ID cards are coming!

[ellal]

.....The most optimistic claims for iris recognition systems are around 99 per cent accuracy - so for every 100 scans, there will be at least one false match.
This is acceptable for relatively small databases, but the one being proposed will have some 60 million records. This will mean that each person's scan will match 600,000 records in the database, making it impossible to stop someone claiming multiple identities.
Even if they already had one or more records in the database, these would be swamped by the hundreds of thousands of false matches....

Blimey is it that accurate ?

At the end of 2005 a new fingerprint scanner - designed to eliminate inaccuracies of 90% - was only fooled by around 10% of spoofed prints, from cadavers - and 'play dough' etc..
http://www.yubanet.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/8/28878

That's ok then ...

The biggest problem with the system is that it can't be a simple check that the biometric 'scanned' matches that on the NIR...The Biometric has to be cross checked with every one on the database (and that includes those of the deceased), so instead of a simple check of a number against the biometric, the system will have to perform millions of checks every time the IDiot card is used - otherwise the governments claims of illiminating 'multiple identities' doesn't hold water..

Now, even if there is only a 1% error rate (and nothing has been proved to be anywhere near that accurate), then you can start to see the amount of chaos this will cause!

Also, how many times have you known a banks ATM system to be down for errors or 'system maintenance?..and don't forget, there's nothing in it for those systems to be down, and it is a relatively simple one..

And after all, the only inconvenience is not being able to get your money - if the NIR goes down, it will basically f*** up most of what you need to do eventually!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Something so idiotic and patently untrue that one might as well try to reason with a brick.

 

[paulbrown]

Something so idiotic and patently untrue that one might as well try to reason with a brick.

You said.

The Home Office estimate that there are between 310,000 and 570,000 illegal immigrants in the UK.

Lets be generous with this guess and call it the lower figure of 310,000.
Lets be even more generous and assume they are all married even though we know most aren't.

So we will assume we have 155,000 married couples, who could stay until they retire.

Basic state pension, excluding any other benefits, is £131-20 per week for a couple.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3197943.stm
So £131.20X52 weeks is £6822-40 PA,per couple.

To be honest my calculator is now struggling with the size of the figures, but 6822-40X155000 comes out at 10574720.

Is there any allowance for these costs in your figures?

You will note this is only one cost, if as you say these people are low paid they will probably get pension credit which may well pay their rent. If they have any health problems they will get attendance allowance of at least circa £40 a week.

Sorry BAS, I agree with you regarding the dubious benefits of having ID cards, but unfortuately I can't say the same on your other points, certainly not on the figures as presented, anyway.

Where did your figures come from BAS?

 

[confidentincompetent]

Ironicly when they come which they will. Too much computer work has been promised to blairs cronies and too many ministers have a vested interest to get it going just like the 24 hr drinking, casino's, you might get asked for your id by a community officer who may well be an illegal immigrant. Thats the kind on confidence I have in this govt and there wunderful computerised systems.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You said.

The Home Office estimate that there are between 310,000 and 570,000 illegal immigrants in the UK.

Lets be generous with this guess and call it the lower figure of 310,000.
Lets be even more generous and assume they are all married even though we know most aren't.

So we will assume we have 155,000 married couples, who could stay until they retire.

They could, but you seem, in order to bolster your argument, to be ignoring the fact that a large number don't.

Basic state pension, excluding any other benefits, is £131-20 per week for a couple.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3197943.stm
So £131.20X52 weeks is £6822-40 PA,per couple.

To be honest my calculator is now struggling with the size of the figures, but 6822-40X155000 comes out at 10574720.

Is there any allowance for these costs in your figures?

Is there any allowance in your argument for the fact that Basic State Pension entitlement is dependent on the number of qualifying years people have earned over their working lives? Qualifying years are based on the NI contributions they have paid, been treated as having paid or been credited with.

So if someone hasn't worked here for 45-49 years (dependent on gender and DOB) then they won't be entitled to the full pension.

It seems to me though that if an immigrant has been working here for nigh on 50 years then he ought to be as entitled to a pension as anyone else.

You obviously don't - why is that, I wonder?

