Have a wider option of forms of identification

most places in the UK e.g ( pubs,shops etc) only (mostly) accept a drivers licence or a valid passport as id but there are other cards such as young Scot cards , citizen card etc which have the PASS logo on them but most shops don’t except them which is bad for 16 years old because most people don’t or cant afford a passport and they want to buy lottery tickets or scratch cards but they don’t have either passport of drivers licence 🙁

Why is this idea important?

most places in the UK e.g ( pubs,shops etc) only (mostly) accept a drivers licence or a valid passport as id but there are other cards such as young Scot cards , citizen card etc which have the PASS logo on them but most shops don’t except them which is bad for 16 years old because most people don’t or cant afford a passport and they want to buy lottery tickets or scratch cards but they don’t have either passport of drivers licence 🙁

CRB checks

Introduce one-time CRB checks which will be acceptable by agencies other than the one initially requiring it

*   issue a visa like certificate of passing to successful applicants which will be placed on a page of their passport

*   the person's passport then becomes their proof of passing as well as of ID and will last the lifetime of the passport

Why is this idea important?

Introduce one-time CRB checks which will be acceptable by agencies other than the one initially requiring it

*   issue a visa like certificate of passing to successful applicants which will be placed on a page of their passport

*   the person's passport then becomes their proof of passing as well as of ID and will last the lifetime of the passport

Personal status is never dependent on any losable document

To enact a principle that already follows by common sense from disability discrimination as a principle. That no person's status, as they move around, shall ever depend in any way on bearing a physical document that is capable of getting lost or stolen.

Human error exists, much as the Victorians wanted to believe otherwise. It is not a safe society if human error can cause devastation to your planned day and to the whole order of your life, such that you can't resume your routine life until you have reestablished your status somehow, it is not always obvious how and might incur great expense.

Obviously this is an extension of the repeal of identity cards, and is part of the case against them. But as should have been learned from the identity cards issue, this reasoning is not limited to identity cards, it applies to any form of bearing a document to prove your status.

If you have ever needed your birth certificate, say for a job, were you sure where it was or that itr was in your possession? Then you were relieved you could obtain a copy of it, not have your life mucked up irreversibly by loss of one copy. That could be different if you are a refugee or asylum seeker.

The lost documents issue applies to everyone, as human error applies to everyone. But disability discrimination comes into it too and helps to prove the argument – because there are disabilities that can make you more likely to lose a document. Dyspraxia and attention deficit include clumsiness at the "fine motor" level. A person's extent of physical dexterity, or capability to keep attention focussed, is never entirely their own fault even if you say "be careful". More physically serious conditions of jerks and fits here the body is not wholly under voluntary control, make a very visible issue out of small documents' losability. Folks with those conditions move around independently, rightly for still having their own lives under their own control. It follows that disability discrimination is done by any requirement ever to prove your status with a losable document. Think also of the learning diasabled.

This would have the effect of abolishing passports, but of course we still have to issue them so long as other countries have not adopted this fair principle and still require them. But it prevents us requiring them, and it is just blatantly nice and enlightened that this forces the immigration system to work liberally. The bigots' view just gets neatly totally overturned by the facts of human error that stand in its way.

Most noticeably in daily life, is that it would abolish tickets and physically borne passes on public transport.

By statistical chance tickets will sometimes get lost, and it gets very scary then. How fair is that to the victim of crime when a ticket gets stolen along with their money?  Transport systems breach public safety by not providing any simple committal guaranteed means whereby they will always get the passenger out of trouble in any situation around a lost or stolen ticket that is not the passenger's fault. e.g. I have seen a man put off a train at unstaffed station Rosyth, at 2226 at night, who wanted to be allowed to go to the staffed focal point of Edinburgh to seek a way out of his trouble. I made an urgent query to First Scotrail about this as a witness and I did not get an answer that made any foolproof commitment to provide anything for the passenger in such a situation. They left it wholly to the abusable discretion of often nasty train conductors.

When I was 21 I had an experience of stolen wallet at Carmarthen and a train conductor who was visibly an anti-young bigot turned very nasty and just not believing the situation was genuine, I got other station staff's backing in complaining against him and in them finding out what to do but it still involved me needing to have a third party to contact, which is mortifying and not at all certain, and them having to travel to a station and get charged extra for the service, and when they asked , what if I they were infirm and unable to make that journey, they got no answer but "oh well..um..er.."

This is, and always has been, flagrantly an abuse of the public in any society constituted to consider public safety. No matter how culturally accepted this situation is by habit, dating from the ruthless uncaringness of the nineteenth century, it is now unsustainable under scrutiny of responsibility to transport users, concerning: risking travellers' safety, and human fallibility, such as is always considered in road accident prevention systems, and minorities.

Why is this idea important?

To enact a principle that already follows by common sense from disability discrimination as a principle. That no person's status, as they move around, shall ever depend in any way on bearing a physical document that is capable of getting lost or stolen.

