Snakebite

For start you already are paying for someone elses crimes in the region of 20 billion a year due to tax & benefit fraud comitted by organised crime. If you read my previous posts if ID cards become compulsory then there will be no fee to get an ID card as stated on the Identity Cards Bill that is being passed through parliament. The 15-20 billion required initially for ID cards is a one off bill and will not be spent each year. Unlike the annual costs incurred by organised crime of which will be drastically reduced if ID cards are made compulsory. While ID cards are still voluntary a fee will be incurred but it will be a lot less than the cost of a passport. The only compulsory thing for the moment is that when you renew or get a passport you will be issued with an ID card at the same time, you wont be able to get a passport without getting an ID card as well. If it stays voluntary I can still see it being a requirement to have one to get credit as financial institutions will eventually insist on using it to prove identity mainly on the basis it will give them access to all of your previous addresses or deedpoll name changes for credit checking purposes.

What I mean of course is the reduction of benefit fraud & identity theft If you can think of a better way to combat it, please give us your comments for discussion

The identity cards Bill that is being passed through Parliament can be found at the following Website address: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/009/2006009.htm There is also a government website dedicated to explaining all about ID cards http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/identitycards/index.html It will be issued at the sametime as your Passport and will be integral to using your passport for getting in the US for instance. Initially the ID card will be issued as people renew or apply for a passport, however it is intended to make the card compulsory and after what happened in London on thursday I think this will happen sooner rather than later. Once it becomes compulsary a fine of upto 2500 will be imposed on those that refuse to get an ID card. With regards to cost to the individual an amendment to the bill has been made that states: "Clause 37, page 31, line 39, at end insert 'but no fee shall be imposed for a card issued in consequence of an order by the Secretary of State for compulsory registration.'." The 15-20 billion cost to setup the ID card scheme initially is the same as cost incurred by organised crime to the UK tax payer every year. Introducing ID cards will erradicate most of this annual burden incurred by organised crime. The European Union has also started the process of issuing biometric passports, so eventually you will need to give up your biometric information to travel around europe. Therefore all UK passports will have biometric information on it anyway in order to comply with european requirements.

Well I think you need to ask the British people who they want to be in government. Unless we suddenly all become racist overnight, I dont think party's like the BNP will ever be in power. The UK is multicultural society and it will always be that way. Im not assuming that the government departments like the police & MI5 will not use the data stored, Of course they will. Hopefully it will be used correctly to make the UK a better place with less crime since it will be harder to get away with it. The main crime it should be able to deter is fraud since the card on it's own will not be enough for it to be used to prove identity. You will still need to provide one of your biometric details i.e. fingerprint when applying for credit which will then be cross checked against the card & the secure database which should also be able to provide a cross check of your photo that is on the database against you and the card. Therefore copying the card will not be enough without the person the card belongs to, since you wont be able to change the information held on the database. The data on the card will be highly encrypted (using the public/private key approach which is very hard to crack) and if the database is setup right this information and the biometric information given (which should also be encrypted by the machine that reads it) would be sent to the database direct. The database itself will then decrypt the information in a secure environment and then interrogate the database to confirm your identity. Then the relevant information that is needed i.e. Photo, address, age etc will then be shown so that it can be cross checked to prove that the person is who they say they are and that the details match what is printed on the ID card. The only people that will have direct access to the database will be authorised government departments. Financial institutions may have direct access to certain parts relevant to credit checking & proving ID, but this will be strictly controlled. Everyone else i.e. employers will only have indirect access via a government department i.e. Tax office or police (if working with children for example) to prove your ID. For ID cards to work correctly it has to be compulsary. If the scheme was voluntary it wont work. Credit card company's at the moment are trialing fingerprint technology to replace the PIN number used with their cards, which I can see being implemented with in the next couple of years irrespective of ID cards. Even the Chip & PIN at the moment is making it harder to commit fraud since even if you copy the card you cant use it without the PIN number, the same will apply with using biometric information whereby one cannot be used without the other.

Sorry did I miss something or did you not really have anything constructive to say Are you a member of the BNP by any chance? Is your KKK hood hanging up in your closet?