You will note this is only one cost, if as you say these people are low paid they will probably get pension credit which may well pay their rent. If they have any health problems they will get attendance allowance of at least circa £40 a week.

One of the reasons that many are so low paid is because, being illegal, they are easily exploited and can do nothing about it.

No illegal immigrant can possibly claim benefits, as that would flag their presence.

If someone is here legally, and working legally, the only basis on which to deny them equitable treatment is racism. Is that what you wish to claim for yourself?

Sorry BAS, I agree with you regarding the dubious benefits of having ID cards, but unfortuately I can't say the same on your other points, certainly not on the figures as presented, anyway.

No - of course not, because that would remove any logical justification you might try and put forward, leaving you with nothing but racism.

Where did your figures come from BAS?

Some from the Home Office. Some from the Spanish government. The rest from a recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

But back to the ID cards - if enough people just say NO, then the system will collapse.


Here, for those who've missed it so far, is what ID cards will mean to YOU.

YOU WILL:

ATTEND an appointment to be photographed, have your fingerprints taken and iris scanned, or be fined up to £2500. Additional fines of up to £2500 may be levied each time you fail to comply until you submit to these procedures.

PROMPTLY INFORM the police or Home Office if you lose your card or it becomes defective, or face a fine of up to £1000. If you find someone else's card and do not immediately hand it in, you may have committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or a fine, or both.

PROMPTLY INFORM the National Identity Register of any change of address or face a fine of up to £1000 (you will supply evidence of your previous addresses, not just your current address).

PROMPTLY INFORM the National Identity Register of significant changes to your personal life or any errors they have made or face a fine of up to £1000. You may also be obliged to submit to being re-interviewed, re-photographed, re-fingerprinted and re-scanned, or face a fine.

PAY between £30 and £93 (or more) to be registered, with further charges possible to change your details and to replace a lost or stolen card.

When ID cards were introduced in this country during World War II, they had three functions. By the time they were abolished in 1952 they had 39 administrative uses. So what won't you be able to do without an ID card, according to Government plans?

You'll be prevented from renting or selling a home.

You'll be prevented from staying in a hotel.

You'll be prevented from buying a car.

You'll be prevented from buying a mobile phone

You'll be prevented from opening or using a bank account.

You'll be prevented from travelling abroad.

You'll be prevented from registering with a doctor.

You'll be prevented from getting an education.

You'll be prevented from getting work.

You'll be prevented from running a business.

JUST SAY NO.

 

[Dellsmp]

Well said Ban.

 

[paulbrown]

Emotiive post BAS.

Where did I mention anything racist? I have only asked where the figures came from so I could read them myself. I don't believe these figures, only the naive would believe they are true. They are pure propoganda.

How can these people be paying the most tax whilst earning the least money?

How do they afford living accomodation in London?

How can the home office have any idea how many illegal people are working here?

Deporting them would cost £4.7 billion, and leave acute shortages of cleaners, care workers and hotel staff.

You are condoning the employment of illegal people and should instead report their employers to the relevant authorities. Businesses using these people must be cooking the books to pay these people and are probably avoiding tax too.

Accusing me of racism, when there was none, is not an answer, only a cop out.

If the country is to engage in honest and truthful debate on these issues we need to include every cost. Cherrypicking is not a very scientific evaluation.

Kinnock being involved in that outfit says it all really.

 

[ellal]

The real truth about ID cards

Bear in mind that in keeping with the governments inability to deliver a decent IT service, the file may be a bit slow to load...

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Emotiive post BAS.

Where did I mention anything racist?

You didn't - but I wondered what other motive you could have for wanting to deny immigrants legally living and working and paying taxes here the same benefits as those born here.

If you have another reason, please tell us what it is.

I have only asked where the figures came from so I could read them myself. I don't believe these figures, only the naive would believe they are true. They are pure propoganda.

Fine. The issue was the regularisation of illegal immigrants. If you wish to regard official government figures as lying propaganda because they destroy the case you believe you have made for not allowing them to become legal then I'm sure we can all decide what your only motivation can be.

How can these people be paying the most tax whilst earning the least money?