Human error exists, much as the Victorians wanted to believe otherwise. It is not a safe society if human error can cause devastation to your planned day and to the whole order of your life, such that you can't resume your routine life until you have reestablished your status somehow, it is not always obvious how and might incur great expense.

Obviously this is an extension of the repeal of identity cards, and is part of the case against them. But as should have been learned from the identity cards issue, this reasoning is not limited to identity cards, it applies to any form of bearing a document to prove your status.

If you have ever needed your birth certificate, say for a job, were you sure where it was or that itr was in your possession? Then you were relieved you could obtain a copy of it, not have your life mucked up irreversibly by loss of one copy. That could be different if you are a refugee or asylum seeker.

The lost documents issue applies to everyone, as human error applies to everyone. But disability discrimination comes into it too and helps to prove the argument – because there are disabilities that can make you more likely to lose a document. Dyspraxia and attention deficit include clumsiness at the "fine motor" level. A person's extent of physical dexterity, or capability to keep attention focussed, is never entirely their own fault even if you say "be careful". More physically serious conditions of jerks and fits here the body is not wholly under voluntary control, make a very visible issue out of small documents' losability. Folks with those conditions move around independently, rightly for still having their own lives under their own control. It follows that disability discrimination is done by any requirement ever to prove your status with a losable document. Think also of the learning diasabled.

This would have the effect of abolishing passports, but of course we still have to issue them so long as other countries have not adopted this fair principle and still require them. But it prevents us requiring them, and it is just blatantly nice and enlightened that this forces the immigration system to work liberally. The bigots' view just gets neatly totally overturned by the facts of human error that stand in its way.

Most noticeably in daily life, is that it would abolish tickets and physically borne passes on public transport.

By statistical chance tickets will sometimes get lost, and it gets very scary then. How fair is that to the victim of crime when a ticket gets stolen along with their money?  Transport systems breach public safety by not providing any simple committal guaranteed means whereby they will always get the passenger out of trouble in any situation around a lost or stolen ticket that is not the passenger's fault. e.g. I have seen a man put off a train at unstaffed station Rosyth, at 2226 at night, who wanted to be allowed to go to the staffed focal point of Edinburgh to seek a way out of his trouble. I made an urgent query to First Scotrail about this as a witness and I did not get an answer that made any foolproof commitment to provide anything for the passenger in such a situation. They left it wholly to the abusable discretion of often nasty train conductors.

When I was 21 I had an experience of stolen wallet at Carmarthen and a train conductor who was visibly an anti-young bigot turned very nasty and just not believing the situation was genuine, I got other station staff's backing in complaining against him and in them finding out what to do but it still involved me needing to have a third party to contact, which is mortifying and not at all certain, and them having to travel to a station and get charged extra for the service, and when they asked , what if I they were infirm and unable to make that journey, they got no answer but "oh well..um..er.."

This is, and always has been, flagrantly an abuse of the public in any society constituted to consider public safety. No matter how culturally accepted this situation is by habit, dating from the ruthless uncaringness of the nineteenth century, it is now unsustainable under scrutiny of responsibility to transport users, concerning: risking travellers' safety, and human fallibility, such as is always considered in road accident prevention systems, and minorities.

ID at rubbish tips

stop the ruling which says i have to show id and a utility bill  before im allowed to enter the local tip.

 a simple trip to the tip means i have to rummage around looking for a bill. i have to get my passport from its place of safety then i have to load my rubbish into my husbands car because i am not allowed to take my van into the tip.

Why is this idea important?

stop the ruling which says i have to show id and a utility bill  before im allowed to enter the local tip.

 a simple trip to the tip means i have to rummage around looking for a bill. i have to get my passport from its place of safety then i have to load my rubbish into my husbands car because i am not allowed to take my van into the tip.

Scrap Challenge 21 and Challenge 25

The Challenge 21 and Challenge 25 schemes in shops have forced people to carry photographic ID even if they are unmistakably old enough to buy alcohol.  People should only be asked for ID if they might be too young and there should not be a blanket "ask everyone for ID" rule.  In any case if somebody is too young to buy alcohol they will just ask someone who is old enough to buy it for them.

Why is this idea important?

The Challenge 21 and Challenge 25 schemes in shops have forced people to carry photographic ID even if they are unmistakably old enough to buy alcohol.  People should only be asked for ID if they might be too young and there should not be a blanket "ask everyone for ID" rule.  In any case if somebody is too young to buy alcohol they will just ask someone who is old enough to buy it for them.

Dispense with the obsessive craze of ‘proof of identity’ under, for example, the Money Laundering Regulations

The law requires that when instructing, for example, a solicitor or estate agent, to handle selling your house you need provide proof of identity and they duly photocopy your passport and driving licence (though its debateable whether they in fact need only note the reference numbers from them, but anyway …).

