Talkswindon Archive - 2005 to 2010

Big Local Issues & Enquiries => NO2ID & The Identity Cards Debate => NO2ID Meetings in Swindon => Topic started by: Geoff Reid on February 14, 2007, 08:59:43 pm

Title: Whose identity is it anyway: Video
Post by: Geoff Reid on February 14, 2007, 08:59:43 pm
Starting from tonight we'll be publishing video excerpts of the 'Whose identity is it anyway?' meeting.......(as soon as Simon and myself have rendered)

This will take a few days, so please bear with us....

....they will be worth the wait  :)

Please save them to your hard drives for future reference, although please DO encourage as many people as possible to view and share the videos, stick 'em on youtube etc  :)

While the audience were arriving this short history of identity cards in Britain was showing:

Great Britain has had identity cards twice before.... (

At 7.30 pm the Chairman, Keith Stainer opened the meeting.

In chronological order then, opening statements first.....

(  Lord Stoddart of Swindon (

(  Stephen Halden (UKIP) (

(  Councillor Martin Wiltshire (Liberal Democrat) (

Title: Re: Whose identity is it anyway: Video
Post by: Simon on February 15, 2007, 02:59:33 pm
(   Here's the opening statement from Anna Ellis ( Ellis - intro.wmv)

(  Bill Hughes (Swindon Green Party) (

Title: Re: Whose identity is it anyway: Video
Post by: Geoff Reid on February 15, 2007, 11:22:58 pm
(  Justin Tomlinson Gives his opinion (

(  Robert Buckland gives a Criminal Barristers View (

(  Michael Wills  Defending the Governments corner (

Opening statements are now concluded - audience questions to the panel will follow
Title: Re: Whose identity is it anyway: Video
Post by: Geoff Reid on February 18, 2007, 11:01:49 pm

Complete first half of meeting here: 143mb windows media (wmv) file (

This file includes the opening statements listed in the above posts.

Simon has encoded smaller sections of the meeting, (all now on the Talkswindon server), which I'm sure he will post as soon as he gets a free half hour.

I'll post the entire second half tomorrow
Title: Re: Whose identity is it anyway: Video
Post by: Simon on February 19, 2007, 06:12:38 pm
OK, here are all my video clips. They don't cover the whole meeting, just some of the more interesting bits. These are all made available under a Creative Commons non-commercial share-alike license (, which means if you want to burn them to a CD for your friends, post them to YouTube or MySpace or elsewhere on the web, then you're welcome to, as long as you don't do it with the aim of making money. If you're feeling creative then you can also make your own video or other project out of bits of these clips, as long as you then share it under the same license.

Anna Ellis' opening statement ( (already linked above)

Michael Wills' opening statement (, in which he tells us that the database state is already here and the ID cards bill merely makes it accountable.

Michael Wills and Lord Stoddart ( on how secure the system is and who will have access to the information held on it.

Robert Buckland ( saying that most benefit fraud isn't people claiming to be someone other than who they are but instead people not disclosing their circumstances and employment situation truthfully.

Stephen Halden ( on security and who will have access to the system.

Robert Buckland and Justin Tomlinson ( saying they'll repeal the ID cards act if elected, followed by a good argument with Michael Wills.

Stephen Halden, Bill Hughes and Martin Wiltshire (,%20Stephen%20Halden,%20Bll%20Hughes%20-%20repealing%20the%20ID%20cards%20act.wmv) on repealing the ID cards act.

Lord Stoddard ( on the failings of IT systems generally.

Robert Buckland and Justin Tomlinson ( on the childrens index.

Lord Stoddart ( on the childrens index.

Robert Buckland's closing speech (, talking about the LIBRA system which so few courts have taken up.

