Longrider

Shane Richmond talks about his objection to ID cards:

I’m against ID cards for two reasons, one practical and one philosophical. The former is that I don’t trust this, or any, Government with my personal data. Experience shows that the Government is terrible at assigning big IT contracts. Invariably what is delivered is late, over-budget and doesn’t work.

That’s a fair assessment of the incompetence of government’s IT projects. Passport fiasco, anyone? What about the NHS database? And, of course, let us not forget their penchant for sending all that information willy-nilly on CDs through the post. Quite apart from their inability to specify, design and build a competent and secure system, we have their utter inability to handle that data they already have with any degree of proficiency. So, like Shane, I wouldn’t let this bunch of amateurish control freaks anywhere near my private details.

The philosophical reason for opposing ID cards is one of the principles of a free society: I should not have to prove who I am simply to go about my daily business.

This, for me, sums up the whole argument. I know who I am. If I think you need to know who I am, I’ll tell you – and I will provide you with just enough information for us to do business and no more. What information I share will vary according to whom I am sharing it with and the nature of the business transaction. Of the fifty pieces of information required by the Identity Cards Act 2006, the only ones that government has any regular need for will be name, address and NI number – they already have this information as I am a taxpayer. When dealing with the NHS, I share somewhat different and more personal information with my GP and the hospital consultant – there is no need for anyone else to have access to this information and there is no need for it to find its way onto a supra database. I have made it clear that I am not prepared to be included on the NHS spine. A position supported by my GP, who, incidentally, expressed exactly the same concerns about the spine as privacy campaigners.

If I’m dealing with an online store, it is in the interests of both parties that I prove my identity. I want my goods delivered to me and not to an imposter, while the store wants to ensure that the person buying from them is going to pay.

Actually, that is not, strictly speaking, true. If you walk into a store, pick something off the shelf and pay cash, there is no need for the store to know who you are. They know all they need to know about you; that you have the wherewithall to pay for the goods. That is sufficient for the transaction. I do not expect to go though life proving to complete strangers who I am. Who I am is none of their damned business – and for much of my existence, it is none of the government’s damned business either. I do my utmost to minimise my exposure to government departments. I pay my taxes and otherwise avoid them as best I can.

But the Government wants to use the ID card as a law enforcement measure and that’s not acceptable.

If the police decide to stop my while I’m walking down the street, they should have a good reason for doing so (though it’s debatable whether this is actually the case). Having stopped me, it is their responsibility to find some evidence that I’m doing something I shouldn’t be doing. It is not up to me to prove who I am.

Oh, absolutely. If anyone thinks that scenes from the Last Enemy are fanciful, then a little history lesson is in order. PC Muckle did in 1950 exactly what is being portrayed in the Last Enemy. If identity cards start being issued, the police will start to ask for them; it’s human nature. And, like Shane and Clarence Wilcock half a century ago, I deeply resent anyone demanding that I prove to them who I am and, stopping me to do so. I will resist. I will not register for a card. I will not allow this government to take from me that which is not theirs to take.

The Pope can always be relied upon to raise a smile. He is bringing the seven deadly sins up to date.

Drug pushers, the obscenely rich, environmental polluters and “manipulative” genetic scientists beware – you may be in danger of losing your mortal soul unless you repent.

After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalisation. The list, published yesterday in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “securalised world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.

Oh, dear… Looks suspiciously like blatant bandwagon jumping from here. Trashing the environment may be designed to appeal, but has the uncanny effect of making the Church look even more out of touch and irrelevant than it already is; much like a middle aged man trying to get on down with the yoof. It just makes them look silly.

It holds mortal sins to be “grave violations of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes”, including murder, contraception, abortion, perjury, adultery and lust.

We don’t need the church to tell us that murder and perjury are wrong – we can figure that one out for ourselves, and the Church’s insistence on condemning contraception ensures that it is out of step with modern society. As with abortion, it is a matter of individual conscience – it is not for others to decide for us. The same goes for adultery and lust – if you play the game, then you must be prepared to pay the price.

The Pope also complained that an increasing number of people in the secularised West were “making do without God”.

That’s no bad thing. After all, we have seen for ourselves what the Catholic Church does when it has power – and it isn’t pleasant. Besides, plenty of us have grown out of fairy stories told by old men in daft frocks who talk to the sky and expect a response. I can easily make do without that which has no evidence to support its existence. Of course, if a god came down from the Heavens and said “here I am, chaps” and waved the odd thunderbolt about, I’d change my mind, but not before. I don’t need to believe in gods and I certainly don’t need the church – Catholic or protestant.

He said that hedonism and consumerism had even invaded “the bosom of the Church itself, deeply undermining the Christian faith from within, and undermining the lifestyle and daily behaviour of believers”.

Nothing wrong with a bit of hedonism, I’m partial to a spot of pleasure myself.

The original offences and their punishments
Pride Broken on the wheel
Envy Put in freezing water
Gluttony Forced to eat rats, toads, and snakes
Lust Smothered in fire and brimstone
Anger Dismembered alive
Greed Put in cauldrons of boiling oil
Sloth Thrown in snake pits

Ain’t religion a wonderful, caring thing?