BALPA against ID Cards - TUC Congress
Nice post Bruce.
I remember a television interview a few months ago in which Jeremy Paxman grilled a very unimpressive duty minister on this issue of non UK nationals not having criminal record checks before being issued with airport passes.
Paxman continued to press the question "how many foreign criminals are working at our airports?" The Minister had no answer and all he could do was make up some waffle about foreign staff having to go through the same security search as nationals, so "there was no security issue". Paxman let him off lightly, but it would be interesting if the same answer were asked again after we had been forced to have National ID cards.
The Minister would still not know how many foreign criminals were working at our airports.
So whats the point of it other than to waste a few more billion?
I remember a television interview a few months ago in which Jeremy Paxman grilled a very unimpressive duty minister on this issue of non UK nationals not having criminal record checks before being issued with airport passes.
Paxman continued to press the question "how many foreign criminals are working at our airports?" The Minister had no answer and all he could do was make up some waffle about foreign staff having to go through the same security search as nationals, so "there was no security issue". Paxman let him off lightly, but it would be interesting if the same answer were asked again after we had been forced to have National ID cards.
The Minister would still not know how many foreign criminals were working at our airports.
So whats the point of it other than to waste a few more billion?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Beds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Unions, the bulk of Labour support, will not go against the government on this issue . It is simply a union representatives path to destruction and loss of union representation in the NEC to stand firm against the government on the issue.
NO2ID:Press Release TUC: Unions overwhelmingly oppose ID cards – contradicting government spin
The TUC in Brighton, has pledged to resist the identity scheme "with all means at its disposal". [1] The motion was carried overwhelmingly.
This puts unions on a collision course with the government over civil liberties, and contrasts with the government spin that "unions approve ID cards" [2] issued after the Labour Party National Policy Forum at Warwick at the end of July.
The motion, from the airline pilots' union, BALPA draws particular attention to the Home Office plans timetabled for next year on to force airside workers to register on the National Identity Register for life, as a condition of having a job.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am well aware that the TUC has pledged to oppose the ID card scheme.
However, the operative words in the statement are "pledged to oppose".
What you have to remember is that The National Executive Committee or NEC is the chief administrative body of the Labour Party.
The NEC members are (As of October 2008)
Sir Jeremy Beecham (Div. IV - Labour Councilors)
Keith Birch (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Ann Black (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties) Vice-Chair
Gordon Brown MP (Leader) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Michael Cashman MEP (Div. V - PLP/EPLP)
Debbie Coulter OBE (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Jack Dromey (Treasurer)
Angela Eagle MP (Government) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Michael Griffiths (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Harriet Harman MP (Deputy Leader) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Dianne Hayter (Div. II - Socialist Societies)
Diana Holland (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Jim Kennedy (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Peter Kenyon (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties)
Andy Kerr (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Paddy Lillis (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Ann Lucas (Div. IV - Labour Councilors)
Joe Mann (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Pat McFadden MP (Government) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Stephanie Peacock (Young Labour)
Ellie Reeves (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties)
Christine Shawcroft (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties)
Dennis Skinner MP (Div. V - PLP/EPLP) VOTED MODERATELY FOR ID CARDS
Cath Speight (Div. I - Trade Unions) Chair
Norma Stephenson (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Gary Titley MEP (EPLP Leader)
Mary Turner (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Keith Vaz MP (Black Socialist Society) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Tom Watson MP (Government) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Peter Wheeler (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties)
Pete Willsman (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties)
Harriet Yeo (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Vacant (Div. V - PLP/ELP)
From the above you will note that from the NEC, every Labour MP has voted FOR ID cards. The trade union representatives have found themselves on the board of the NEC and are able to serve their unions by having influence in the administrative body of the Labour party.
If you look, there are what 12 union members on the NEC, yet 7 elected officials, however the ID card scheme has been brought into effect. if the unions were so opposed by this and had the independent influence on policy it would never have reached the "initial" implementation stage.
so yes, the TUC and other unions may well "pledge to oppose" the id card scheme, but the hard reality they have not. which is why it is being wheeled out in the manner it is.
From your post and citation, you also need to include the rest of the post...
The union members may wish to fight it through their representation, but the representation in the NEC have their own agenda, not yours.
If the union representatives in the NEC were serving their members views, and that largely of the populace, this would NEVER have got as far as it has.
Bear in mind this is under the same government that dealt with Hijackers of a foreign carrier to the UK by granting them political asylum.
Aviation security ? The mismanagement of policy and administration of this country by the Labour government is the single biggest threat to aviation security.
However, the operative words in the statement are "pledged to oppose".
What you have to remember is that The National Executive Committee or NEC is the chief administrative body of the Labour Party.