Justin Tomlinson's closing speech (

Bill Hughes' closing speech (

Anna Ellis' closing speech (

Martin Wiltshire's closing speech (

Stephen Halden's closing speech (

Lord Stoddart's closing speech (

And here are some audio clips which cover almost the entire evening, except for some gaps when I was changing tapes. These are covered by the same license as the video clips.
Introductions ( | Part 1 ( | Part 2 ( | Part 3 ( | Part 4 ( | Part 5 ( | Part 6 ( | Part 7 ( | Part 8 ( | Part 9 ( | Part 10 ( | Part 11 (

Enjoy  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Whose identity is it anyway: Video
Post by: Lynda on September 14, 2007, 08:46:56 pm
Title: Re: Whose identity is it anyway: Video
Post by: Krippers on September 18, 2007, 05:43:03 pm
I wish I had been there, a few comments on Mr Wills statements, although I do clearly state that I believe Mr Wills to be a person of integrity. However grab  :popcorn: and enjoy:

Mr Wills assertion that the Government only legislates when it is necessary is an incorrect statement. This stance is exemplified when observing the ludicrous legislation brought in to restrict demonstrations that the Government don't want, specifically we may observe the arrests of ladies reading out the names of war dead within earshot of number 10, arrested under serious crime legislation. The serious crime act was given an extensive amount of time in both houses incurring a lot of parliamentary time and a vast amount of taxpayers cash and in reality it's main objective was seemingly to reduce or remove the demonstration of one single man. However, perhaps Mr Wills has missed the proposals for such critically needed legislation as that of the legal requirement for cyclists to ring their bell every time they see a pedestrian. Or indeed the legislation that creates £45K a year jobs as "Smoking cessation officers" whose job is to tell people that smoking is bad for them and they should stop. So let's be clear that the idea that the current government's stance on responsible legislation is little more than farce.

Mr Wills also highlights the fact that terrorists currently move freely around the world, this may well be the truth but at no stage has it ever been clearly demonstrated that the UK population being held on a database is in any way a solution to terrorism. Again this is best demonstrated by understanding that all of the London Bombers could legitimately held ID cards. Mr Wills states correctly that the ID system will not stop terrorism but then goes on to make the unsupportable claim that it will add inconvenience and so hinder further terrorism, Mr Wills if you are reading this then please do excuse the following appraisal:


Mr Wills states that identity theft is increasing, indeed I have heard that in 2005 Charles Clarke was pushing figures of 600 percent increase, whether or not you believe that fool is a matter of personal prefference. However, even then Mr Clark acknowledged that the threat to the benefit system was not due to people lying about who they were, rather it was their personal circumstances that they were lying about. There may well be an increase of identity theft but this is without doubt clearly attributable to individual people failing to understand the threat and act accordingly, furthermore it is also a clear indication of the complete failure of commercial and public institutions to tackle the issue correctly and certainly it in no way offers any legitimate argument for creating a massive, unmanageable system.

Mr Wills states that this is a cost effective solution and that the Government have stated that if it looks like the public are going to regard this scheme as not cost effective then it will be shelved. I get the impression that Mr Wills has a lot more faith in the Government than I, but given that the Government illegally withheld the publication of the costs recently I feel that my cynical stance of regarding the Government hiding information that may show that the scheme is in fact not cost effective is a clear indication of their regard for the public's opinion. Perhaps Mr Wills could reappraise that statement.

Mr Wills's only comment that rings true is that he believes that the people of this country are not truly free, I personally do not find that an argument for handing over more freedom.

Finally it is worth noting that Mr Wills puts forward an argument expressing that if the people have such scepticism regarding the ability of the Government to successfully implement IT projects specifically referring to IT security, and that if this is the only concern then we should not be concerned because we all use computers and are open to hacking. Mr Wills could do well with reading the draft contact point guidance documentation with an information technology information security (IT infosec) person available to point out that the physical operating system of the NIR will have very little to do with how our entrusted information will get out.

Mr Wills is my MP, and in all honesty I do believe that he has personal integrity, a rare statement for me to make regarding a politician I assure you. It is then a sad shame that, if indeed he has good personal integrity, I cannot offer him my support because his stance on this single issue is so at odds with reality.

I seriously ask him to reconsider his position and understand that we the people who care to look are not so easily swayed by mainstream Government advertising rhetoric when it is so obviously covered in obscuration, deceit, unwillingness to engage, and outright ineptitude.

 :censored: is not something I am
Title: Re: Whose identity is it anyway: Video
Post by: Dougal on January 27, 2009, 07:40:06 pm

Sorry, the copyright must be in the template.
Please notify this forum's administrator that this site is missing the copyright message for SMF so they can rectify the situation. Display of copyright is a legal requirement. For more information on this please visit the Simple Machines website.