Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Blair-Hitler ID card ad 'not offensive'

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
No to ID cards!!!!

The controversial No2ID anti-ID card advert, which the Advertising Standards Agency ruled did not portray Blair as Hitler and was not offensive. :lol:


no2idblairad.jpg

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Perhaps not offensive, but certainly stupid... I'm sorry, but arguments like this just put me off.

    There's plenty of reasons not to support ID cards, but implying that there introduction is going to lead to a British version of the the third reich is a bit far fetched
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are good arguments against ID cards - that is not one of them. And it is offensive; to say "ID cards have worked well in Europe before" and then make some cheap insinuation with Hitler - ignoring the fact that ID cards are used today in France, Germany and Belgium - which I suppose are bastions of Hitler supporting Nazis...:rolleyes:

    I firmly oppose ID cards and it's depressing if this is the best 'No2ID' can do.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Valid points .. but I thought it was kinda funny in the broader sense of Tony's dicatorial style.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote:
    Valid points .. but I thought it was kinda funny in the broader sense of Tony's dicatorial style.

    From that pov it's relevant, but not if it's just about ID cards.

    With regards our slow slide into a totalitarian state, did anyone else notice that there will be no checking of the smoking laws from July 1st. No, there will be a snitchline so that members of the public can report where the law is being flouted...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Man Of Kent wrote:
    From that pov it's relevant, but not if it's just about ID cards.

    With regards our slow slide into a totalitarian state, did anyone else notice that there will be no checking of the smoking laws from July 1st. No, there will be a snitchline so that members of the public can report where the law is being flouted...

    Haven't we always used informers to help the Govt in apprehending people who broke the law?

    Alternatively imagine the complaints if police and council officers started bursting into random pubs and started searches for used ashtrays and smoke detectors to check anyone hiding in the gents having a secret smoke.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the government could ever actually decide what ID cards are supposed to be for, what is to be held on them and how they are to be used I might be able to make up my mind properly as to whether they are a good idea or not.

    That and its bound to over run, not work, waste billions of pounds, be launched, not work, fail, waste more money and then not work.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Flashman's Ghost wrote:
    Haven't we always used informers to help the Govt in apprehending people who broke the law?

    Working alonside (although the Benefits reporting line is another example), but I can't remember a time when the enforcement of a whole law was being based on informers.
    Alternatively imagine the complaints if police and council officers started bursting into random pubs and started searches for used ashtrays and smoke detectors to check anyone hiding in the gents having a secret smoke.

    Yeah but let's be honest that isn't how it would work is it. They would visit places and gather evidence - you know what we used to call detective work.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Man Of Kent wrote:
    Working alonside (although the Benefits reporting line is another example), but I can't remember a time when the enforcement of a whole law was being based on informers.

    Well I'll assume they still need evidence and the word of one informer is unlikely to convince a court. I haven't seen the full details, but my understanding is that the informer will only be the first step - to prosecute there will still need to be evidence.

    In many cases there is no way that police/council/DWP will know a crime is being committed unless someone informs them.
    Yeah but let's be honest that isn't how it would work is it. They would visit places and gather evidence - you know what we used to call detective work

    But how would they know which places to visit unless people inform them? If they don't know what places to visit it seems a bit of a waste of resources wandering round pubs in the hope of some evidence of smoking tunring up. Or a fishing expeditions as we used to call them.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Flashman's Ghost wrote:
    But how would they know which places to visit unless people inform them?

    The clue is the big sign outside with a brewers name on it (or the word "restaurant") ;)

    But your point is taken.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Flashman's Ghost wrote:
    Well I'll assume they still need evidence and the word of one informer is unlikely to convince a court. I haven't seen the full details, but my understanding is that the informer will only be the first step - to prosecute there will still need to be evidence.

    In many cases there is no way that police/council/DWP will know a crime is being committed unless someone informs them.



    But how would they know which places to visit unless people inform them? If they don't know what places to visit it seems a bit of a waste of resources wandering round pubs in the hope of some evidence of smoking tunring up. Or a fishing expeditions as we used to call them.

    Cameras ?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Cameras ?

    Yeah we need more of them. If we're not careful we will lose our status as the country with the most CCTV...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Man Of Kent wrote:
    Yeah we need more of them. If we're not careful we will lose our status as the country with the most CCTV...

    Don`t you think they would work in gathering evidence ?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So who's breaking the law r.e. the smoking ban ?

    Instance. I'm having a ciggy in a pub on 2nd July 2007. Am i breaking the law by having a ciggy ? Is the manager/landlord breaking the law by letting me have a ciggy ? or both ?

    And what are the penalties ?
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    budda wrote:
    If the government could ever actually decide what ID cards are supposed to be for, what is to be held on them and how they are to be used I might be able to make up my mind properly as to whether they are a good idea or not.

    That and its bound to over run, not work, waste billions of pounds, be launched, not work, fail, waste more money and then not work.

    Exactally my problem.

    ID cards are wasted potential - they could be so many things in one - NI numder, Drivers License, DNA, Finger Prints etc - and be useful in resolving things and standard procedures quickly.

    I'd only need that on me, nad if the police pull me for say - vehicular problems - they could check my license. If someone needed clearing of a crime they were falsley accused of - the ID scanned - take a finger print - ho-hum, nope not you, clear! Same with the DNA.

    But, instead, we get a piece of crap that says "I AM THIS MAN!" which a Driving License does well enough anyway. Good idea, poorley executed.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote:
    So who's breaking the law r.e. the smoking ban ?

    Instance. I'm having a ciggy in a pub on 2nd July 2007. Am i breaking the law by having a ciggy ? Is the manager/landlord breaking the law by letting me have a ciggy ? or both ?

    And what are the penalties ?

    Allegedly both.

    Up to £50 for you; up to £2500 for the manager/landlord etc.

    And there`s a potential on the spot fine of £200 for failing to display "no smoking" signs.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ta :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote:
    Allegedly both.

    Up to £50 for you; up to £2500 for the manager/landlord etc.

    And there`s a potential on the spot fine of £200 for failing to display "no smoking" signs.

    Quite disgusting. And worse still, even if a bunch of smokers set up a private club for smokers it would be illegal. It's being introduced in the summer so the true impact will not be seen until the ban has already been in place for a good couple of months. (i.e. until winter next year)

    Still, I hope all these anti-smoking climate change busybodies are happy when pub gardens are packed with patio heaters. (Although, I suppose we should be bracing ourselves for a patio heater ban).
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't want to derail the thread but I always thought the idea of a smoking ban was bad until I lived in the Republic for 3 weeks. It's amazing the amount of craic and people you meet outside and it's a nicer atmosphere.

    As for the Hitler thingy, who gives a fuck?
Sign In or Register to comment.