Slashdot Mirror
Card Makers Say UK Citizens Want Biometric ID Cards
ArsonPanda writes "ZDnet is running a story on a recent survey in the UK showing overwhelming 80% public support of universal, biometricly enhanced citizen ID cards. Everybody here's fine with supplying the gubmit w/ your retinal scans and fingerprints, right?"
I'm guessing this study was funded by the company who will produce these cards and anyone supporting their fascist ideas. screw that.
The big thing to remember here is that the survey was conducted by the card maker, not an independant source. The results may not be as reliable as most would like.
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
This is from a country who already rigorously monitors its citizens with CCTV everywhere they go. Perhaps the UK could be considered a testbed for how people react when their basic rights are subtlely chipped away. It's all in the name of safety and convenience.
The Ben Franklin Adage still applies, doubly so:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either."
People need to wake up and realize that they are slowly removing their own rights.
and stop whining about "losing freedoms" or "privacy". Sure it can be abused. But we need a way to identify people, and if you think that driver's licenses and social security numbers aren't already doing this, you're just closing your eyes to it.
If anything, requiring fingerprints or retinal scans will make these ids more secure and trustworthy.
or do you like the way id theft is so common in the US that there's a form you can fill out when yours has been stolen? look here
So what happens when a criminal hacks into any database that happens to be storing this biometric data?
Well, unless you know some way to get a new set of eyeballs or finger prints, this criminal will be able to steal your identy for the rest of your life!
How would this be any worse then the systems we have today. This would not hinder anyones privacy anymore then social security cards, birth certs, drivers license, credit cards, bank cards etc. If anything it would protect peoples privacy and property more then the current systems do.
Green cards scam's, credit card fraud, theft on many levels would be wiped out.
I deleted my sig years ago.
The technique is simple: phrases the questions in such a way that you get the answers you want:
Hard to say no to that one.
In a predominantly "minority" area:
Again, hard to say no, especially if you're a member of that under-served "minority".
(I put "minority" in quotes only because it's not really a minority in a majority "minority" jurisdiction, is it?)
Sure, $thing sounds pretty bad, whatever it is.
And so forth. You can easily construct your own loaded questions. With a few bucks, you can get a pollster to construct even more devious ones, and call a bunch of people who are in too much of a hurry to really give the question the consideration it deserves. Shake, bake, and then claim only your product/plan/candidate can solve the "problem."
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
So biometrics are not perfect, it's still better than a lame arse bits of paper we use in the USA to "identify" ourselves (not that cashiers even bother checking them - think automated gas pumps too). I'm for eye ballers and thumb printing. As for the "Big Brother" argument, how many of us in the USA don't have a birth certificate and SS#? Not many...
Somebody has already mentioned the purvasive CCTV camera that make the UK the most visually monitored country in history. What about the partial criminalization of encryption under the RIP Act? You have to give the government your key if they demand it, otherwise 2 years in prison. The governement has sought, and obtained, powers to monitor e-mail, web usage and phone calls without judicial warrants. Herr Ashcroft is green with envy.
These audacious power grabs by the "liberal" Tony Blair are only a part of a hard turn towards authoritarianism in the UK. Right now they are trying to dump the right to trial by jury in many circumstances--basically when the government (them again!) determines it is dangerous or unwieldy to have a jury trial. The private right of gun ownership has been substantially destroyed in the past several years (with a concurrent rise in violent crime, including a rapid rise in gun use by criminals). People now go to jail in the UK for so-called "hate speech".
We have A LOT of problems in the US. A government that wants to be able to detain you forever, without trial, by one man's fiat (you are an enemy combatant!) obviously needs to be checked, and quickly. But in the UK, the populace seems to accept the government-fostered fantasy that the government is actually working for the "common good", as opposed to the pure aggrandizement of power whenever possible, which is what EVERY government ALWAYS tries if allowed to do so. What has broken their will, I don't know--years of inept socialist rule? Some post-colonial ennui? Too much spotted dick?