But what does that prove?  If you are laundering money chances are you will have bogus documents anyway!

Meanwhile, it simply means in this day and age of ID theft there are countless hundreds of copies of everyone's documents blowing around in the wind, so to speak.  It devalues the real weight of passport and driving licence to prove identity when it might truly be required.

And though, to continue the example, estate agents have no need or right to ask to see a copy of a house buyer's passport/licence (because there is no monetary custom between the two parties) many agents gormlessly try it on, and likewise many house buyers gormlessly oblige and hand their documents over.

When changing doctors surgeries recently I was asked to let them have a copy of passport and driving licence.  Oh yes?, I asked.  What law or regulation requires that?  Erm, well, oooh, uhmmm, dunno, there isn't one, sorry, we don't really need it.

Why is this idea important?

The law requires that when instructing, for example, a solicitor or estate agent, to handle selling your house you need provide proof of identity and they duly photocopy your passport and driving licence (though its debateable whether they in fact need only note the reference numbers from them, but anyway …).

But what does that prove?  If you are laundering money chances are you will have bogus documents anyway!

Meanwhile, it simply means in this day and age of ID theft there are countless hundreds of copies of everyone's documents blowing around in the wind, so to speak.  It devalues the real weight of passport and driving licence to prove identity when it might truly be required.

And though, to continue the example, estate agents have no need or right to ask to see a copy of a house buyer's passport/licence (because there is no monetary custom between the two parties) many agents gormlessly try it on, and likewise many house buyers gormlessly oblige and hand their documents over.

When changing doctors surgeries recently I was asked to let them have a copy of passport and driving licence.  Oh yes?, I asked.  What law or regulation requires that?  Erm, well, oooh, uhmmm, dunno, there isn't one, sorry, we don't really need it.

One I.D. Number for life

During our life we have the burden of a….

1. National Insurance Number

2. National Health Number

3. Driving License Number

4. Passport Number

etc, etc.

Think about having just ONE ID NUMBER FOR LIFE. This would be used for EVERYTHING we do of a formal nature within society, simple and safe.

Why is this idea important?

During our life we have the burden of a….

1. National Insurance Number

2. National Health Number

3. Driving License Number

4. Passport Number

etc, etc.

Think about having just ONE ID NUMBER FOR LIFE. This would be used for EVERYTHING we do of a formal nature within society, simple and safe.

Legalise non alcoholic beverages such as non alcoholic cider

I think that people under the age of18 should be allowed to buy non alcoholic bevereges like cider or beer, and other 'alcoholic' products like cooking wine or something that has been cooked in wine without the need of ID

Why is this idea important?

I think that people under the age of18 should be allowed to buy non alcoholic bevereges like cider or beer, and other 'alcoholic' products like cooking wine or something that has been cooked in wine without the need of ID

Livestock farming: old measure that never get switched off!

1) During the BSE crisis of the 1990's a cattle movement system was established to control the movement of cows and beef cattle. This labourious system with its red tape and policemen still exists though the issues have mostly gone away. In our office we hold a cabinet full of paper passports for each animal. These things have to be stickered and signed, counter signed and a change of address for a cow or calf (or beef animal) has to be reported to the civil servants within 7 days otherwise laws are being broken. The person moving on an animal also has to sticker sign, post off within days otherwise he/she is breaking the law. If BSE has gone away, I don't like being termed as a law breaker for not complying with a system that someone has forgotten to switch off! Dump it!!!

2) Sheep electronic ID tags. Labour decided to go it alone in europe and actually implement an electronic tagging system for every sheep in the UK. The process is so expensive that it represents to the producer some 5% or so of the value of the sheep to implement, representing a pay cut to the producer. Ditch the law, sheep graze on the fells and hills and end up at some point at the abatoir. They are not dangerous or devious this law and measure is not really needed, dump it.

Why is this idea important?

1) During the BSE crisis of the 1990's a cattle movement system was established to control the movement of cows and beef cattle. This labourious system with its red tape and policemen still exists though the issues have mostly gone away. In our office we hold a cabinet full of paper passports for each animal. These things have to be stickered and signed, counter signed and a change of address for a cow or calf (or beef animal) has to be reported to the civil servants within 7 days otherwise laws are being broken. The person moving on an animal also has to sticker sign, post off within days otherwise he/she is breaking the law. If BSE has gone away, I don't like being termed as a law breaker for not complying with a system that someone has forgotten to switch off! Dump it!!!

2) Sheep electronic ID tags. Labour decided to go it alone in europe and actually implement an electronic tagging system for every sheep in the UK. The process is so expensive that it represents to the producer some 5% or so of the value of the sheep to implement, representing a pay cut to the producer. Ditch the law, sheep graze on the fells and hills and end up at some point at the abatoir. They are not dangerous or devious this law and measure is not really needed, dump it.