That's the figures for all immigrants, not just the low paid ones. Once you get above £400pw gross income from main job, you find higher percentages of immigrants earning that amount than UK born.

How do they afford living accomodation in London?

By having lower standards? I don't know, but clearly they do, or they wouldn't be there working in jobs, many of which involve unsociable hours...

How can the home office have any idea how many illegal people are working here?

It's obviously not easy, and can only be an estimate with a range, but you can read about it here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr2905.pdf

Deporting them would cost £4.7 billion, and leave acute shortages of cleaners, care workers and hotel staff.

You are condoning the employment of illegal people and should instead report their employers to the relevant authorities. Businesses using these people must be cooking the books to pay these people and are probably avoiding tax too.

I'm not condoning it. Being aware of the reality of what it would cost to deport them, and what effect that would have in certain service sectors is not the same as condoning.

Accusing me of racism, when there was none, is not an answer, only a cop out.

As I said above - if you have a reason other than racism for discriminating against immigrants in order to provide them with lower levels of healthcare, pensions etc, then please say what it is.

If the country is to engage in honest and truthful debate on these issues we need to include every cost. Cherrypicking is not a very scientific evaluation.

But it's OK for you to look at government statistics, and detailed studies and simply say "I don't believe these figures", is it?

Kinnock being involved in that outfit says it all really.

What do you mean by that?

 

[paulbrown]

BAS wrote,

You didn't - but I wondered what other motive you could have for wanting to deny immigrants legally living and working and paying taxes here the same benefits as those born here.

You should stop wondering and stick to facts. I didn't have any motive I passed a comment about mathmatics.

If you have another reason, please tell us what it is.

The countries infastructure is struggling to cope, much as you don't accept this, it is the true. We are an overcrowded island and the pressure created by extra people, of any colour, is making matters worse.

Fine. The issue was the regularisation of illegal immigrants. If you wish to regard official government figures as lying propaganda because they destroy the case you believe you have made for not allowing them to become legal then I'm sure we can all decide what your only motivation can be.

I didn't try to make a case about making people legal or otherwise. I don't believe those figures because they are selective.

The calculation for the native population would include all levels of pay to reach an average. Whereas in your own words many foreigners (be they legal or otherwise) are working at the lower end of the market. Therefore the higher average figure is suspect because it doesn't include many of their low paid, it would lower their average if it did.

I'm not condoning it. Being aware of the reality of what it would cost to deport them, and what effect that would have in certain service sectors is not the same as condoning.

Accepting the status quo is sending out the wrong signals. If they knew they were going to be sent back they may not come in the first place.

As I said above - if you have a reason other than racism for discriminating against immigrants in order to provide them with lower levels of healthcare, pensions etc, then please say what it is.

No, as I said above - I only mentioned the maths.

Here is where you comments came from.

31 March 2006

Allowing almost half a million people who are currently living illegally in the UK to stay in Britain and pay taxes would allow the Treasury to abolish the starting rate of stamp duty or increase the Child Tax Credit by £150, according to new research from the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr), published today. The process could be combined with the issuing of ID cards to foreign nationals in 2008.

The report says that effective immigration controls, including deportation procedures, are crucial to a well managed migration system. But it argues that deporting hundreds of thousands of irregular migrants, particularly those who have been in the UK for many years, is simply not feasible or desirable. The report calculates that the forced deportation of all irregular migrants could cost the tax payer around £4.7billion, while regularising work status could net the Treasury around £1billion a year.

The report says irregular migrants:

come to the UK for similar reasons to regular migrants, often pursuing higher wages
are more likely to overstay their visa than enter illegally
work in relatively low pay paid sectors, like cleaning, care work, hospitality and food production.

They support ID cards and they accept that a well managed system including deportation is crucial but unfeasable(for undisclosed reasons). Yet you missed these bits and just picked the parts you wanted instead.

Kinnock being involved in that outfit says it all really.

What do you mean by that?

He ignored corruption in the EU, sacked the whistleblower, got every member of his family a job and is also on the board of the outfit that wrote this garbage too.