Whatever it is, I hope to hell we can keep it out of here. We have enough problems of our own right now.
Most of what you mentioned were non-Government methods. You can "Just Say NO!" -- albiet with some inconvenience.
With a government mandated ID of this type, you can't opt out.
Governments are also very hard to police on the proper use of data/powers. They tend to classify things under "National Security" when they frequently mean "Political Career Security".
They can also change the rules on a whim. Monday could be "this can only be used/accessed under an active law enforcement investigation". Whereas Tuesday could be "...or for proactive monitoring of persons deemed suspicious". [Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?]
Worse, the changes and the very rules themselves could be classified. Witness the bullshit the pull when asking for an ID to fly in the U.S. [You need a government issued ID, it is the law. Which law? We can't tell you, it is a secret. It isn't even written down -- the TSA communicated it to us verbally.]
Governments with too much power and information are more of a danger to individual liberties than anything they are trying to protect us from.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Personally I don't have a problem with ID cards, whether they have biometric information on them or not. What I really would object to is being required to carry one and produce one on the request of a Police Officer.
Someone earlier said that you don't have to carry your drivers licence in the UK when you drive, well technically you do. It is an offence to not produce a licence if stopped by the police, the worst you can get though is a caution and a notice to show your licence, MOT and insurance at a police station in seven days.
Also in many european countries people are required to carry id cards at all times, these have photos on them and could have other data too.
Just my 2 cents worth.
I have taken part in a few surveys in my life. With a question like this, there is always an "IF" phrase at the beginning, or the question is presented as a choice.
Given that this survey was given by a company which hopes to make biometric ID cards, the question was probably much like:
"IF it would prevent terrorism and identity theft and IF biometric ID cards would make everything in your life more convenient and safer, with no possibility of negative consequence, would you support them?"
Or:
"Would you rather have biometric ID cards or to have your wife and children raped and killed before your very eyes?"
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
As much as I respect Ben Franklin, I have to completely disagree with this. Even if someone is stupid enough to want to give up liberty for safety they still deserve liberty. If you start determining who liberty is for based on what they "would give up" or whatever other box you want to check off (skin color, political views, etc) for who "deserves" it, then no one has liberty. Everyone has to have full liberty, or 100% of it is an illusion.
And this new just in...
Company that stands to make millions from a technology is sells, promotes concept with skewed statistics indicating overwelmingly that the public wants the product and they want it now in spades.
Somewhat surpisingly, the public also declared that the product should cost four times what it can be offered for now.
Etc, etc, etc...
PS. Now we get to wait for it to be made law, and then watch the MPs/ministers involved become well paid non-executive directors of the self-same company. Cynic moi?
For those (Brits) wishing to state their opinion on the subject click here
If nature abhors a vacuum, why isn't there more dust in the world?
Somebody has already mentioned the purvasive CCTV camera that make the UK the most visually monitored country in history.
And it's been proven to reduce crime, and help crime detection, high profile cases like the murder of Jamie Bulger show how CCTV can be extremely helpful, and outweighs any paranoia concerns about being watched while in public. When CCTV is fitted into every home, then we'll complain, not before.
What about the partial criminalization of encryption under the RIP Act? You have to give the government your key if they demand it, otherwise 2 years in prison. The governement has sought, and obtained, powers to monitor e-mail, web usage and phone calls without judicial warrants.
How is being asked to hand over your key, any different to being asked to open your safe on production of a warrant ? Do search warrants mean locks and safes "are partially criminal "?
As for monitoring email, web usuage and so on, the Americans have that field completely sewn up.
The private right of gun ownership has been substantially destroyed in the past several years (with a concurrent rise in violent crime, including a rapid rise in gun use by criminals).
Don't even go there. We WANT tight gun laws, we don't want a gun in every bed side drawer culture. For more information see these comments.
People now go to jail in the UK for so- called "hate speech".