The NEC members are (As of October 2008)
Sir Jeremy Beecham (Div. IV - Labour Councilors)
Keith Birch (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Ann Black (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties) Vice-Chair
Gordon Brown MP (Leader) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Michael Cashman MEP (Div. V - PLP/EPLP)
Debbie Coulter OBE (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Jack Dromey (Treasurer)
Angela Eagle MP (Government) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Michael Griffiths (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Harriet Harman MP (Deputy Leader) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Dianne Hayter (Div. II - Socialist Societies)
Diana Holland (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Jim Kennedy (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Peter Kenyon (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties)
Andy Kerr (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Paddy Lillis (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Ann Lucas (Div. IV - Labour Councilors)
Joe Mann (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Pat McFadden MP (Government) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Stephanie Peacock (Young Labour)
Ellie Reeves (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties)
Christine Shawcroft (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties)
Dennis Skinner MP (Div. V - PLP/EPLP) VOTED MODERATELY FOR ID CARDS
Cath Speight (Div. I - Trade Unions) Chair
Norma Stephenson (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Gary Titley MEP (EPLP Leader)
Mary Turner (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Keith Vaz MP (Black Socialist Society) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Tom Watson MP (Government) VOTED STRONGLY FOR ID CARDS
Peter Wheeler (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties)
Pete Willsman (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties)
Harriet Yeo (Div. I - Trade Unions)
Vacant (Div. V - PLP/ELP)
From the above you will note that from the NEC, every Labour MP has voted FOR ID cards. The trade union representatives have found themselves on the board of the NEC and are able to serve their unions by having influence in the administrative body of the Labour party.
If you look, there are what 12 union members on the NEC, yet 7 elected officials, however the ID card scheme has been brought into effect. if the unions were so opposed by this and had the independent influence on policy it would never have reached the "initial" implementation stage.
so yes, the TUC and other unions may well "pledge to oppose" the id card scheme, but the hard reality they have not. which is why it is being wheeled out in the manner it is.
From your post and citation, you also need to include the rest of the post...
But there are implications for everyone in employment. An astonished TUC fringe meeting on Monday evening heard from Guy Herbert, General Secretary of NO2ID [3], of the provisions in the Identity Cards Act 2006 that ministers have confirmed could mean 10 years imprisonment for industrial action that might interfere with the operation of the ID database.[4]
"Unions certainly did not approve that, even if 304 Labour MPs saw fit to vote for it. The Tolpuddle Martyrs got shorter sentences, and that was a public outrage in an era when you could be hanged for stealing goods worth a shilling," he said.
Herbert said of today's vote:
"The Home Office has almost given up pretending that its ID scheme is necessary for national security. Those involved in aviation security day-to-day don't believe it. Now the plan is that ID will confront us in the workplace - as a form of official permission to earn a living. We are delighted that the unions and their members will be ready to fight it."
"Unions certainly did not approve that, even if 304 Labour MPs saw fit to vote for it. The Tolpuddle Martyrs got shorter sentences, and that was a public outrage in an era when you could be hanged for stealing goods worth a shilling," he said.
Herbert said of today's vote:
"The Home Office has almost given up pretending that its ID scheme is necessary for national security. Those involved in aviation security day-to-day don't believe it. Now the plan is that ID will confront us in the workplace - as a form of official permission to earn a living. We are delighted that the unions and their members will be ready to fight it."
If the union representatives in the NEC were serving their members views, and that largely of the populace, this would NEVER have got as far as it has.
Bear in mind this is under the same government that dealt with Hijackers of a foreign carrier to the UK by granting them political asylum.
Aviation security ? The mismanagement of policy and administration of this country by the Labour government is the single biggest threat to aviation security.
Last edited by Bruce Wayne; 11th Nov 2008 at 19:44. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said and agree......so whats to be done?
I guess that can't be discussed on an open site......should be good to see if the spooks are now looking at all posters on here to see what action is proposed??? No doubt they are already...and if so when does that become executive action against a citizen wishing to use their right of peaceful protest etc....especially when it comes up against their catch all you're either with us or you're a 'terrorist' cover......can't wait to see the sad, out of work faces at the next election.......May you live in interesting times...
I guess that can't be discussed on an open site......should be good to see if the spooks are now looking at all posters on here to see what action is proposed??? No doubt they are already...and if so when does that become executive action against a citizen wishing to use their right of peaceful protest etc....especially when it comes up against their catch all you're either with us or you're a 'terrorist' cover......can't wait to see the sad, out of work faces at the next election.......May you live in interesting times...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Beds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am well aware that the TUC has pledged to oppose the ID card scheme. However, the operative words in the statement are "pledged to oppose". What you have to remember is that The National Executive Committee or NEC is the chief administrative body of the Labour Party.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce. Your post is of course correct. Which is why I stated that the opposition is coming from and must swell from the grass roots membership.
Rather than hiding I believe the only protection you can have is to fight openly. If the Spooks spannersatKL fears are on the lookout then I think I may have cooked my goose already.....
I believe that they have conceded to the opposition by making sure the 'Trials' will last until after the next Election.
Should they win then God help all of us. They will take it as an endorsement of the scheme and hit everyone very hard with a complete destruction of Civil Liberties in this country.
Ultimately the battle ground will be at the ballot box now. No doubt new battles will come from any new Government but hopefully not as dangerous as this parties cavalier attitude to the individual.
In the meantime the struggle continues.......
Rather than hiding I believe the only protection you can have is to fight openly. If the Spooks spannersatKL fears are on the lookout then I think I may have cooked my goose already.....
I believe that they have conceded to the opposition by making sure the 'Trials' will last until after the next Election.
Should they win then God help all of us. They will take it as an endorsement of the scheme and hit everyone very hard with a complete destruction of Civil Liberties in this country.
Ultimately the battle ground will be at the ballot box now. No doubt new battles will come from any new Government but hopefully not as dangerous as this parties cavalier attitude to the individual.
In the meantime the struggle continues.......
