mandatory ID cards:

RustyNut

Valetta wrote: »

No.

Ok

looking_around

No. If no, justify your answer.

I like the idea of an ID card and everything being connected, it's insane that to prove my ID for various stuff, I need my birth cert, my passport and my pps number, can't these all be combined? That would be excellent. And I'm all for them having fingerprints on a database, thats fine.

Forced to carry it with you always? No thanks. I don't carry my passport with me all the time, and don't wnat to start having to either.

___
And btw, if some random gaurd asked me for my details, I'd tell them where to go. That in itself is just sketchy

SB2013

RustyNut wrote: »

Because it is a right that we have and I believe that if we dond exercise these rights then we will loose them.

If something serious happened of course we should all cooperate with the police etc.

But just as an example, say a photographer is out and about takin pictures when he spots and photographs two Gardai giving someone a beating for no reason. They then spot him with the camera and ask his identity but they are not in a position to make a legal demand as he has not given them reason.

Would you think it's in the photographers best intrest to give up his right to privacy in these circumstances or should he just tell them everything they want to know and hope it does not get used against him ?

I thought we were relying on logical debate as opposed to extreme scenarios. Tell me, why are these Gardaí so polite and law abiding to the photographer. Presumably if they were in the business of beating people on the groung they would have no issue just taking your camera and arresting you on some trumped up charge.

So maybe we can stick with more realisitc examples. If you are in traffic at a checkpoint and the Garda asks your name would you tell him or exercise your right to privacy.

OhHiMark wrote: »

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

That's not the full quote.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

I've highlighted the important differences.

RustyNut

No. If no, justify your answer.

RustyNut wrote: »

I would exercise my right to protect my privacy.

In simple terms, act the bo*locks.

RustyNut wrote: »

Because it is a right that we have and I believe that if we dond exercise these rights then we will loose them.

If something serious happened of course we should all cooperate with the police etc.

But just as an example, say a photographer is out and about takin pictures when he spots and photographs two Gardai giving someone a beating for no reason. They then spot him with the camera and ask his identity but they are not in a position to make a legal demand as he has not given them reason.

Would you think it's in the photographers best intrest to give up his right to privacy in these circumstances or should he just tell them everything they want to know and hope it does not get used against him ?

I have seen a person arrested for refusing to hand a camera over to a Garda after he took a photo of the Garda.

RustyNut

SB2013 wrote: »

I thought we were relying on logical debate as opposed to extreme scenarios. Tell me, why are these Gardaí so polite and law abiding to the photographer. Presumably if they were in the business of beating people on the groung they would have no issue just taking your camera and arresting you on some trumped up charge.

So maybe we can stick with more realisitc examples. If you are in traffic at a checkpoint and the Garda asks your name would you tell him or exercise your right to privacy

See post 171 come along keep up.

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

I have seen a person arrested for refusing to hand a camera over to a Garda after he took a photo of the Garda.

Was it this person you seen getting arrested.

Richard Dower

No. If no, justify your answer.

I support the idea....voted yes.

RustyNut

No. If no, justify your answer.

RustyNut wrote: »

Was it this person you seen getting arrested.

Nope, someone I know. Arrested and released a few hours later without charge obviously and without the photos. The photos were not of anything bad.

RustyNut

Richard Dower wrote: »

I support the idea....voted yes.

The authorities approve of your answer. You are a good unit... :D:D

RustyNut

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

Nope, someone I know. Arrested and released a few hours later without charge obviously and without the photos. The photos were not of anything bad.

And do you see nothing wrong in that ?

OhHiMark

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

Liberating not to have an id in your pocket, what utter nonsense. I wouldn't leave the house without id and usually have two. You never know when its handy to have it.

Having a standard easy to carry id would make sense to me.

I think you're missing the point about it being mandatory, and you're also applying your personal situation to everybody else who lives in Ireland. Nobody is complaining about the idea of an optional ID card. Not everybody leaves the house with ID.

RustyNut

No. If no, justify your answer.

RustyNut wrote: »

And do you see nothing wrong in that ?

No because he was acting the bo*locks taking the photos just to annoy the guard and then refused to give his name or delete the photos. He never did it again I can tell you that.

OhHiMark wrote: »

I think you're missing the point about it being mandatory, and you're also applying your personal situation to everybody else who lives in Ireland. Nobody is complaining about the idea of an optional ID card. Not everybody leaves the house with ID.