And you can't yell fire in a theatre despite having "free speech". Personally I'm in favour of not being able to say "blacks go home" "Jews faked the holocaust and are all money obssessed thieves" "Muslims are a lower form of life". The law came into force, because racial minorities were being harrassed with verbal abuse morning noon and night by British racists. Your right to free speech ends when it is designed to harm me, just as yelling fire in a theatre is illegal.
What has broken their will, I don't know--years of inept socialist rule? Some post-colonial ennui? Too much spotted dick?
Nice troll, we spent the best part of 2 decades under hard right rule with Thatcher, so spare me the brits are commies crap. As for breaking our will, we broke the governments will over expanding data access laws last year , and over 5000 people wrote and complained about ID cards this year.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
That ignorant trolls like you get modded up as "insightful" or "interesting" is sad.
Here, for those who are interested in the truth, are the facts:
1. The overwhelming majority of CCTV in the UK are privately owned and maintained.
Stores, shopping precincts, bars, airports, train stations, etc are, just like in the US, privately-owned premises. And, just like in the US, they have CCTV cameras installed for security and safety purposes.
Where's the problem here? Shouldn't a store owner be entitled to put a camera up in his shop to deter would-be shop-lifters? Shouldn't an airport or a train station have cameras installed to monitor passenger traffic flow and thereby ensure passenger safety?
Would you be happier if the store owner felt less secure whilst earning his livelyhood or if the occassional passenger fell onto the tracks because a station platform was dangerously overcrowded?
2. The majority of government-owned cameras are watching the roads.
Again, these are mainly concerned with the safety of road users. Monitoring traffic jams and detecting motorists speeding through red lights isn't exactly a Big Brother scenario - so why make it out to be?
3. A minority of government-owned cameras are installed in and around high security installations and other potential terrorist targets.
Number one on this list is the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square. The area around that building is CCTV city, and has been for some time. Gee, I wonder why? Is it because the British goverment is obsessed with what the US Ambassador is having for lunch, or is it because it's a terrorist target?
Gee, let me think...
(Not too long ago, you could drive around all four sides of Grosvenor Square. But, some time in the last decade or so, some bright spark decided it was far too tempting to a potential car bomber and the side that houses the US Embassy was blocked off and protected with anti-tank measures. Not even Buckingham Palace or Downing Street are that secure. Next time you're in town, check it out - it makes Fort Knox look like an open air picnic camp.)
It's worth bearing in mind that Britain's been a terrorist target for over 30 years now. The IRA has been blowing up bombs, killing men, women and children all over Britain whilst freely raising funds in the US since before I was born. We can't (and won't) live in a society where there's someone watching you on every street corner so the security forces use CCTV cameras where they have to to ensure public safety.
(For the benefit of the "cameras can't stop terrorists" brigade, I'll point out now that IRA members rarely try to martyr themselves on suicide missions. They prefer to go in, place their car bomb, etc, and get out. Naturally, being spotted and caught is something they try to avoid, and evidence has shown that CCTVs do help curtail such activities. Suicide bombers are a different breed.)
4. Most CCTV footage is very poor, even when enhanced.
Most cameras are very low quality, black and white monitors. Getting a positive identification from one, even after the picture has been forensically enhanced is very difficult.
How such cameras (even if every single one of them was interlinked, actively manned, etc) could track my movement day in, day out is ridiculous to contemplate. There isn't a camera within half a mile of my house, and I live in a densely populated suburb of London, so where would they start?
So before you yanks (and sorry, but it is mainly yanks) go spouting off about how CCTV obsessed Britain is and how 1984-like our society is, why don't you examine the data? The real picture is a far cry from the sensationalist BS being spouted here.
So, "people need to wake up and realize that they are slowly removing their own rights", huh? US Patriot Act anyone?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Several years ago, in Germany we had a discussion about creating a central database to hold biological data especially of the male population. It was meant to prevent rape because the perpetrator would be pretty easily identified.
The problem that a lot of people miss is that such central databases make it _very_ easy to trace your entire life and doings.