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see no reason why this cannot be discussed on an open site. After all, this is partly an issue of civil liberties as well as security, data protection and government expenditure. As such this not only affects us in the aviation community, but also the population of the UK as a whole.
Therefore, we have every right to discuss this openly.
In reference to government spooks, there is little to worry about on that front. From my contact base, it can be determined that the law enforcement agencies are also very wary about this issue.
1. The government has continually established that it cannot manage secure data that is confidential, even restricted data of national security.
There is not much more to be said here.
2. The ID card scheme, although government, is to be operated by private corporation, of which it is public knowledge that the key proponent of the ID scheme in Westminster, is a major shareholder of.
From the law enforcement side of things, the identities and personal data of those who work in law enforcement, those who work in covert operations, those in military departments will also have their data, personal and biometric included on the database.
Leaving aside the whole issue of the continual insecurity of government secure data, a key problem here is that the data is managed and controlled by private enterprise. and that removes the control of law enforcement over that data. Furthermore, as we have seen with government projects to privatize, these have invariably involved the purchase of private companies operating public projects to overseas companies.
In other words, who is to say that 2 years down the road, the private company operating the scheme is purchased by a foreign company, there is nothing to preclude a purchase of the company by a foreign government owned company.
Now, this is where it really does cause concern in national security. the company managing our data could well be, in the near future, owned by a foreign government.
The UK energy industry is predominantly owned and as such therefore controlled by foreign companies with government stakes, so is it not a potential problem that a private company managing the personal and biometric data of every person with "leave to remain" in the UK could fall into foreign government control.
3. Dealing with threats to national security is, for law enforcement, like looking for needle in a haystack. The more hay that is piled on the haystack, the longer and less effective the work becomes. In short, with huge amounts of data to process looking for the proverbial "needle" leaves law enforcement "behind the power curve".
The way threats to national security have been dealt with in the past has proven effective. That is intelligence, counter-intelligence and covert ops. This is not re-inventing the wheel, these methods have derived from what has proven effective and what has not.
Ploughing though data to uncover a profile that could potentially meet a profile does not resolve anything. the profile is determined by field work in terms of intelligence, counter-intelligence and covert operations. So wasting time, energy and resources looking for a possible "possible" detracts from the agencies work in what has proven effective.
So in terms of the security and law enforcement agencies, the whole issue of the ID card scheme becomes not only moot, but counter effective in terms of security.
This of course then detracts back to my previous post 1 and 2 on the subject.
Not that I wish to rehash my previous two points, but this is where the validity of the situation arises.
So, we can determine that the ID card scheme will have either no effect or detrimental effect in terms of security and immigration for this country, yet this is what is being sold to the populace and the house as the reasoning for it.
However, the cost of the scheme has been pegged by the Labour party, over the next 10 years as 5.5 billion of your UK taxpayer pounds. We are all too familiar with project cost over-runs under new Labour, the cost could well likely stretch over-all close to the 10 billion mark.
Even at 5 billion for the project, that is an amount of half a billion a year of tax-payers money to fund a scheme that is not viable under the terms of it's own premise.
Is this in itself value for money for the taxpayer?
So what is to be done ?
That is the million dollar question. Unfortunately, we have a government that will carry out it's own actions, with no regard to public opinion or scrutiny.
Even more unfortunate is that we have no effective means of challenge to the government.
THIS in itself is a huge issue. The leader of the opposition should have brought into question and challenged the scheme over its cost, effectivity, viability and general ethos of the project.
Moreover, if the opposition were in any way co-ordinated facts such as some of those brought forth in this thread would have been brought to public attention, with the attention it deserves and the challenge it deserves, this should never have made the initial trial phases.
This government has in effect destroyed the social, economic and democratic fabric of this country, helped in part by an ineffective leader of the opposition.
The only conclusive challenge to this farcical hoax of expenditure which will only serve as detriment to the very tax payers who are paying for it is on a wholesale rejection and challange.
The ball, on this one, is with the opposition. I would concur that if the unions felt strong enough on behalf of their members, they should seek to lobby the conservative party for representation and and remove support and affiliation to Labour. The very threat would be enough for a government back track.
The political shift of the unions from Labour to the conservatives for democratic representation would leave Labour financially bankrupt in less than 28 days and cause a shift of power in the Labour party that would, in effect, cease Labour governance through the power shift in equal time.
If the TUC were to announce the ending of Labour support and a political realignment with the conservatives for democratic representation over the ID card issue, the government would have no option but attempt to broker deals with the unions, if the unions stuck firm on their views and the representatives not bought off, this issue would be ended in less than a week and a minimum of 5.5 billion of taxpayers money would remain where it sits right now as well national security being enforced and civil liberties not futher eroded.
So the question is, how strongly will the unions represent their members?
(see previous post listing NEC members)
As a side note...
"Smith slammed for extremist failing" - A great show of National Security !
Therefore, we have every right to discuss this openly.
In reference to government spooks, there is little to worry about on that front. From my contact base, it can be determined that the law enforcement agencies are also very wary about this issue.
1. The government has continually established that it cannot manage secure data that is confidential, even restricted data of national security.
There is not much more to be said here.
2. The ID card scheme, although government, is to be operated by private corporation, of which it is public knowledge that the key proponent of the ID scheme in Westminster, is a major shareholder of.
From the law enforcement side of things, the identities and personal data of those who work in law enforcement, those who work in covert operations, those in military departments will also have their data, personal and biometric included on the database.
