Digital driving licence ... ID card by stealth?
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkjjkjy4p8o>
I know there's already a tie between driving licences and passports (at
least for photo sharing between DVLA and HMPO).
I never carry my paper licence (it'd be a dog-eared mess if I did) as I hardly ever need to show it, and can generally predict when I will need
it, companies dislike the DVLA check codes for e.g. car hire, or
courtesy cars, I've only had a "producer" once in my life.
As I understand it, your paper driving licence, just like mine, no
longer has any legal significance.
Only the plastic credit-card sized licence counts
JNugent wrote:
As I understand it, your paper driving licence, just like mine, no
longer has any legal significance.
Only the plastic credit-card sized licence counts
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper licence.
There were mutterings about forcing photocards a few years back, but it
never happened.
Andy Burns wrote:
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper licence.
Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc) birthday?
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper licence.
Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc) birthday?
Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't?
Digital driving licence ... ID card by stealth?
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkjjkjy4p8o>
I know there's already a tie between driving licences and passports (at
least for photo sharing between DVLA and HMPO).
I never carry my paper licence (it'd be a dog-eared mess if I did) as I hardly ever need to show it, and can generally predict when I will need
it, companies dislike the DVLA check codes for e.g. car hire, or
courtesy cars, I've only had a "producer" once in my life.
JNugent wrote:
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't?
I haven't changed address since 1990.
On 18/01/2025 12:14, Andy Burns wrote:
Digital driving licence ... ID card by stealth?
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkjjkjy4p8o>
I know there's already a tie between driving licences and passports (at
least for photo sharing between DVLA and HMPO).
I never carry my paper licence (it'd be a dog-eared mess if I did) as I
hardly ever need to show it, and can generally predict when I will need
it, companies dislike the DVLA check codes for e.g. car hire, or
courtesy cars, I've only had a "producer" once in my life.
The digital licence will be optional and not everybody has a driving
licence, so it would be a very poor implementation os an ID card.
Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 12:14, Andy Burns wrote:
Digital driving licence ... ID card by stealth?
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkjjkjy4p8o>
I know there's already a tie between driving licences and passports (at
least for photo sharing between DVLA and HMPO).
I never carry my paper licence (it'd be a dog-eared mess if I did) as I
hardly ever need to show it, and can generally predict when I will need
it, companies dislike the DVLA check codes for e.g. car hire, or
courtesy cars, I've only had a "producer" once in my life.
The digital licence will be optional and not everybody has a driving licence, so it would be a very poor implementation os an ID card.
Perhaps the proposed digital driving licence will in fact be a poor implementation of an ID card, but it could well be a very good start to
one, perhaps made universal by the adoption of the US-style ‘No Groups’ option.
The digital licence will be optional and not everybody has a driving
licence, so it would be a very poor implementation os an ID card.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 15:31:16 +0000, Theo wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you don't drive you can apply for a provisional licence in order to
use it as ID, but I wonder how it works for people banned or medically
unfit to drive? Presumably if you relinquish your licence due to
declining faculties (or a doctor failing to endorse your renewal) you
also lose your ID?
What happens to someone who doesn't drive because they know they aren't medically unfit, but decides not to say anything (to anyone) ?
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you don't drive you can apply for a provisional licence in order to
use it as ID, but I wonder how it works for people banned or medically
unfit to drive? Presumably if you relinquish your licence due to
declining faculties (or a doctor failing to endorse your renewal) you
also lose your ID?
On 19 Jan 2025 at 16:17:43 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 15:31:16 +0000, Theo wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you don't drive you can apply for a provisional licence in order to
use it as ID, but I wonder how it works for people banned or medically
unfit to drive? Presumably if you relinquish your licence due to
declining faculties (or a doctor failing to endorse your renewal) you
also lose your ID?
What happens to someone who doesn't drive because they know they aren't
medically unfit, but decides not to say anything (to anyone) ?
Presumably you mean "are" medically unfit. Then they commit an offence
by not informing the DVLA and surrendering their licence.
Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 12:14, Andy Burns wrote:
Digital driving licence ... ID card by stealth?
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkjjkjy4p8o>
I know there's already a tie between driving licences and passports (at >>>least for photo sharing between DVLA and HMPO).
I never carry my paper licence (it'd be a dog-eared mess if I did) as I >>>hardly ever need to show it, and can generally predict when I will need >>>it, companies dislike the DVLA check codes for e.g. car hire, or
courtesy cars, I've only had a "producer" once in my life.