Imagine: you go to a pub or bar and drink a beer. You leave genetical evidence on the glass. You touch some wall and leave genetical evidence, you lose a hair in the subway, etc... it would be possible to trace nearly all you do.
I am no criminal. I do not want to be easily traceable.
-- I love the smell of Blue Screens in the morning.
Rights can be forfeited. That's one thing you're free to do with liberty- you can squander it, and give it away. Once you've done that, it's gone, and it's difficult to say why you still deserve it. Which is sort of the point- its an unwise trade.
The Franklin quote is cited in every privacy story. There sure seem to be more and more boneheads every day who need to hear it. It seems that most people really don't mind a tyrannical snooping government as long as they're taken care of.
I gave up my essential liberties to obtain a little temporary security, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
Gee, here's a bright kneejerk (slashjerk) response. "Identity theft is ridiculously easy even though there is no way to prove your identity". Fucking wonderful.
Why is identity theft not easy in my country? Because we have ID cards (well, books). You need one (by law) to open a bank account, perform transactions with government, and to vote. To get it reissued, you provide a fingerprint. Is it failsafe? No. Does it prevent someone from withdrawing money from my bank because they know my account number and can get my birth certificate from a public registry? Yes. Does it violate my right to privacy? Maybe.
The usual argument goes: if you aren't doing something illegal then there's nothing to worry about. And the counter is: and then they came for me, and there was noone left to speak out.
Well here's my response: when they came for me, "they" were not the police, were not the government, were not some shady quasi-legal state sanctioned organisation. "They" were your average criminals with guns, who give less of a shit about my rights than a civil servant. And the only reason there is any chance that "they" will get caught, is that every adult who wants to participate in the social structure of this country has their fingerprints in a national database.
Don't come with bullshit about fingerprints being useless. I've seen two groups of criminals tracked down before on fingerprints alone, and that's just from crimes that I've suffered. Fingerprints aren't perfect, no. You can't get a conviction based on fingerprints -- but they go to circumstantial evidence. But this is all besides the point.
Every day in the US millions of people produce some form of identification. A driver's license in the most common. But what is your proof of being a US citizen? A passport? Hell no, how do you prove your citizenship when you apply for one? Birth certificate? How does that in any way prove your claim to your identity? Quite simply, data corruption is possible when there is no normalisation. If you don't have an absolute identity list, identity theft is easy.
So what happens when you do have an absolute list? Well the trick is to have a system where you can prove your identity, but no-one else can prove they are you. Biometrics is the typical answer. It has unfortunately side effects - your identity can be discovered without your consent.
Well here's something new for the privacy advocates: in public you don't have privacy. Get it? You do not enjoy the right to privacy when you are in public. Should I rephrase this again? No? Good. The assumption that you CAN identify a person in public is essential to the maintainance of law and order.
So the real problem with ID cards is that they are seen as a first step in the erosion of rights. First you have a card, then you have to produce it, then you have to wear it all the time, then you will have it revoked if your are naughty, and finally it will be tatooed to your forhead and you get your head lopped off if you commit a crime. Bummer ... and I always wanted a crime free society.
So come again, what's the problem? Someone may abuse it. Aah, yes. The State may abuse its power and abuse the identity system. Heaven forbid. They could go to war, repress an entire race group, raise taxes, collude with big business, detain us without trial and not tell anyone ... but damnit don't let them know who we are.
So get real. Every country has some mechanism for identifying people. Commerce breaks down without it. Crime is unchecked without it. It may be a birth certificate, ID card, driver's license, known family member vouching for you. It doesn't matter - its a means of identification. ID cards simply provide a system which is more difficult to subvert than most. Often, because of the way they are applied, it is more harmful when that system IS subverted ... that means we should improve the system, not go to an even more flawed alternative.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Yes they have the data.
Because it is all held in seperate databases across many government agencies (DVLA, Inland Revenue etc...) It's hard for them to collect it all in one place.