I wouldn't necessarily say they should be definitely introduced but if they were it wouldn't bother me unlike a a few people here. If there were optional ones I would get one by choice as I think it would be handy.

RustyNut

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

No because he was acting the bo*locks taking the photos just to annoy the guard and then refused to give his name or delete the photos. He never did it again I can tell you that.

Just to get this straight.
Someone you know was arrested for taking a picture of a Garda. That would be a wrongful arrest as there is no offence in law of taking a picture of a Garda.
They were also held against their will in a garda station for a number of hours having not broken the law.
Eventually they were released having had some of their property illegally taken from them and all this carried out by members of AGS.

And the guy taking the picture was acting the bo11ocks.?

RustyNut

No. If no, justify your answer.

RustyNut wrote: »

Just to get this straight.
Someone you know was arrested for taking a picture of a Garda. That would be a wrongful arrest as there is no offence in law of taking a picture of a Garda.
They were also held against their will in a garda station for a number of hours having not broken the law.
Eventually they were released having had some of their property illegally taken from them and all this carried out by members of AGS.

And the guy taking the picture was acting the bo11ocks.?

Yes he was, you weren't there I was, he was making a nuisance of himself and refused to move on when asked so could be arrested for that anyway.

You really come across as a right akward person bent on making like tough for those in authority. No normal person starts citing civil liberties when asked a few questions by someone in authority. It will catch up with you in the end and will serve you right.

shanered

I don't agree agree that citing your rights is "being a nuisence" and it really shouldn't been seen in the light that you saying, although there are a few people who will use them simply to have a dig at the Guards, similarlly the way there are a few guards who use their "rights" as a member of AGS just to be a nuisence to some citizens.

OhHiMark

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

Because if you are asked your details in a friendly way and comply with noting to hide you will be let on your way but if you start refusing you are immediately making yourself look guilty and even if the guard suspected you of noting, behaving like that will very quickly make him suspect you of something.

Would you not rather just have an easier life and avoid the hassle by co-operating?

A garda can't arrest you on suspicion of being a bit shifty. They have to suspect you of a specific offence.

godwin

Methinks Marissa Bald Aeroplane can invent a situation to reinforce any hypothetical scenario that he's presented with.

RustyNut

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

You really come across as a right akward person bent on making like tough for those in authority. No normal person starts citing civil liberties when asked a few questions by someone in authority. It will catch up with you in the end and will serve you right.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

You have just said that in your opinion it is ok for the police to lift someone off the street because they don't like something he is doing even tho is perfectly legal. It's ok for the police to steal his property even tho he has broken no law and you think that the same police should be able to stop anyone, anytime, for, any reason and demand answers to whatever they ask.

Getting pretty close to totalitarianism there.


I just want to be able to stick with the rules that are there. They are my rights to hopefully protect me from what is described above. If you see that as acting the bo11ocks that's ok but I don't want to live in a country where it's ok to be lifted off the streets without having broken the law.

Feathers

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

Why not, they don't have to be accusing you of anything to want to ask you questions. They may want to know if you saw anything, witnessed an accident, robbery etc etc. normally they wouldn't need your details but if they happened to ask for them I would personally have no issue whatsoever giving them.

The only reason they'd need to know my name would be if I were to give a statement in this case. So if I were giving a statement in relation to a crime, of course I'd give my details.

Otherwise if they're not looking for a statement, they either suspect you of something or they're asking you for the sake of it. Either way, I don't see how it's 'acting the bollocks' to ask them why they're asking you, or to not tell them if the reason is idle curiousity.

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

I will ask again, do the people who feel so strongly about giving "nothing away" refuse to provide your name and where you have come from and are going to if asked at a checkpoint?

That's making sure you're legally allowed to drive. Generally they won't ask you for your name, they'll ask for your licence.

If they did ask where I was coming from, I'd politely ask them why they wanted to know. If was pertinent to an investigation, I'd help them out; otherwise, I'd treat it like any other interaction with strangers — how much I'd tell them would vary based on the interaction, their personality, the mood I was in, etc.

Are you saying whatever the Gardaí ask you for whatever reason, you'll tell them purely because they're a guard?

Feathers

No. If no, justify your answer.

Feathers wrote: »

If they did ask where I was coming from, I'd politely ask them why they wanted to know. If was pertinent to an investigation, I'd help them out; otherwise, I'd treat it like any other interaction with strangers — how much I'd tell them would vary based on the interaction, their personality, the mood I was in, etc.