The digital licence will be optional and not everybody has a driving >>licence, so it would be a very poor implementation os an ID card.
Perhaps the proposed digital driving licence will in fact be a poor >implementation of an ID card, but it could well be a very good start to
one, perhaps made universal by the adoption of the US-style ‘No Groups’ >option.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:44:20 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 16:17:43 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 15:31:16 +0000, Theo wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you don't drive you can apply for a provisional licence in order to >>>> use it as ID, but I wonder how it works for people banned or medically >>>> unfit to drive? Presumably if you relinquish your licence due to
declining faculties (or a doctor failing to endorse your renewal) you
also lose your ID?
What happens to someone who doesn't drive because they know they aren't
medically unfit, but decides not to say anything (to anyone) ?
Presumably you mean "are" medically unfit. Then they commit an offence
by not informing the DVLA and surrendering their licence.
But how would the DVSA know ?
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards
the government does not have a good record with IT systems
On 19/01/2025 in message <lv43ebF31nqU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 12:14, Andy Burns wrote:
Digital driving licence ... ID card by stealth?
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkjjkjy4p8o>
I know there's already a tie between driving licences and passports
(at least for photo sharing between DVLA and HMPO).
I never carry my paper licence (it'd be a dog-eared mess if I did) as
I hardly ever need to show it, and can generally predict when I will >>>>need it, companies dislike the DVLA check codes for e.g. car hire, or >>>>courtesy cars, I've only had a "producer" once in my life.
The digital licence will be optional and not everybody has a driving >>>licence, so it would be a very poor implementation os an ID card.
Perhaps the proposed digital driving licence will in fact be a poor >>implementation of an ID card, but it could well be a very good start to >>one, perhaps made universal by the adoption of the US-style ‘No Groups’ >>option.
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find
one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not
have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close to
fool proof as possible.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 16:44:20 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 16:17:43 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 15:31:16 +0000, Theo wrote:
Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
If you don't drive you can apply for a provisional licence in order to >>>> use it as ID, but I wonder how it works for people banned or medically >>>> unfit to drive? Presumably if you relinquish your licence due to
declining faculties (or a doctor failing to endorse your renewal) you
also lose your ID?
What happens to someone who doesn't drive because they know they aren't
medically unfit, but decides not to say anything (to anyone) ?
Presumably you mean "are" medically unfit. Then they commit an offence
by not informing the DVLA and surrendering their licence.
But how would the DVSA know ?
Colin Bignell wrote:
The digital licence will be optional and not everybody has a driving
licence, so it would be a very poor implementation as an ID card.
Nevertheless, feature creep exists.
On 19/01/2025 in message <lv43ebF31nqU1@mid.individual.net> Spike wrote:
Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
The digital licence will be optional and not everybody has a driving
licence, so it would be a very poor implementation os an ID card.
Perhaps the proposed digital driving licence will in fact be a poor
implementation of an ID card, but it could well be a very good start to
one, perhaps made universal by the adoption of the US-style ‘No Groups’ >> option.
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find
one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not
have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close to
fool proof as possible.
On 18/01/2025 05:47 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper licence. >>>Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc) birthday?
Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't?
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find one >>very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not have a >>good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close to fool >>proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could become
in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live in a >"Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask for it.
You might not be able to enter a museum or other public building without >producing it.
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find
one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not
have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close to
fool proof as possible.
There was never any real objection to ID cards - I myself have no problem >with them.
The problem was the government insisted that your ID card had to be
plugged into a super national database of every and all electronic record
on you held by any and all agencies and that could be accessed by anyone
who had a "good reason".
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
Keep in mind here that the 1939 National Identity Card was brought in
for three or four functions. When it was scrapped in 1952
In message <lv2hd7FpvlvU1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:31:36 on Sat, 18
Jan 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/01/2025 05:47 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper
licence.
Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc) birthday? >>>
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't?
Perhaps you moved house, which is one of the triggers.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:45 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
There would be objections to ID cards even if they were not linked toI really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find
one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not
have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close
to fool proof as possible.
There was never any real objection to ID cards - I myself have no
problem with them.
The problem was the government insisted that your ID card had to be
plugged into a super national database of every and all electronic
record on you held by any and all agencies and that could be accessed by >>anyone who had a "good reason".
any other function. 'We are British. It's not what we do,' is what the objectors would declare, among other things probably.
On 19/01/2025 in message <vmjfve$2d8dn$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian
wrote:
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find
one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not >>>have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close
to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could become
in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live in a >>"Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask for it.