Currently (and trust me, I know this first hand) it takes up a fair amount of Civil Servant time to collect and collate all this data into a "file" on a person. This is usually done at the request of the NCIS (National Criminal Intelligence Service) and they don't tend to waste resources on annoying gits like me who fax thier MP saying $idea sucks. I'm not a big enough threat.
Now, put all this data in one handy place and any bugger can, at the click of a button, create a case file on me. Hell, even if they just wanted to see who this Chris Adams guy is, they'd get access to *all* my details including details of my "dependants" (You know, my Tax code says I'm married with one dependant, hyperlink here for details from Census etc...).
The main reason for the ID card idea has always been to reduce the time taken for Civil Servants to dig up cross agency data with the added bonuses of *potentially* reducing DSS fraud, random political bogeyman-du-jour dodgyness etc...
The initial reasoning behind this ID card plan was to make it *easier* for the government to check up on it's citizens.
Chris.
The article states that 1000 people were interviewed by telephone.
I would be interested to see how these people were chosen. Chances are they were pulled from a database of people who didn't check a box on a form at some time saying they didn't want to be contacted by telephone for marketing/research.
These people already have little interest in their privacy.
Current ID cards have almost no protection against identity theft. You see, even in the US we have national ID cards, they just don't work very well. New identity cards are an attempt to improve the situation.
If you think they aren't going to succeed, then you have to say why. But your blanket statement is simply logically flawed.
Really, if Europeans want to have ID cards, no one in the UK has a problem with that, and no one here is interested in arguing with Europeans who think that ID cards are "no problem at all".
The people of the UK are Europeans--it's a simple geographic and political fact.
... are close relatives.
According to the UK's goverment figures, mate, the biggest benefits fraudsters are, unsurprisingly, native white people.
Are they worst for that? No, of course not. They are simply more.
Far to many people in the UK are so ready to follow their prejudices in spite of information widely available regarding this kind of issues.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Brilliantly said.
This is what the Spanish already have in place. We can see that it does not stop ETA from doing anything, or any of the other crime that takes place in Spain.
It does of course, put a huge burden on the ordinary Spaniard, and has stripped away his privacy, and right to interact freely in the private sector.
It has to be said that a country that lived under Franco for decades would probably be more inclined to accept such a measure. The British have never been under such rule, and so when we kick against this type of government program, it looks strange to the Europeans, who are deeply habituated to being submerged to the neck in beaurocratic molasses every day of thier lives.
Your data, your address, medical records, school records, passport details and records of where you have travelled...all of this is your personal property. No one has the right to collate it into a centralized database, and certainly, no contractor has the right to make a profit out of the mandatory management of this data.
ID cards constitute an unneeded extra layer of intrusion into a persons life; they are instruments of economic and physical control, and they should be shunned at every opportunity.
The idea that a Spanish child is fingerprinted as a matter of routine, like a criminal, for the purpose of an ID card is deeply offensive to the British, and I would imagine, to most Americans.
It will not wash here in the UK.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Well.. over this side of the pond privacy *is* a right. You might well be recorded most every minute of your public life but the minute you're back behind closed doors it is very hard for most European govts to secure reights to invade that space. Ditto bank accounts, phone logs etc etc. In the UK it's even illegal for most govt departments to share information on an individual amongst each other.
The British TV sitcom Yes, Minister offered a brilliant precis of push-polling technique:
I asked why and they said, well, you could just steal it and the proof that you have given isn't enough to let us hire you a car. I then had an idea - I asked them if they would accept my Spanish debit card along with my Spanish ID. And they would, they said because the ID card was more secure.
Just because a single company whose staff are stupid would not rent you a car, doesnt mean that everyone in the UK should mandatorily be carrying an ID card.
You say that you dont have a credit card "because you dont like them". Extrapolate this. Imagine that you are forced to have a credit card by legislation. Would you think that that was wrong?
As for the rights that you have thrown away, I cant answer you sufficiently because your idea of what rights are are different to mine.