The ID card will be used for the following: Provide Proof of ID & age, It is intended that it will be used alongside your passport so that it doesn't need to have biometric information on it as well. Will probably replace the National insurance card as proof of entitlement to benefits from the state. Eventually it will be used to give access to Council Facilities i.e. Library, Access to Leisure etc. It will also probably be used to do credit checks by financial institutions. It may even be used eventually to replace the driving licence. This in turn will mean that the general public will carry only one form of ID for everything. Yes, it does mean that all of this information that the government already has stored about you will be compiled into a secure central database which will cost money to setup and the biometric hardware & software will cost money initially. The main reason for the costs is to ensure the information that is gathered is stored securely so it cannot be misused or hacked into. Once it is up and running the actual running costs overall for the different government departments (i.e. police, MI5, benefits office, passport office & dvla etc) will be less since they will be able to access information about you more efficiently since everything will be electronic and centrlaised in one location. The initial 15-20 billion spent on setting it up should then be recovered, so say after the next 15 years goverment departments will cost less to run saving the UK taxpayers money that can be spent on more important things like health & education. Even if ID cards are not brought in this secure central database of information will, if only to reduce government department overheads in the long term. Okay some people will say this is a breach of your civil liberites, but the government already has this information on you already. The only difference will be is that they will be able to tie it to a photograph (unless you already have a passport or photo driving licence of which they will have it already) & your biometric information. The other point about civil liberties is that people argue is that the state will know what bank acounts you have, any credit you have etc etc. If the police or MI5 wanted to they can get this information on you anyway using current less efficient methods. But if you are not commiting a crime why should it be a problem. The only people that should fear this are the ones that are breaking the law. Putting terrorism aside for one minute, on a national level it will be more difficult to commit fraud since you will need your ID card to get credit, people wont be able to run and hide to avoid paying debts since you wont be able to do anything with needing to use your ID card. This will in turn help reduce insurance premiums, and credit interest rates for the majority of people. With regards to the biometric information (i.e. fingerprints) being put to good use criminals wont be able to get away with their crimes since it will be able to be used to convict them. I'm not saying it will be cheap initially but over time it will make life easier and cheaper for the majority of people in the UK, irrespective of their ethnic background. The bureaucracy will over time will reduce since the different government departments will stop using several different systems (both paper & electronic) which is both time consuming and repetitive when transfering information between departments. Instead they will use one system for everything meaning the same information only has to entered once instead of several times therefore saving time and money which can then be better used elsewhere.

Smokers themselves are unfortunately drug addicts and I know that once they are hooked its hard to stop. Putting the ban in place will help people trying to stop by removing the temptation to smoke when they are out in public. Yes smokers need our help to stop and the NHS is doing what it can to help people by way of patches and other drugs like xyban which coincide with therapy sessions similar to Alcoholics anonymous. A ban will only help to assist this process.

They still dont work that well and are not 100% effective If you look in New York business has increased. As far as a 25-30% downturn in dublin thats incorrect. There has only been a 1.3% drop in turnover since the ban was put in place and its still relatively new so im sure business will pick up. Also I was in Dublin in May and the pubs were packed out. The difference with dublin though is that they have also introduced a compulsary price increase on alcohol that puts the price up after 11pm in an attempt to prevent people binge drinking for the whole evening which also affects turnover. Stopping it from being seen as the normal thing to do when your out in public will change how children interpret whats cool to do and whats not. Smoking is like fashion if everyone else is doing it then kids will want to do it too. Therefore if you ban it public then it looses its status as being cool in the eyes of our kids therefore the trend will change and our kids attitudes will change. We will never have a utopian society but just look at what AID's has done to the world, in the last 20-30 years everyone in the western world has been educated about what it will do to you (the third world is still in dire need of our help to educate them) and I think you yourself would do everything in your power to prevent yourself from ever getting it. Am I right?