You might not be able to enter a museum or other public building without >>producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere I would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to the
best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
On 19/01/2025 in message <vmjfve$2d8dn$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote:
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would
find one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government
does not have a good record with IT systems and they would need to
be as close to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could
become in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live
in a "Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask
for it. You might not be able to enter a museum or other public
building without producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere I would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to the
best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:45 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find
one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not
have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close to >>> fool proof as possible.
There was never any real objection to ID cards - I myself have no problem
with them.
The problem was the government insisted that your ID card had to be
plugged into a super national database of every and all electronic record
on you held by any and all agencies and that could be accessed by anyone
who had a "good reason".
There would be objections to ID cards even if they were not linked to
any other function. 'We are British. It's not what we do,' is what the objectors would declare, among other things probably.
On 19/01/2025 in message <vmjfve$2d8dn$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian wrote:
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find
one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not >>>have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close
to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could
become in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live
in a "Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask
for it. You might not be able to enter a museum or other public
building without producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere
I would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to
the best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:00:31 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/01/2025 in message <vmjfve$2d8dn$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian
wrote:
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find >>>>one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not >>>>have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close >>>>to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could become >>>in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live in a >>>"Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask for it. >>>You might not be able to enter a museum or other public building without >>>producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere I
would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to the
best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
Well that's the other objection. What's the point of an ID card if it
can't be inspected "at will" ?
An ID that you have to present to people who demand it if they wish to do
so is useful to people other than you.
On 20/01/2025 14:14, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:45 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find
one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not
have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close to >>>> fool proof as possible.
There was never any real objection to ID cards - I myself have no problem >>> with them.
The problem was the government insisted that your ID card had to be
plugged into a super national database of every and all electronic record >>> on you held by any and all agencies and that could be accessed by anyone >>> who had a "good reason".
There would be objections to ID cards even if they were not linked to
any other function. 'We are British. It's not what we do,' is what the
objectors would declare, among other things probably.
What's the matter with that?
Why should we justify our existence to anyone?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
An ID that you have to present to people who demand it if they wish to
do so is useful to people other than you.
That’s precisely why the last UK ID scheme got binned, because the
public were highly annoyed at Little Hitlers demanding to see ID for no
real reason.
On 2025-01-20, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:00:31 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/01/2025 in message <vmjfve$2d8dn$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian
wrote:
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find >>>>>one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not >>>>>have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close >>>>>to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could become >>>>in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live in a >>>>"Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask for it. >>>>You might not be able to enter a museum or other public building without >>>>producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere I >>> would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to the
best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
Well that's the other objection. What's the point of an ID card if it
can't be inspected "at will" ?
That it can be presented for inspection at will?
How is that not obvious? An ID that you can present to the people you
choose if you wish to do so is useful to you. An ID that you have to
present to people who demand it if they wish to do so is useful to
people other than you.
In message <xn0p1143z5mgtt600e@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> writes
On 19/01/2025 in message <vmjfve$2d8dn$1@dont-email.me> Max DemianSome 20 years ago, when on holiday in the USA, I recall listening to a
wrote:
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find >>>>one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not >>>>have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close >>>>to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could
become in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live
in a "Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask
for it. You might not be able to enter a museum or other public
building without producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere I >>would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to the >>best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
radio documentary about the probability that eventually we would all be
RFID chipped, and that if we fell foul of the powers-that-be, they could
then be used to regulate entry to premises or making purchases.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvotknm.lvpa.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-01-20, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:00:31 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/01/2025 in message <vmjfve$2d8dn$1@dont-email.me> Max Demian
wrote:
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find >>>>>>one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not >>>>>>have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close >>>>>>to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could become >>>>>in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live in a >>>>>"Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask for it. >>>>>You might not be able to enter a museum or other public building without >>>>>producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere I >>>> would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to the >>>> best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
Well that's the other objection. What's the point of an ID card if it
can't be inspected "at will" ?
That it can be presented for inspection at will?
How is that not obvious? An ID that you can present to the people you
choose if you wish to do so is useful to you. An ID that you have to
present to people who demand it if they wish to do so is useful to
people other than you.
Surely all ID must be useful to other people; otherwise what's point
of carrying it around, or showing it to anyone ?
What would be tbe point of ID if it was up to the carrier whether
they showd it to anyone or not ?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Max Demian wrote:
I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find >>>>>> one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not >>>>>> have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close >>>>>> to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could become >>>>> in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live in a >>>>> "Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask for it. >>>>> You might not be able to enter a museum or other public building without >>>>> producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere I >>>> would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to the >>>> best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
That it can be presented for inspection at will?Well that's the other objection. What's the point of an ID card if it
can't be inspected "at will" ?