The problem of DSS fraud is soluable without everyone in the UK being forced to carry an ID card, this is obvious.
There is nothing wrong with having a means to identify yourself to others, what is wrong, and what most people against ID cards are saying, is that this card should not be issued by a government, and it should not ever be complusory.
We just dissagree! It happens!
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
...it's all about money. If less 3rd worlders are allowed into the West (i.e., England, America, etc), then the working class citizens will have MORE money in their wallets, and the people who own businesses and the stockholders of large corporations will have LESS money in their wallets.
And if more foreigners are allowed into the country, then the working class citizens will have LESS money in their wallets, and the people who own businesses and the stockholders of large corporations will have MORE money in their wallets.
And that is why Schlumberger went to England with this proposal, instead of going to the USA with it. In England, there are fewer people, and they are less easily manipulated by globalist propaganda, which is not the case with the USA.
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
Honestly, I'd support a retinal scan based i.d. card, but strongly oppose a fingerprint one. I don't so much mind my retina being on file, because I don't tend to innocently leave it lying around on things. When the only fingerprint they can lift at the crime scene is mine from when I was innocently there three weeks ago (as opposed to the crook who wore gloves) I object to them being able to just come hunt me down to make me prove it wasn't me. On the other hand, if they find my eyeball, I'm perfectly happy for them to be able to quickly figure out that I'm the one missing one :-).
"Bob, it looks like you just got back from Italiano's diner! You need some pepto bismo? Oh, and why stop at that cheesy fetish shop when you can go to Porn central!"
It's minority report... With cookies... IS THERE NO JUSTICE!
It's sad that an ignorant foot like you who probably doesn't even own a passport let alone have any first-hand experience of Britain should post crap like this as if you're some kind of authority on the subject.
Let me debunk some of your disinformation for the benefit of those who are more interested in the truth rather than sensationalism:
Anyone who cares to visit UK towns late at night will see the usual muggers and vandals, all wearing the same identical grey sweatshirts and anoraks with identical deep grey hoods.
I live and work in London and I regularly go out late at night in and around the capital. I've done so for over 15 years. Total number of times I've been attacked in the street: 0.
Contrary to your anecdotal opinion, the streets aren't lined up with muggers and vandals looking to relieve me of my wallet or smash up shop windows.
Similarly, not every street corner in the average American city is populated by crack dealers looking to sell you a fix, crack whores looking to blow you to earn one, or crack heads looking to pop a cap in your ass.
The CCTV cameras may catch drunks who are too stoned to care - another delightful facet of UK life - but will then have no deterrent effect whatsoever.
Drunks don't get stoned. Drunks get drunk. Stoners get stoned. Duh.
That aside, alcoholism isn't half the issue here that it is in the US, so please don't suggest that drunken rampaging youths are as prominent as you seem to think muggers and vandals are.
Yes, people sometimes leave a pub, club or a bar drunk but let's not pretend that doesn't happen in the US. In fact, when I was at university, the people who got the most drunk and the most wrecked on a regular basis were overseas students from, surprise, surprise, the US. Yet, amazingly, I don't have a mental picture of all Americans having a drinking problem (apart, of course, from the George W. Bush and family).
The simple problem is that for the last 30+ years the UK has put large amounts of money into policing Northern Ireland and playing at being a world power (despite being poorer than Germany, France or Italy which don't play those games any more) and is now too cheap to have a proper police force.
First of all, when was Italy ever a world power? Or when did France and Germany ever have empires that were on par with the British empire? Ever heard of Canada, Australia, India, etc, all former British colonies?
I think you need to buy a new history text book and a new atlas because the ones that you've got now are useless.
Secondly, since when was the UK economy inferior to Italy's? It's probably ahead or on par with that of France and, perhaps, a notch or two behind Germany's. But, given that both France and Germany have bigger populations (much bigger in Germany's case), that's hardly surprising is it? I don't have exact figures to hand but I know that the GDP per capita of all three countries isn't more than a few percentage points apart. So, I ask you, how are we poorer than Germany, France and Italy?