Cultural Change required if only for our kids The whole idea that better ventilation will make pubs and clubs safer for Non Smokers is a pile of crap. Good Ventilation systems only partially remove the smoke and smell but dont remove the poisons found in second hand smoke so unless smokers are in their own sealed room that is separated from the rest of the pub/club then non smokers will still have to breathe in these poisons. If the licensing trade have any worrys look at the percentage of population that smoke which is about 27%, just think about the increase in trade if even half of the population that doesnt smoke decide to start going to the pub just because they are smoke free. You would find that at least half of all smokers will still go to the pub which in turn would result in an increase of trade. Some people will argue that by entering the pub/club it is your own fault for breathing in second hand smoke. Smoking is the only legal drug that will directly affect other peoples health around the user of which only the user chooses to use. The Non smokers with special attention to kids do not choose to smoke but are, at the same time expected to breathe in second hand smoke when in public whether it be waiting for a bus, a train (i.e the person standing next to kids having a cigarette just before they have to put it out before getting on the smoke free bus) or going into places of entertainment that havent already banned smoking. How do you tell a 6 year old kid that it's their fault for getting cancer when they are older from breathing in your second hand smoke that day. It's about time that something was done about making smoking socially unacceptable. Banning it in pubs/clubs is a start to change how people think. Hopefully this will show our children that it is not normal to smoke therefore preventing 13 year girls (who have been found to be the worst) and boys from starting smoking in the first place. If people actually sit down and look at the bigger picture the number of children that have started smoking over the last 50 years has grown exponentially. Since parents actions will always influence how a child interprets whats right and wrong. Smoking in front of them shows them that it is socially acceptable. Hopefully if we ban smoking in public this in turn will help people to stop smoking since if they cant do it in public it becomes unsociable. Therefore our kids will hopefully take heed and see that smoking is not the cool thing to do when your growing up. This change in culture wont happen overnight but if we can do what we can now, hopefully in 20-30 years children wont smoke, they will be healthier, live longer and have more productive lives. In the long run the only people that loose out are the the tabacco companies and if you look closly at every lobby group that is against this then you will probably find in 9 out of 10 cases that the tabacco companies are directly behind it, just like the woman that visited Moshulu Ross. The only downside about more and more western countries banning smoking is that in the third world smoking is going to be the next epidemic since the tabacco companies are tripling their efforts to sell cigarettes to the third world safe in the knowledge for the moment that people there are not clued up about the effects of smoking.They not legally bound by law in some third world countries to even have any health warnings about its effects. You never know but in 10-15 years time it could end up being an epidemic that is on a bigger scale than Aids. The only way to stop this from happening is for the rest of the world to take heed until even the manufacture & sale of tobacco products is banned world wide.

Pub Chains challenging minimum prices Read today that 2 pub chains have taken the licensing boards to court Quote from Fridays P & J "The legal challenge by two pub chains to Aberdeen Licensing Board's proposed imposition of minimum drinks prices in the city's bars is hardly unexpected and, if commonsense is applied, will probably succeed. The chains argue, quite reasonably, that fixing minimum drinks prices is beyond the remit of the licensing board, an argument which is difficult to rebut. There is, also, the irony that the very body which is trying to dictate how much people have to pay for their drinks is the same body which has, largely, created the environment in which the cheap drinks promotions and "happy hours" flourished. Shopkeepers, police and anyone unfortunate enough to live within a bottle's throw of Justice Mill Lane, around which much of these promotions take place, have long complained about the proliferation of pubs and clubs. Any shop, office or even church which became vacant was converted into a bar, nodded through by a licensing board seemingly unconcerned about the monster it was helping to create. Then, woken like Sleeping Beauty from its slumbers, the board resorted to panic measures to try to return the genie to the bottle while simultaneously keeping everyone else away from it. The words "stable door", "horse" and "bolted" spring to mind. " To be honest the Licencing board needs to taken down a peg or two from their high horse in order to see sense. By all means binge drinking it not good for one's health but i think they could have tackled it a bit differently since they have created the problem in the first place by allowing too many drinks licences, therefore too much competition which in a capitalist economy will always force cheap prices to stay in business. If this does happen irresepective of the court challenge I think it will put a certain amount of pubs out of business since everyone will get drunk before going out. The only people that will benefit out of this are the off licences It needs a huge cultcural change for people to stop binge drinking and I dont see it happening any time soon.