Leaving aside the whole issue of the continual insecurity of government secure data, a key problem here is that the data is managed and controlled by private enterprise. and that removes the control of law enforcement over that data. Furthermore, as we have seen with government projects to privatize, these have invariably involved the purchase of private companies operating public projects to overseas companies.
In other words, who is to say that 2 years down the road, the private company operating the scheme is purchased by a foreign company, there is nothing to preclude a purchase of the company by a foreign government owned company.
Now, this is where it really does cause concern in national security. the company managing our data could well be, in the near future, owned by a foreign government.
The UK energy industry is predominantly owned and as such therefore controlled by foreign companies with government stakes, so is it not a potential problem that a private company managing the personal and biometric data of every person with "leave to remain" in the UK could fall into foreign government control.
3. Dealing with threats to national security is, for law enforcement, like looking for needle in a haystack. The more hay that is piled on the haystack, the longer and less effective the work becomes. In short, with huge amounts of data to process looking for the proverbial "needle" leaves law enforcement "behind the power curve".
The way threats to national security have been dealt with in the past has proven effective. That is intelligence, counter-intelligence and covert ops. This is not re-inventing the wheel, these methods have derived from what has proven effective and what has not.
Ploughing though data to uncover a profile that could potentially meet a profile does not resolve anything. the profile is determined by field work in terms of intelligence, counter-intelligence and covert operations. So wasting time, energy and resources looking for a possible "possible" detracts from the agencies work in what has proven effective.
So in terms of the security and law enforcement agencies, the whole issue of the ID card scheme becomes not only moot, but counter effective in terms of security.
This of course then detracts back to my previous post 1 and 2 on the subject.
Not that I wish to rehash my previous two points, but this is where the validity of the situation arises.
So, we can determine that the ID card scheme will have either no effect or detrimental effect in terms of security and immigration for this country, yet this is what is being sold to the populace and the house as the reasoning for it.
However, the cost of the scheme has been pegged by the Labour party, over the next 10 years as 5.5 billion of your UK taxpayer pounds. We are all too familiar with project cost over-runs under new Labour, the cost could well likely stretch over-all close to the 10 billion mark.
Even at 5 billion for the project, that is an amount of half a billion a year of tax-payers money to fund a scheme that is not viable under the terms of it's own premise.
Is this in itself value for money for the taxpayer?
So what is to be done ?
That is the million dollar question. Unfortunately, we have a government that will carry out it's own actions, with no regard to public opinion or scrutiny.
Even more unfortunate is that we have no effective means of challenge to the government.
THIS in itself is a huge issue. The leader of the opposition should have brought into question and challenged the scheme over its cost, effectivity, viability and general ethos of the project.
Moreover, if the opposition were in any way co-ordinated facts such as some of those brought forth in this thread would have been brought to public attention, with the attention it deserves and the challenge it deserves, this should never have made the initial trial phases.
This government has in effect destroyed the social, economic and democratic fabric of this country, helped in part by an ineffective leader of the opposition.
The only conclusive challenge to this farcical hoax of expenditure which will only serve as detriment to the very tax payers who are paying for it is on a wholesale rejection and challange.
The ball, on this one, is with the opposition. I would concur that if the unions felt strong enough on behalf of their members, they should seek to lobby the conservative party for representation and and remove support and affiliation to Labour. The very threat would be enough for a government back track.
The political shift of the unions from Labour to the conservatives for democratic representation would leave Labour financially bankrupt in less than 28 days and cause a shift of power in the Labour party that would, in effect, cease Labour governance through the power shift in equal time.
If the TUC were to announce the ending of Labour support and a political realignment with the conservatives for democratic representation over the ID card issue, the government would have no option but attempt to broker deals with the unions, if the unions stuck firm on their views and the representatives not bought off, this issue would be ended in less than a week and a minimum of 5.5 billion of taxpayers money would remain where it sits right now as well national security being enforced and civil liberties not futher eroded.
So the question is, how strongly will the unions represent their members?
(see previous post listing NEC members)
As a side note...
"Smith slammed for extremist failing" - A great show of National Security !
Last edited by Bruce Wayne; 11th Nov 2008 at 23:08. Reason: punctuation
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the question is, how strongly will the unions represent their members?
The closer this atrotious scheme gets, the less appears to being done. It's about bloody time that the supposed opposition to these cards stood up and, across the board, said NO!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Beds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRUCE.
As I have said before, I have met with the Home Office Officials responsible for implementing the NID system. Your post is spot on regarding everyone else's attitude to the system. Even they were not exactly enthusiastic in their discussions.
It is also correct that one of the biggest hurdles I and my colleagues fighting this are encountering is in the Union hierarchy.
As for the TU's realigning with the Tory's..Well your analysis of the outcome is spot on. However, we both know that this will never happen. A lot of senior TU officials are still fighting the battles of the 70's and 80's. I despair that they are lagging far behind in representing the members on Civil Liberty questions.
All I (We) can do is continue to fight and not let it disapear. An indication of the difficulties can be seen by looking at the Manchester thread. Nothing is being discussed on there....Sleepwalking or what....
I'll post any progress on here.....
As I have said before, I have met with the Home Office Officials responsible for implementing the NID system. Your post is spot on regarding everyone else's attitude to the system. Even they were not exactly enthusiastic in their discussions.
It is also correct that one of the biggest hurdles I and my colleagues fighting this are encountering is in the Union hierarchy.
