Pssst. Wanna buy a passport?

In all the recent hoo-ha over the prospect of ID cards, the government have been consistent on one point - that the system will be foolproof. Of course you can trust us with the security of your information - we're not so incompetent that we'd lose the data. And all that information is important to fight crime, and prevent fraud.

But what if the cards were counterfeited, came the cry of opposition. Impossible! exclaimed the Government.

Then a small voice at the back speculated, if the cards were impossible to counterfeit, what if the blank versions were stolen. Why bother with fakes, when you can produce the real thing?

Someone has stolen 3000 blank passports and visas in an audacious raid, the Foreign Office has today admitted. Now, unlike the loss of the data disks, this is not the fault of the government, I want to be clear about that. This was a well-planned, well-executed criminal act.

Which should worry us. ID cards will be more important than passports. We only need passports to travel outside the UK. ID cards will be required for everything. And so they become valuable to organised crime. If blank passports and visas can be stolen, so can blank ID cards. New ones made, to support false identities. Fake ones, copying YOUR personal information, to facilitate identity theft.

No security system is foolproof. This above all is why the government is so foolish to place so much information and importance on one unitary security procedure. We are concentrating all of our personal information, and all of our trust, in a piece of plastic. One which, like a passport, could be stolen, manipulated, and used.

The government is placing all their faith in a system which criminals can and will evade. By asking us to place all of our faith in these cards, we will actually be facilitating the activities of criminals.

A plastic card is no substitute for common sense, proper intelligence, and efficient investigation. Yet another reason why we should oppose the concept.

Tags: passport visa theft Foreign Office ID card

Welcome back to the international community...

Well, it's only taken thirteen years, but finally Radovan Karadzic has been arrested. And surprisingly, after years of being accused of sheltering him, it was the Serbian authorities who carried out the arrest.

Serbia appeared to be moving towards raprochement with the international community. Milosevic was deposed and surrendered to the Hague, elections followed. But with the independence of Kosovo, it appeared that the attitude of Serbia had become hardline again, and cooperation on the subject of indicted war crimes suspects was thrown into jeopardy.

So it is very welcome news that one of the last two extreme high profile war crimes suspects has been arrested, pending extradition to the International Criminal Court for Yugoslavia.

Now we just await the arrest of Ratko Mladic.

Tags: Radovan Karadzic Serbia arrest war crimes suspect ICTY

Appeal, otherwise this is bad law...

The Christian registrar who refused to carry out civil partnerships for gay couples has won her employment tribunal case.

Islington Council need to appeal this as soon as possible, otherwise some very bad law will be created.

Miss Ladelle claims that she was being bullied, and that her religious beliefs forbid her from carrying out civil partnership for gay couples.

Perhaps they do. But her religious beliefs also ought to forbid her from marrying heterosexual couples. According to Christian doctrine, a marriage contracted outwith the religious ceremony is not a marriage. God's blessing is absent. Therefore a couple "married" in a civil ceremony are not truly married, and so are engaging in sinful activity. Why do her beliefs permit heterosexual couples to commit sin, but not homosexual couples? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to pick and choose which aspect of your religious beliefs you wish to practice, then claim discrimination on the grounds of your beliefs?

Miss Ladelle objects that it infringes her religious liberty, as civil partnerships are against Christian faith. Civil marriages are against her Christian faith as well. And the authority is not stopping her from believing that homosexuality is a sin. They are merely asking her to carry out her lawful duties, as defined by the civil authorities. This is not a religious issue. This is an issue of civil law.

A registrar may only refuse to carry out a ceremony if there are legal grounds for objection. Civil partnership is not a religious ceremony, it is a civil arrangement. If it is valid in the law then the registrar may not refuse to grant it. Otherwise what is next? Mixed marriages being refused on the grounds of being "against the registrar's religious beliefs"? There are certain religious people in this country who disagree on mixed race marriages on the grounds of religion. Shall we allow them to decide who may marry on the basis of their religious beliefs?

I understand that previously the registrars were freelancers, and so could pick and choose what work to take, as is their right. But they are not freelancers anymore, they are employees. An employee has only a very limited right to refuse to carry out the lawful instructions of their employee if they are an essential part of the job. If registrars refuse to carry out their lawful duties for reasons of personal prejudice (and "religious belief" is a form of personal prejudice, there is no point denying it), then the local authority fails in its responsibility to provide a lawful service to the citizens in the area.

Sometimes you do need to decide between your job and your personal beliefs when the job in question is not illegal. That may be personally unfair, but it is not unfair in terms of employment law. If you feel you cannot in good conscience discharge your duties for reasons of your own personal beliefs, then it is for you to leave. The law is validly enacted, and forms part of the duties of a civil registrar. Leave religious beliefs for religious ceremonies. Enact the law in force or leave. That's not discrimination. That's not bullying. That's obedience to the law.

Tags: religious freedom civil partnership Islington Council Lillian Ladelle employment tribunal

What shall we do with the information?

The Government has today announced a competition. They would like ideas from the general public of innovative ways that the terabytes of data the government has collected on us could be put to use. There's even a £20,000 cash prize.

Here's my suggestion. How about not losing the information?

On a related note, is the prize in any way related to this £20,000 prize?

Tags: government data competition innovative use lost data discs