public order acts, which range from riots at the top end down to offensive words or signs at the bottom. Even then there are rules around intent, location and who it’s directed at and to what extent it’s offensive.
I agree we don’t have free speech written into law in the way of the US, but we don’t have powers to arrest anyone on a whim if we just find it offensive as an officer*
*in fact courts have found a police officer, while technically protected by the same laws, must have a thicker skin and actually what offends us has a higher threshold.
Ok you literally answered my point haha.
I’m curious - what were your objections to it being introduced?
I would suggest that it’s likely that is why it’s not been introduced.
Your opinion has changed after having one. So it stands to reason you had objections that others still have now.