As for the TU's realigning with the Tory's..Well your analysis of the outcome is spot on. However, we both know that this will never happen. A lot of senior TU officials are still fighting the battles of the 70's and 80's. I despair that they are lagging far behind in representing the members on Civil Liberty questions.
All I (We) can do is continue to fight and not let it disapear. An indication of the difficulties can be seen by looking at the Manchester thread. Nothing is being discussed on there....Sleepwalking or what....
I'll post any progress on here.....
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My full support to all of you directly involved in fighting this proposal.
The idea of ID cards is flawed in itself. Introduction by stealth to certain types of employee is disgraceful. If it is good enough for some it is good enough for all. Or, if it is not appropriate for some it is not appropriate for anyone.
ID cards will not reduce the threat of terrorism or benefit fraud or any of the other reasons that have been put forward as justification for their introduction. Fight them to the end. The nation is with you.
The idea of ID cards is flawed in itself. Introduction by stealth to certain types of employee is disgraceful. If it is good enough for some it is good enough for all. Or, if it is not appropriate for some it is not appropriate for anyone.
ID cards will not reduce the threat of terrorism or benefit fraud or any of the other reasons that have been put forward as justification for their introduction. Fight them to the end. The nation is with you.
I heard that one of the reasons for benefit fraud is that there are significantly more NI numbers in circulation than people entitled to have them. Millions I was lead to believe. So if they cannot even keep track of a few numbers.....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: A different hotel to the one crewing told me...
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
So the question is, how strongly will the unions represent their members?
If they are not doing, then maybe it's time for the members to represent their opinions to the unions.
So the question is, how strongly will the unions represent their members?
If they are not doing, then maybe it's time for the members to represent their opinions to the unions.
The only way to make the union leaders take notice is the threat to end their power. The only way to achieve that is by mass resignation of the membership (or at least the threat to do so should they sell us down the river).
But would we? I suspect not, apathy and a quiet moan in the crewroom/hangar/pub about the injustice of it all will prove a far easier route.
I hope to be proved wrong, but speaking to colleagues about it at work the level of indifference and ignorance of the implications of this piece of legislation is astonishing.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope to be proved wrong, but speaking to colleagues about it at work the level of indifference and ignorance of the implications of this piece of legislation is astonishing.
All that can be done is keep up the pressure...Hopefully the Media will at some stage take up the Civil Liberties issue big time and run a long campaign to inform. I don't hold any real hope of that happening but, stranger things etc...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Beds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have found that once you can engage with those who have no clue and explain the situation they soon come out against it. I find that those who have children are incensed when 'Contact point' is explained.
'they fingerprint all children these days so what's the problem?'
They refuse to become engaged in the debate and I find that completley annoying.
Privacy International published this paper:
On Campaigns of Opposition to ID Card Schemes
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-61882&als[theme]=National%20ID%20Cards&headline=On%20Campaigns%20of%20Opposi tion%20to%20ID%20Card%20Schemes
In the latter stages of the campaign the debate centres around complex issues of civil liberty amongst a small minority of concerned citizens. That is where we are at just now.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem therefore that the problematic issue in opposition to the ID card scheme is that, in effect, the representation of the populace is not representing them.
Primarily this is down to:
1. apathy of the populace. what is the reason for this apathy ? well it can be looked at from several different viewpoints, but in short there is a disengagement between the government and the electorate.
The electorate as we can see is not effectively represented, so there becomes an apathetic view of "well, what can i do about it!" or "it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the government will do it anyway!"
That is not democracy, that is existing under dictatorship.
So there it is. The nub of the issue. While there are members of the electorate that often quote "big brother is on it's way", what is failed to be realized is that it is already here.
2. The unions, as we see and has been evidenced, and their representatives have their own agendas to serve which is facilitated by the power base of its members and the financial authority they derive from member subscriptions. In effect, the unions are using their members to serve their own interests under the guise that they are serving their members and serve their members when it suits them.
There is no illusion that some of the larger and more renown unions are still fighting battles from as far back as 30 years ago, who's representation is still locked into the mindset of long gone issues.
Is this the representation that best suits its members ? will they start to fight civil liberties, democracy, freedom of movement, national security and so for members 30 years down the road ? the battle has already been lost.
3. MP's while we can see that there is staunch opposition to the ID card scheme, both in Labour and the opposition parties, what effective challenge has been made. Again, with such staunch opposition both inside and outside administrative government, such opposition if enforced, should have quite literally torn the government apart.
So again, where is the representation of the electorate?
Opposition within the House has been mooted due to brokering and intimidation. Intimidation not only comes down the physical threat, but also threat of loss of position, loss of authority.
Again, this reverts back to the point that opposition to a scheme that is not viable in its own terms, a huge waste of public funds in a non-viable project and the detrimental effect to loss of privacy and civil liberties, is lost by a government that brokers democracy for its own aims, which are divergent from that of the electorate.
4. Media interest. The media has not followed this up with anything of note. True there have been debates on television between presenters and government representatives, however, it must be remembered that presenters are not specialists or conversant in any specific subject. Issues raised and discussed have been put forward by researchers and passed though editorial.
Media, while considered independent is far from it. Editors have their own political views, or are directed towards specific leanings subject to the ownership of the organization. The BBC, while license fee funded is routinely brought into line by government with threats over TV licensing issues and as such has pro-government tendencies.
