GTF
Indeed, I concur that the investment of energy, time and effort to bring legitimate question, informed debate and democratic consideration to such a scheme is exhausting and also an ever decreasing circle.
However, this really is a productive cause.
The comments of Peter Skyte, UNITE are indeed valid. Furthermore, I would like to add:
"
It is sadly ironic that a system purportedly being established to ensure security, not just within aviation, but nationally is itself responsible for destroying security, not just within aviation, but nationally."
What really concerns me is that not if the government is laughing up it's sleeve at the aviation industry, but at the nation as a whole,but if the government actually believes that this system will be effective under it's own terms.
If the government actually believes this system will be effective, then there is a considerable cause for concern that the government is negligent, naive, crassly moronic and incapable of listening to experience and specialist knowledge on a subject.
However, we have seen through the course of New Labour administration of this country that is indeed the case in many decisions.
So we have to then consider the converse of this subject, that the government is knowingly undertaking a project at vast public cost that is not viable under its own terms and is subject to potential illegality under the EUCHR.
Again, we have seen this has been the case under other instances of government actions.
These two points revert back to the nub of the issue, that is government dominance over the individual and the lack of control of authority over the individuals their personal information and the manner in which it used.
It is highly unlikely that the government *will* back down on this issue through democratic process. The amount of money spent to date, the personal fortunes to be made by those connected with policy and involvement in the scheme, the inroads into government control over the lives of each individual are to great to be given up. Furthermore, there is *no* democratic process to this scheme.
While the economy of this country has spiraled government spending and borrowing has increased, despite economic reviews that the economic policies are unrealistic and detrimental to the economy of the country, both in the short term and the long term.
It would therefore be an issue that during a time economic volatility the spending of a minimum of half a billion pounds a year on a scheme that is un-viable would be brought to bear.
Again, this is not the case.
The public is paying for a scheme that it does not want, is un-viable, a democratic abomination, in essence illegal under the EUCHR, an infringement of civil liberties, detrimental to the security of the country both to the individual and the country as a whole and will have to pay personally on top of funds paid through taxation and will be penalized both financially and judicially for non compliance.
It is nothing short of disgusting that airside workers are subjected to the lack of personal security both in their positions and their personal lives under threat of their employment.
*Bear in mind my previous comments regrading the insecurity of data and the ease of ability to obtain this data for nefarious purposes and the possibility of someone using such a device, at an airport say, where it KNOWN that people will have data insecure and available*
In simple terms, people with airside passes are required to have ID cards. A reader in a bag, walked around an airport will be able to access that data. As such, the very security of airside passes is now null and void. And the security of that individual and the environment in which they work is now breached.
Again, I reiterate, people who engage in nefarious actions will not be using their identity, they will use someone else's.
The problem here is that there is no single representative body acting against this.
We have:
BALPA, who represent airline pilots - Fighting ID Cards
GASCo - No comments on ID Cards
BBGA - No Comments on ID Cards
CAA - Government Body
Individual Unions - Members Opposed, But Union Affiliation to Labour
NO2ID - General. Not Aviation Specific.
Liberty - General. Not Aviation Specific.
Privacy International - General. Not Aviation Specific.
As you can see, there is only one party challenging the issue on aviation grounds, and that group represents Airline Pilots.
Airline Pilots are opposed to this for a multitude of reasons, some of which have been addressed in security issue threads such as this
here.
While each individual group is fighting its own battle, the war is being lost because there is no cohesion or combined effort to challenge this, if there is any effort at all, over and above lip-service (IE the Unions).
A further point to this is that the political opposition it seems has very little ability to act against the government.
Damian Green, the shadow immigration spokesman is opposed to the ID card scheme and has already addressed the opposition by airport workers. However, as we saw a couple of weeks ago, Damian Green was arrested with out warrant, had his offices searched and was subject to confiscation without warrant under the guise of national security.
Damian Green was doing what he has been elected to do, bring the government to question over policy and it's actions and bringing to the public view and to the house, government failings, particularly those which the government attempts to bury.
The duplicity, falsehoods, misdirection, mendacity, and outright affront to democracy that this matter signified indicates the lack of ability of challenge to government.
While I do not condone public disorder, it would be apparent that the only cause of challenge left is for mass rejection of the scheme. IE every airport employee to refuse submission to the card.
Manchester and London City would effectively be brought to a standstill as no-one would have appropriate access to carry out their job. But this would have to be brought as a combined challenge, not for each individual.
That would take action of a union representative to ballot his members over the id card scheme and propose action against this scheme.
The upshot for this would be that the Union officials higher up would *have to listen* to their members or risk division or subsequent a subsequent break away union, causing the loss of membership.
It has long been a concern of mine that there is no representative body acting for aviation matters either in Europe of the UK and the potential integration of such an association.
While you state that Greece could be a forewarning of government control over opposition, you have to bear in mind that that has *ALREADY* happened in the UK.
Blair changed the position of Lord Chancellor under the reform act of 2005. This ultimately changed our constitution.
In 2005 it was made illegal to protest within 1km of parliament. Again this changed the rights of the individuals of the UK. You are now required to have permission to protest.
New Labour have sought to extend the period of time to be held without trial - 42 days, despite a rejection and the buy-off of ministers to move the proposal, it was rejected by the Lords.
Jacqui Smith has also advised the NUJ that "the police can "restrict or monitor photography in certain circumstances".
Counter Terrorism Laws have been used extensively by the police, even local councils to criminalize activities and to engage in surveillance of individuals for reason that are not even classified as civil offenses.
Again, this goes back to the nub of the issue over ID cards in that the government's control over the individuals of this country and their data is detrimental to security and to democratic process.
Perhaps the only significant manner in which the whole industry can oppose this is by mass action.