Are you saying whatever the Gardaí ask you for whatever reason, you'll tell them purely because they're a guard?

I see absolutely no need for this extra level of interaction you and others have mentioned, i.e. asking why they want to know etc. anytime I've been asked I just answer with te truth and move on rather than engaging in a needless conversation that will more than likely annoy the guard and lead to them looking at you and your car more closely for defects etc where a simple one or two word answer would get you moving much faster.

So yes more or less anything I've been asked for by a guard I've answered truthfully. On one or two rare occasions I may have bent the truth slightly (minor motoring related things) but id always answer and I would say its definitely lead to an easier time at checkpoints.

SB2013

RustyNut wrote: »

See post 171 come along keep up.

That doesn't actually answer the question. You are not obliged to give your name unless it is lawfully demanded from you, even when driving. I am asking if you would give your name if it was simply asked of you. In post 171 you simply said "that's a different matter" which isn't an answer. So now I am asking you to answer that question. And you can save your condescending remarks for when you know what you are talking about.

RustyNut

SB2013 wrote: »

I am asking if you would give your name if it was simply asked of you.

No

RustyNut

No. If no, justify your answer.

RustyNut wrote: »

No

Why?

Well I know the answer and its to be awkward, plain and simple and no nonsense about preserving civil liberties will convince me otherwise.

Feathers

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

I see absolutely no need for this extra level of interaction you and others have mentioned, i.e. asking why they want to know etc.

It's not an extra level of interaction, it's a base level of interaction — any I'd ask strangers why they're enquiring if they asking me for personal information. Just common sense really.

I could say that if the cop makes a big deal out of answering a basic question, he's obviously going out of his way to be awkward.

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

So yes more or less anything I've been asked for by a guard I've answered truthfully.

So if they asked you how much you were earning, for example, you wouldn't mind telling them?

twinQuins

In other words, you've got your opinion and if anyone disagrees you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and misrepresent it. Especially if they try to point out that you're misrepresenting it, that means they're extra guilty of being awkward.

Because clearly you know what these people mean better than they do.

There's nothing awkward about holding a healthy suspicion of those with legal powers over you. Sure, most aren't going to abuse it but the reason we have these civil liberties is so that they can be exercised to prevent or curtail those abuses from those who will abuse their position.

It's kind of bemusing to have schools of thought that gave us societies where we have these rights, only for some people to come along and kick up a fuss when others actually dare to avail of them.

You want to cooperate in all instances without asking questions? No problem. But to say that people who avail of their rights are just being "awkward" smacks of bitterness. Is there some particular reason this is bothering you so much?

RustyNut

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

Why?

Well I know the answer and its to be awkward, plain and simple and no nonsense about preserving civil liberties will convince me otherwise.

Thanks for that, any other questions you would like to answer for your self.

Herb Powell

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

So yes more or less anything I've been asked for by a guard I've answered truthfully. On one or two rare occasions I may have bent the truth slightly (minor motoring related things) but id always answer and I would say its definitely lead to an easier time at checkpoints.

Ah now!

SB2013

RustyNut wrote: »

No

Hopefully you'll eventually learn that exercising your right to do something just for the sake of it isn't always the best approach to a situation.

professore

An ID card system properly implemented, makes everything a lot easier.

I would draw the line at the gardai being able to demand it, but being able to prove your identity is very useful.

Feathers

No. If no, justify your answer.

Feathers wrote: »

So if they asked you how much you were earning, for example, you wouldn't mind telling them?

Typical sort of nonsense I'd expect, there is simply no chance I'd be asked that.

twinQuins wrote: »

Is there some particular reason this is bothering you so much?

It doesn't bother me at all aside from the fact that there are people who claim to be upstanding members of society claiming that they will refuse to co-operate with a Garda yet in my 28 years I have only ever seen scumbags, sh1t head and other low life's refuse to co-operate so basically I assume if you are fighting over such a trivial issue such as giving your name to a Garda you are a person I do not want to associate with.

RustyNut

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

On one or two rare occasions I may have bent the truth

Jolene Uninterested Moon wrote: »

I have only ever seen scumbags, sh1t head and other low life's refuse to co-operate so basically I assume if you are fighting over such a trivial issue such as giving your name to a Garda you are a person I do not want to associate with.

Do you not agree that lying in an attempt to deceive the police is a lot more of a low life, sh1t head, scumbaggy thing to do, than to be honest and comply fully with the letter of the law ?