 

[Slogger]

Something so idiotic and patently untrue that one might as well try to reason with a brick.

all i wrote is true and u well know it

shame on u for hiding behind a veil of personal insults cant you get off the high horse sometimes


kick them out asap and save a fortune on the NHS

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You should stop wondering and stick to facts. I didn't have any motive I passed a comment about mathmatics.

You introduced a completely bogus "mathematical" reason that we couldn't possibly allow the illegal immigrants to stay because we couldn't afford the pensions, ignoring the real mathematics of how entitlement to a pension works.

Why was this?

The countries infastructure is struggling to cope, much as you don't accept this, it is the true. We are an overcrowded island and the pressure created by extra people, of any colour, is making matters worse.

1) The population of the UK is about 60 million. Please elaborate on which parts of the infrastructure would be unduly stressed by an additional 0.5 - 1% of people who are already here being given official status?
2) We have a lower population density than The Netherlands or Belgium, and about the same as Germany.
3) Your statement "the pressure created by extra people, of any colour" seems to be an argument against any immigration at all. In which case would you like to explain how the NHS would cope without the approx 29% of doctors who are foreign-born, or without over 40% of the nurses who have been recruited since 1999.

I didn't try to make a case about making people legal or otherwise. I don't believe those figures because they are selective.

But you are attacking the case for making them legal that I posted.

The calculation for the native population would include all levels of pay to reach an average. Whereas in your own words many foreigners (be they legal or otherwise) are working at the lower end of the market. Therefore the higher average figure is suspect because it doesn't include many of their low paid, it would lower their average if it did.

Go and take it up with the Home Office, The Treasury and the Office for National Statistics then. I'm sure you'll be able to convince them that they are wrong.

I'm not condoning it. Being aware of the reality of what it would cost to deport them, and what effect that would have in certain service sectors is not the same as condoning.

Accepting the status quo is sending out the wrong signals. If they knew they were going to be sent back they may not come in the first place.

When they came they knew full well that if caught they would at least be the subject of attempts to send them back.

And how ever much you want a situation to be true, and whatever measures you would like to adopt to make it true, deciding policy on the basis that it is actually true, ignoring the fact that it is not is the act of a fool.

As I said above - if you have a reason other than racism for discriminating against immigrants in order to provide them with lower levels of healthcare, pensions etc, then please say what it is.

No, as I said above - I only mentioned the maths.

OK - I apologise.

They support ID cards and they accept that a well managed system including deportation is crucial but unfeasable(for undisclosed reasons). Yet you missed these bits and just picked the parts you wanted instead.

Their support for ID cards is misguided,

As for picking the bits I wanted, please go back and look at what point I was trying to make. It was not about the wider debate on immigration, it was purely a response to the suggestion that we should expel all illegal immigrants, so those parts were the only relevant ones.

He ignored corruption in the EU, sacked the whistleblower, got every member of his family a job and is also on the board of the outfit that wrote this garbage too.

He's useless. I don't think he "got every member of his family a job" - his wife was elected as an MEP, and I don't think his son works/worked for the EU?

And as for being on the board - that doesn't mean he writes the reports.

And interesting that because it doesn't agree with your ideas you call the reports garbage.

 

[dg123]

How does the issue of ID cards affect those who do not hold a UK passport? The only mention I have heard of getting an ID card is when someone renews or applies for a passport.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Something so idiotic and patently untrue that one might as well try to reason with a brick.

all i wrote is true and u well know it

shame on u for hiding behind a veil of personal insults cant you get off the high horse sometimes

This is what you wrote:

returning illegal fugees would not cost as much as you say BAS

we can do send them back the way they came here in the back of trucks through the tunnel then kick them out in france for a fraction of the cost you said

No, we can't.

You might wish that we could, but your wishing does not change the fact that the laws and procedures we have mean that we can't do that.

You might wish that we didn't have those laws and procedures, but your wishing does not change the fact that we do have them.

So saying that we can do that is untrue.

as for taxes

there are very few fugees paying tax but loads taking out hard earned tax in the form of handouts and health benfits

Completely false - go and look at the government statistics.

kick them out asap and save a fortune on the NHS

Shall we also kick out 29% of the NHS' doctors and 40% of its nurses?