While you're browsing Amazon for those school books why don't you pick up an economy text as well?
All this biometric scan and CCTV stuff is about trying to do things on no money, while wasting nearly $10 billion a year putting wall to wall police and soldiers into NI and supporting its backward economy.
Sorry, but you seem to be stuck in the 1980s. Perhaps I could interest you in living in the 21st century?
There haven't been troops actively patrolling Northern Ireland for many years now. The peace process there is advanced - although not as advanced as I or many others would like - and the levels of sectarian violence are almost non-existant. The cost of policing in Northern Ireland isn't a multi-billion dollar operation, not by a long shot.
Backward economy? Sure, the troubles in Northern Ireland hurt the local economy but people aren't exactly living in caves there. There are jobs there just like there are jobs everywhere, and, now that peace has finally broken out, a lot more employers are looking to open up sites in Northern Ireland.
The UK is now about to build 2 aircraft carriers to, and I quote the BBC, "Project UK power around the world".
The Royal Navy's commissioned two new carriers to replace two aging ones that are being decommissioned. The Navy's aircraft carriers HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes were the vital cogs in liberating the Falkland Islands after the 1982 Argentinian invasion. Without them, there would have been no way that the islanders could have been freed, proof enough that their not just for show.
The Fleet Air Arm also played a critical role in the Gulf War, and is on standby to perform its duty there once again should Britain go to war with Iraq once more.
So what's your point here? That Britain, an island state with dependencies in every ocean, shouldn't have a navy capable of protecting its interests?
Its Prime Minister wants to go and sort out foreign countries while at home the infrastructure is falling apart and, in a country where handguns are banned, gun crime is rising faster than any other.
Yeah, well I agree with you there. Our Prime Minister spends too much time worrying about standing "shoulder to shoulder" with George W. Bush than he should. I don't want a war with Iraq and neither do 90 percent of the British public. 75 percent don't trust George W. Bush either. 90 percent are convinced that he'll go to war with Iraq no matter what the UN inspectors report. It's sad that our PM is dragging us into a war that we don't want just so he can be Dubya's best friend.
Your gun crime argument is more crap though. Bare in mind that the total number of gun crimes in the whole UK for the whole of 2002 was around 3,900. And also consider that the definition of a gun crime includes waving around a replica (ie, imitation) firearm just as much as it does a crime that involves an actual gun. The number of actual gun crimes that involved a gun actually being fired was probably one fifth or one tenth of that figure.
Still, 3,900-odd gun crimes in a country with a population of 65 million. Compared to how many in a country with a population of 300 million (the USA)?
I've got more chance of being hit by lightning or winning the national lottery (14 million to 1 odds) than being shot by someone in the street. Can you say the same?
Yep, gun crime sure is "out of control" over here.
It's a pity that George keeps pandering to his little pal Tony instead of telling him to go home, sort out his own crappy country and shut the fsck up.
Oh I wish it were so. What you don't seem to realise is that just about every country on the planet, even America's oldest and closest allies, is opposed to George W. Bush's foreign policy blunders - Kyoto, missile treaties, landmines, the International Criminal Court, steel tariffs (free trade, pah!), the ongoing Middle East crisis, and, above all, war with Iraq.
If it wasn't for Tony Blair's poodle impression then George W. Bush would be all alone in wanting to go to war with Iraq. Bush needs Blair's support - not the other way around. What's amazing is that he's willing to give it, despite the overwhelming opposition of the British electorate. If the situation were reversed, and Americans voters were opposed to helping Britain fight a war, there's no way that Bush would lift a finger.
So, as you can see, your world view and, even your local view of Britain, is pretty off the ball. How you can open your mouth to offer such off-base opinions is amazing. In future, please try to restrict your comments to subjects on which you actually know something about. That way you'll save me the trouble of another lenghty posting rebutting such mindless and misinformed drivel.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Xerxes: Brought Peace?
Reg: Oh, peace? Shut up!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton