As for New Labour being in favour of congestion charging, that is a joke. They fought Ken Livingstone all the way, even rigging an election so he couldn't stand for them. Now he has made it work, they have climbed on the bandwagon.
It's still not a libertarian policy. And Labour up here in merrie Edinburgh had their tiny wee hearts set on it. Luckily, the good people of the 'Burgh told them to stuff it up their arseholes.
New Labour are trying every fudge they can to avoid a complete ban on indoor smoking. First the 'no food/no ban' idea, now the 'sealed room' thing.
I'm very happy for you lovely Englanders. Unfortunately, NuLabour up here are going ahead with the total ban in any enclosed public space (including private clubs, theatres and places of work). Fascist shitbags.
Facial biometrics and fingerprints will be standard across Europe on all passports regardless of whether we have an ID card. This is why it is such a good time to introduce ID cards at the same time, to save money.
Oh yes, that's right; let's give up our freedoms because it'll save a bit of cash. Nice one, Neil, cheers.
ID cards can give civil liberty benefits. Like they say; 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'.
No one but a fucking cock-knocker like yourself ever says that. If anyone would like to enlighten Neil about why that is a fucking stupid thing to say, and worse to believe, please feel free to unburden yourself in the comments.
You are just arguing for the freedom to have a false identity. That freedom is to the detriment of all our civil liberties.
I am arguing for people to be able to choose their own identity, rather than have it thrust upon them by their political "masters". It totally turns the people/government relationship on its head and just because the rest of Europe—noted, as it has been, throughout history for its liberal rulers, respect for democratic process (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco et alios) and steadfast support of liberty (Pétain, et alios)—has done it does not mean that we should. Bad policy is still bad policy, no matter how many other people have been cowed into it.
And to finish, here is a little sketch for you.
Man and woman walk into a hotel
MAN: We'd... er... like a room, please. Just for a couple of hours.
RECEPTIONIST [archly]: Really, sir. No problem. Can I take your names for the register?
MAN: Er.. Yes. It's... erm... Smith. Mr and Mrs Smith.
RECEPTIONIST: Really, sir? Very well.
MAN: Thank you. Can we...
RECEPTIONIST: I'm sorry, sir, but do you two have your ID Cards?
WOMAN: Do we have to? Only...
RECEPTIONIST: I'm sorry, we have to check.
Man and woman produce ID Cards showing that they are patently not called Smith. Hers, at least, indicates that she is married.
RECEPTIONIST: Ah, I'm sorry, we'll have to put the card numbers and your real names in the register.
Presses concealed button under the desk. Armed Police officers rush in and surround the couple.
RECEPTIONIST: They gave false names, officers!
Police officers repeatedly shoot the adulterous* couple in the face, only stopping when their ammunition has run out.
POLICE OFFICER: Thank you. Don't worry, they were probably terrorists. And even if they weren't, they were probably acting, like Mr Harding says, "to the detriment of all our civil liberties". You did the right thing, ma'am...
Of course, this skit is far funnier, and more involved...
Neil has missed the point again!
Anoneumouse has no problem sharing his fingerprint biometrics with the whole world. Which just highlights how petty the opponents' argument about biometric privacy is.
What Anoneumouse has actually done is to publish his fingerprints on his blog, thus ensuring that they are now covered by the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. Thus the government cannot use them without his express permission and can only use them in the way that Anoneumouse specifies. As I read it, Anoneumouse's post is anti-ID cards and biometric data not pro, as Neil seems to think. Surely someone agrees with Neil? Ah yes...
Monjo points out that he has been supporting ID cards since May, though he does have some very worrying views on other issues (especially the age of consent).
*You may not approve of adultery, but it's hardly the government's business to intervene is it? Or is it, Neil? Eh? Hurts the kiddiewinkles, don't it? Why don't we hang adulterers, eh? Or at least imprison them, eh? Eh? For the good of us all?