Again we revert to a government dictatorship, which governs freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to question government spending and non-viable schemes that affect the freedoms and civil liberties of the populace.
I note that both Call100 and Yarpy have active interest in fighting this scheme, however it would seem that the fight could be a lost cause when seeking representation through those with their own agendas or cannot afford to challenge government.
Indeed, this is why the scheme has been able to reach trial phase.
The article links posted have proved interesting. I note that the challenge to the scheme in Australia as well as other countries has caused political destruction.
Unfortunately, the British public has become attuned to government control, loss of civil liberties and huge levels of public spending waste , which reverts back to point 1 above.
The timing of this issue by government is in essence excellent. With a shrinking economy, rising unemployment, rising crime rates, uncertainty in the financial sectors, falling hose prices and so on the population, the media, opposition has it's hands full already and so, in government terms this "is a good time to bury bad news".
So the concerned minority is a minority because of the current social and economic climate.
What it seems it will take is a legal challenge. The problem with this is that it will take perhaps one person to mount a legal challenge and incur the costs of such, maybe even through to the EU courts. The staff subject to the trial scheme do not have this kind of monetary capability and the process would take years.
What would be interesting and probably needed is a public debate, not with presenters representing the populace, but by informed and knowledgeable persons questioning and debating the issues with the key government proponents of the scheme.
Indeed, most likely they will attempt to decline debate, however, those groups that have been campaigning should have suitable contact base within the media to bring the very question of debate forward. As such the lack of interest to public debate and question, should it occur, should be played for it's maximum mileage that the government will not enter into debate.
If this were to come pass, I would gladly join a debate board to bring the issues I have raised here to the forefront.
Furthermore, while not being an armchair activist. I am neither armchair nor an activist. This is a matter of principle and goes to the nub of this issue of democracy and the separation in the relationship between the authorities and the citizen.
The government is NOT the country, it is the administration of the country as elected by the majority. The government is in place to serve the views and the wishes of the electorate. The populace does not exist to serve government. This is what the government fails to realize.
On a personal note, over this and other similar issues, I am in the process of becoming a citizen of another country and relinquishing my UK nationality. Due to ancestry, I am eligible for citizenship in another state. My soon-to-be wife, an NHS Cardiologist, by ancestry is also eligible for citizenship elsewhere. She, through my incredulity, is aware of the full implications of this scheme and like myself feels strongly enough to renounce UK citizenship should this scheme be brought into full effect.
For myself, the advantages of foreign nationality also include taxation benefits. Foreign national are not subject to capital gains tax for example.
Now, I raise this point as it brings forth another matter relating to the ID card scheme.
EU nationals have freedom of travel and employment throughout the EU. so where does the ID card issue have effect on citizens of EU member states moving around, traveling to or working within the UK.
It would seem that those involved with thread have the intelligence to see the very issue here at once.
To serve the purpose that the very scheme is "marketed" to serve, the ID card scheme would have to be EU wide. That is every citizen of every EU member state be part of the scheme. Otherwise, the very point of the ID card scheme is moot.
The Irish have rejected their scheme, as they did for the Lisbon Treaty. Without every EU member state included, the whole issue can only be a failure of its very own terms.
This reverts back to the "alternative" or "hidden" agenda behind the scheme, which I set forth in my primary post on the subject.
What would be an interesting point for challenge is not only MP's and unions being lobbied, but an informed public debate with the government on this issue, a strong media attention, which a heated debate would likely initiate, Union members threatening to cancel subscriptions and all proponents stating formally that on initiation of this scheme each and every one opposed to it will relinquish their UK citizenship and seek asylum from political oppression in an alternative country.
Even if the total opposed in a country of 60 million came to 200,000 that amount of people seeking political asylum from the UK would damage this country on the international stage.
An appropriate story relating to this issue:
Vetting blunders label 12,000 innocent people as paedophiles, violent thugs and thieves | Mail Online
Primarily this is down to:
1. apathy of the populace. what is the reason for this apathy ? well it can be looked at from several different viewpoints, but in short there is a disengagement between the government and the electorate.
The electorate as we can see is not effectively represented, so there becomes an apathetic view of "well, what can i do about it!" or "it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the government will do it anyway!"
That is not democracy, that is existing under dictatorship.
So there it is. The nub of the issue. While there are members of the electorate that often quote "big brother is on it's way", what is failed to be realized is that it is already here.
2. The unions, as we see and has been evidenced, and their representatives have their own agendas to serve which is facilitated by the power base of its members and the financial authority they derive from member subscriptions. In effect, the unions are using their members to serve their own interests under the guise that they are serving their members and serve their members when it suits them.
There is no illusion that some of the larger and more renown unions are still fighting battles from as far back as 30 years ago, who's representation is still locked into the mindset of long gone issues.
Is this the representation that best suits its members ? will they start to fight civil liberties, democracy, freedom of movement, national security and so for members 30 years down the road ? the battle has already been lost.
3. MP's while we can see that there is staunch opposition to the ID card scheme, both in Labour and the opposition parties, what effective challenge has been made. Again, with such staunch opposition both inside and outside administrative government, such opposition if enforced, should have quite literally torn the government apart.
So again, where is the representation of the electorate?
Opposition within the House has been mooted due to brokering and intimidation. Intimidation not only comes down the physical threat, but also threat of loss of position, loss of authority.
Again, this reverts back to the point that opposition to a scheme that is not viable in its own terms, a huge waste of public funds in a non-viable project and the detrimental effect to loss of privacy and civil liberties, is lost by a government that brokers democracy for its own aims, which are divergent from that of the electorate.
4. Media interest. The media has not followed this up with anything of note. True there have been debates on television between presenters and government representatives, however, it must be remembered that presenters are not specialists or conversant in any specific subject. Issues raised and discussed have been put forward by researchers and passed though editorial.
Media, while considered independent is far from it. Editors have their own political views, or are directed towards specific leanings subject to the ownership of the organization. The BBC, while license fee funded is routinely brought into line by government with threats over TV licensing issues and as such has pro-government tendencies.
Again we revert to a government dictatorship, which governs freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to question government spending and non-viable schemes that affect the freedoms and civil liberties of the populace.
I note that both Call100 and Yarpy have active interest in fighting this scheme, however it would seem that the fight could be a lost cause when seeking representation through those with their own agendas or cannot afford to challenge government.
Indeed, this is why the scheme has been able to reach trial phase.
The article links posted have proved interesting. I note that the challenge to the scheme in Australia as well as other countries has caused political destruction.
Unfortunately, the British public has become attuned to government control, loss of civil liberties and huge levels of public spending waste , which reverts back to point 1 above.
The timing of this issue by government is in essence excellent. With a shrinking economy, rising unemployment, rising crime rates, uncertainty in the financial sectors, falling hose prices and so on the population, the media, opposition has it's hands full already and so, in government terms this "is a good time to bury bad news".
So the concerned minority is a minority because of the current social and economic climate.
What it seems it will take is a legal challenge. The problem with this is that it will take perhaps one person to mount a legal challenge and incur the costs of such, maybe even through to the EU courts. The staff subject to the trial scheme do not have this kind of monetary capability and the process would take years.
What would be interesting and probably needed is a public debate, not with presenters representing the populace, but by informed and knowledgeable persons questioning and debating the issues with the key government proponents of the scheme.
Indeed, most likely they will attempt to decline debate, however, those groups that have been campaigning should have suitable contact base within the media to bring the very question of debate forward. As such the lack of interest to public debate and question, should it occur, should be played for it's maximum mileage that the government will not enter into debate.
If this were to come pass, I would gladly join a debate board to bring the issues I have raised here to the forefront.
Furthermore, while not being an armchair activist. I am neither armchair nor an activist. This is a matter of principle and goes to the nub of this issue of democracy and the separation in the relationship between the authorities and the citizen.
The government is NOT the country, it is the administration of the country as elected by the majority. The government is in place to serve the views and the wishes of the electorate. The populace does not exist to serve government. This is what the government fails to realize.
On a personal note, over this and other similar issues, I am in the process of becoming a citizen of another country and relinquishing my UK nationality. Due to ancestry, I am eligible for citizenship in another state. My soon-to-be wife, an NHS Cardiologist, by ancestry is also eligible for citizenship elsewhere. She, through my incredulity, is aware of the full implications of this scheme and like myself feels strongly enough to renounce UK citizenship should this scheme be brought into full effect.
For myself, the advantages of foreign nationality also include taxation benefits. Foreign national are not subject to capital gains tax for example.
Now, I raise this point as it brings forth another matter relating to the ID card scheme.
EU nationals have freedom of travel and employment throughout the EU. so where does the ID card issue have effect on citizens of EU member states moving around, traveling to or working within the UK.
It would seem that those involved with thread have the intelligence to see the very issue here at once.
To serve the purpose that the very scheme is "marketed" to serve, the ID card scheme would have to be EU wide. That is every citizen of every EU member state be part of the scheme. Otherwise, the very point of the ID card scheme is moot.
The Irish have rejected their scheme, as they did for the Lisbon Treaty. Without every EU member state included, the whole issue can only be a failure of its very own terms.
This reverts back to the "alternative" or "hidden" agenda behind the scheme, which I set forth in my primary post on the subject.
What would be an interesting point for challenge is not only MP's and unions being lobbied, but an informed public debate with the government on this issue, a strong media attention, which a heated debate would likely initiate, Union members threatening to cancel subscriptions and all proponents stating formally that on initiation of this scheme each and every one opposed to it will relinquish their UK citizenship and seek asylum from political oppression in an alternative country.
Even if the total opposed in a country of 60 million came to 200,000 that amount of people seeking political asylum from the UK would damage this country on the international stage.
An appropriate story relating to this issue:
Vetting blunders label 12,000 innocent people as paedophiles, violent thugs and thieves | Mail Online
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have further meetings with senior TU officials lined up. If the representatives at national level don't come to the party I will be making life very uncomfortable for them and their masters.
I don't feel the fight is over. (It won't be until I'm in court and found guilty of whatever...). However, so far dogged determination is at least getting me to some areas of influence that I would not have had usually.
Bruce...;You are lucky to be able to escape...I personally have to stick it out because my better half wants to stay here. Given the option I would move away from the UK tomorrow. I don't know which annoys me most..The Government attitude or the Apathy of the people.
I don't feel the fight is over. (It won't be until I'm in court and found guilty of whatever...). However, so far dogged determination is at least getting me to some areas of influence that I would not have had usually.
