The illogical proof of address system: is it really required by law?

eskbanker

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

@eskbanker, that's pretty much what I thought. Not a huge deal for me, who have a passport and driving licence, but I think you have just proved my points that:

1) only technically are passports and driving licences not required; de facto they are, or, at the very least, having at least one makes your life much much much easier. So the point on the UK not requiring any form of ID is practically rather moot;
2) having a cheap or free system of compulsory ID cards would benefit those who do not have and cannot afford a passport or driving licence.

I would indeed agree that having a passport or photo driving licence makes life significantly easier but haven't really been part of the above ID card debate, which is more speculative rather than relating to current practices in the UK.

However, when reading up a bit by following some links....

RustyShackleford wrote: »

When the Conservatives touted their plans for voter [strike]suppression[/strike] ID it emerged that 7.5% of the electorate (3.5 Million people) don't possess a driving licence or passport.

That's not what was written in the actual Electoral Commission piece (see paras 4.7 to 4.10), which was that 7.5% of the electorate don't have acceptable ID under a broader definition (including transport passes) but no less than 24% of the electorate don't have passports or photographic driving licences. Having said that, there is a caveat that these are estimates made by their financial modeller, albeit with attributed official sources.

robatwork

tenchy wrote: »

"Sadly the government screwed that up completely".


No. THANKFULLY the government screwed that up completely.


Do you really want to be under total state surveillance? It's bad enough as it is, without ID cards. Heaven knows how bad it would be with them.

Amazingly when I posted this I thought it would get more bites than just you. ID cards don't equal total state surveillance and I have no idea why you think that. Paranoid claptrap. It would make your life (and that of the millions of normal* people) easier.

*Is "law-abiding citizens" too trite a phrase?

robatwork

forgotmyname wrote: »

Then whatever you do dont make a typo when loggin in.

Permit me a wry smile....

jonesMUFCforever

robatwork wrote: »

Amazingly when I posted this I thought it would get more bites than just you. ID cards don't equal total state surveillance and I have no idea why you think that. Paranoid claptrap. It would make your life (and that of the millions of normal* people) easier.

*Is "law-abiding citizens" too trite a phrase?

What does an ID card do that a photo driving licence does not?

eskbanker

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

What does an ID card do that a photo driving licence does not?

Well it doesn't require the holder to learn to drive for a start! Many don't want or need to, or can't afford to....

robatwork

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

What does an ID card do that a photo driving licence does not?

You only need to exist to qualify for it....

jonesMUFCforever

eskbanker wrote: »

Well it doesn't require the holder to learn to drive for a start! Many don't want or need to, or can't afford to....

You don't have to drive just because you hold a licence.

SouthLondonUser

Are you serious or is this a pointless flame?

How much time and money does it take to get a driving licence?
How about those who can't afford it, don't want to drive, or simply can't (eg for medical reasons)?

The truth of the matter is that the fact that a photo id is technically not compulsory is deceiving and illusory, because it practically is, in the sense that your life is much harder without one. Not everyone can drive. Everyone can get a passport, but that's not exactly cheap.

eskbanker

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

eskbanker wrote: »

Well it doesn't require the holder to learn to drive for a start! Many don't want or need to, or can't afford to....

You don't have to drive just because you hold a licence.

At the risk of getting all Paxman/Howard about this, I didn't say anything about having to drive, but the point was that to get a driving licence you have to learn to drive, which generally involves spending money for lessons and/or the test itself.

Perhaps I should have repeated my wording to stress 'many don't want or need to, or can't afford to learn to drive....' just to spell it out completely unambiguously?

bazzyb

eskbanker wrote: »

to get a driving licence you have to learn to drive

No you don't.

Granted, it will be the main reason why most people who get a licence choose to do so - but there would be nothing to stop somebody getting a driving licence purely to use as photo ID of they so wished to do so.