Please state the likelihood that you've assumed within your use of the word "probably".
If you have kept up with developments, it is now intended that there will be two levels of ID 'verification'..one for lower amounts via a type of 'chip & pin', and one for higher amounts or services, via biometrics checking. Therefore, in the same way that retailers had to install 'Chip & pin' in oreder to avoid being liable for fraud, then it is the same with ID verification, for which they are to be charged a fee..so therefore it is probable that the system will be widespread, and no doubt if I'd have said 'definately', then you'd have moaned about that..
Forced? Really? I don't agree that the systems that you say are being proposed are tantamount to the use of force.
In the same way that you won't be forced to use public services?..How voluntary is that?. Can you buy anything with a card without your pin in a shop now (apart from a very few exceptions)? - of course you don't have to buy anything do you!
With money there is a way around it - cash. Although you would at some point have to use a card. With ID verification there will be no alternative, so 'forced' is a correct description, not the government spin..
Even the minister in charge now says people will be 'required to show their ID many times a day, day in day out, to verify who they are'!
But would I be bothered about a system that requires me to divulge personal details in order to complete a transaction? Frankly? No.
But are you happy that
every time you produce those details via ID, it is recorded, who asked for verification, when, and 'any other details of the request'..?
But I'm content to live in a world where things bother some people and not others, without feeling that I have to I have to change their opinion to match mine.
In an ideal world...however, although you can choose to think one way or another, in practical terms that choice is very limited..
I prefer, since you ask me for my preference, for them to be called by their usual name, i.e. "laws". Whether or not their intent and deployment are authitarian is a matter of opinion, and my underlying point was that you're subliminally sneaking your opinion into the description and not presenting it as something for debate. And your style is verging towards the crazed, strident and spitting university student union committee member with a heavy socialist bias - not the best way to bring people round to your way of thinking.
I certainly don't fit your bizarre description, but from that little irrelevant rant, I think the words pot, kettle and black come to mind..subliminally of course!
I'm starting to lose where you're going with this. Who do you think "does the running" of the politics these days?
There is a difference between 'how' and 'who'..you have asked the later, whereas I have stated the method. Laws are promoted nowadays playing on people's fears far more so than ever before. This is because it's an easier way of getting bills through that would have far less chance if the real reasons were told..In the case of IDiot cards, we were told that they were the panacea for anything from terrorism to fraud to illegal immigration, and yet all of these arguments have been debunked, sometimes by the government themselves. It is only since the bill has passed that some of the real details have emerged (and most of those details are ones that were warned about, specifically because they were not ruled out )..
I think that you underestimate the world-beating laziness of the British people. If there was an Olympic event in the sport of apathy, we'd all be 9th Dan black belts and would trounce all other nations. If we could be bothered to attend.
Well I won't disagree with that..give an already apathetic electorate a bit of spin, and not many care...unless of course it affects their main concern - making money!