Bruce...;You are lucky to be able to escape...I personally have to stick it out because my better half wants to stay here. Given the option I would move away from the UK tomorrow. I don't know which annoys me most..The Government attitude or the Apathy of the people.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce, call100 totally agree, sadly the siuation is moving towards what has been described....and some might feel that more direct action will become necessary? (not that I am encouraging this) Hence my comment about the 'spooks' being involved in monitoring 'insurrection' in the ranks.......(through the monitoring of ALL e-mail, the websites we ALL visit and all Mobile/text calls, this can be done now days by virtually any official on your local council)....we are already in the situation of a dictatorship, the ID card (and associated data base) will just tie it together for these awful people.
Last edited by spannersatKL; 13th Nov 2008 at 16:10.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 3433N 06912E
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call100, I do not normally extend such offers, as my time is rather limited, however, I would be happy to work in conjunction with other parties to produce a white paper on the subject.
Of course this has not been done, nor commissioned by anyone as yet. I have contact with a couple of shadow ministers that would likely have interest in such a document.
If this would prove interest please feel free to contact me by PM and we can exchange contact details.
It is interesting in respect of apathy towards the scheme, I would suggest a cursory look at the thread listing on this sit alone. this thread has garnered, to date, something just shy of 10,000 views, whereas debate and speculation over the Spain incident at Madrid has garnered some 661,000 views. The Ryanair bird-strike has garnered some 114,000 views.
In respect of being lucky to escape, I have lived on some three continents and about 5 countries. Aviation is a global business and as such it affords the ability to be based practically anywhere. Not so much as escaping but washing my hands of a country that allows itself to be administered by a government such as ours. True, no country is perfect however.
spannersatKL, FYI, your security and data is down to you to manage. my network is as secure as is possible, having been involved with network security issues that have involved Microsoft Research and Development, this is no small claim. There are certain back-doors written into operating systems that allow access to your computer for national security. Though you can limit what is available and what is not.
My network is 1024 bit encrypted as is everything outbound on my Internet connection. I also route through anonymous servers when i chose to and my hard drives are also encrypted. Paranoid? no just secure. You also need to learn about ports, and use a decent firewall and set it up properly. I have 4 firewalls between each of computers and the outside world, 2 software 2 hardware.
Again this is not paranoia, but security. when you understand how identity fraud is perpetrated, it is very easy to shut off as many possible areas of attack that can occur.
This of course leads back to my previous post on the issues of security of the ID scheme and the vulnerability of data.
Please do not take this as condescending, it is not directed at anyone in particular, but a general statement; Would you leave your car in a high crime area overnight, unlocked, no alarm and a laptop on the seat in full view. No? A laptop would cost what a couple of hundred pounds to replace. what would the loss of your identity data, personal and biometric data cost you?
It astounds me that so many people have sensitive data on their computers and yet are naive about security. Safe in the knowledge that something like Norton or McAffee antivrus will protect them.
This is not unlike the the government with a short sighted view over security. The people managing this scheme have no conception of how easy and how vulnerable it is and the potential damage that can occur short term and long term.
As I said before, Identity theft has been around for centuries, the reason for the quantity of routine occurrences today is that more and more personal data about individuals is held on computer, the more data, the easier it is access and the easier it is to use.
Of course this has not been done, nor commissioned by anyone as yet. I have contact with a couple of shadow ministers that would likely have interest in such a document.
If this would prove interest please feel free to contact me by PM and we can exchange contact details.
It is interesting in respect of apathy towards the scheme, I would suggest a cursory look at the thread listing on this sit alone. this thread has garnered, to date, something just shy of 10,000 views, whereas debate and speculation over the Spain incident at Madrid has garnered some 661,000 views. The Ryanair bird-strike has garnered some 114,000 views.
In respect of being lucky to escape, I have lived on some three continents and about 5 countries. Aviation is a global business and as such it affords the ability to be based practically anywhere. Not so much as escaping but washing my hands of a country that allows itself to be administered by a government such as ours. True, no country is perfect however.
spannersatKL, FYI, your security and data is down to you to manage. my network is as secure as is possible, having been involved with network security issues that have involved Microsoft Research and Development, this is no small claim. There are certain back-doors written into operating systems that allow access to your computer for national security. Though you can limit what is available and what is not.
My network is 1024 bit encrypted as is everything outbound on my Internet connection. I also route through anonymous servers when i chose to and my hard drives are also encrypted. Paranoid? no just secure. You also need to learn about ports, and use a decent firewall and set it up properly. I have 4 firewalls between each of computers and the outside world, 2 software 2 hardware.
Again this is not paranoia, but security. when you understand how identity fraud is perpetrated, it is very easy to shut off as many possible areas of attack that can occur.
This of course leads back to my previous post on the issues of security of the ID scheme and the vulnerability of data.
Please do not take this as condescending, it is not directed at anyone in particular, but a general statement; Would you leave your car in a high crime area overnight, unlocked, no alarm and a laptop on the seat in full view. No? A laptop would cost what a couple of hundred pounds to replace. what would the loss of your identity data, personal and biometric data cost you?
It astounds me that so many people have sensitive data on their computers and yet are naive about security. Safe in the knowledge that something like Norton or McAffee antivrus will protect them.
This is not unlike the the government with a short sighted view over security. The people managing this scheme have no conception of how easy and how vulnerable it is and the potential damage that can occur short term and long term.
As I said before, Identity theft has been around for centuries, the reason for the quantity of routine occurrences today is that more and more personal data about individuals is held on computer, the more data, the easier it is access and the easier it is to use.