How is that not obvious? An ID that you can present to the people you
choose if you wish to do so is useful to you. An ID that you have to
present to people who demand it if they wish to do so is useful to
people other than you.
Surely all ID must be useful to other people; otherwise what's point
of carrying it around, or showing it to anyone ?
What would be tbe point of ID if it was up to the carrier whether
they showd it to anyone or not ?
Which is not to say that there might be occasions where 3rd
parties may require ID; when there is no obvious justifiction
for their doing so.
On 21/01/2025 12:12 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Max Demian wrote:
That it can be presented for inspection at will?I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find >>>>>>> one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not >>>>>>> have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close >>>>>>> to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could become >>>>>> in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live in a >>>>>> "Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask for it. >>>>>> You might not be able to enter a museum or other public building without >>>>>> producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere I >>>>> would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to the >>>>> best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
Well that's the other objection. What's the point of an ID card if it
can't be inspected "at will" ?
How is that not obvious? An ID that you can present to the people you
choose if you wish to do so is useful to you. An ID that you have to
present to people who demand it if they wish to do so is useful to
people other than you.
Surely all ID must be useful to other people; otherwise what's point
of carrying it around, or showing it to anyone ?
What would be tbe point of ID if it was up to the carrier whether
they showd it to anyone or not ?
Which is not to say that there might be occasions where 3rd
parties may require ID; when there is no obvious justifiction
for their doing so.
Surely the individual is within their rights to decline to produce the ID in such
private sector circumstances as they see fit?
And then the 3rd party may decline to take the proposition any further.
After all, trade is voluntarily transacted.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 14:14:54 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 17:26:45 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
There would be objections to ID cards even if they were not linked toI really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find
one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not
have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close
to fool proof as possible.
There was never any real objection to ID cards - I myself have no
problem with them.
The problem was the government insisted that your ID card had to be >>>plugged into a super national database of every and all electronic
record on you held by any and all agencies and that could be accessed by >>>anyone who had a "good reason".
any other function. 'We are British. It's not what we do,' is what the
objectors would declare, among other things probably.
Oh I agree. However having grown up with a father who himself grew up
with ID cards, I'm not that opposed. In fact if it would help daily life
and clear up the smorgasboard patchwork of documents currently needed,
then bring it on.
But that wasn't what was proposed. Moreover the FUD and lies that the >government were pushing to make it happen instantly alerted me to weapons >grade danger.
I took (and indeed still take) a similar view over smart meters. Whatever >their pros and cons, trying to persuade people they magically "save
money" as a phrase to end debate was probably the best way to engage my >smell-o-meter. What are they *really* up to ?
But that wasn't what was proposed. Moreover the FUD and lies that the >>government were pushing to make it happen instantly alerted me to weapons >>grade danger.
Government and large organisations and the systems they operate seem
to me to be error prone and subject to being hacked. It is as if we
(they) still haven't learnt how to deal with IT properly.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:lva3faF27slU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/01/2025 12:12 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Max Demian wrote:
That it can be presented for inspection at will?I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find >>>>>>>> one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not >>>>>>>> have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close >>>>>>>> to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could become
in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live in a >>>>>>> "Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask for it. >>>>>>> You might not be able to enter a museum or other public building without
producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere I >>>>>> would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to the >>>>>> best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
Well that's the other objection. What's the point of an ID card if it >>>>> can't be inspected "at will" ?
How is that not obvious? An ID that you can present to the people you
choose if you wish to do so is useful to you. An ID that you have to
present to people who demand it if they wish to do so is useful to
people other than you.
Surely all ID must be useful to other people; otherwise what's point
of carrying it around, or showing it to anyone ?
What would be tbe point of ID if it was up to the carrier whether
they showd it to anyone or not ?
Which is not to say that there might be occasions where 3rd
parties may require ID; when there is no obvious justifiction
for their doing so.
Surely the individual is within their rights to decline to produce the ID in such
private sector circumstances as they see fit?
That is true. But then why bother carrying it about at all ? That's the
point I'm making. What's the point of ID if you're not going to show it
to other people ?
That's assuming of course that a person can remember their own name and
other details possibly printed on the card. With possibly a photo to
confirm that it is their own card that they're looking at. But other
than that...
And then the 3rd party may decline to take the proposition any further.
After all, trade is voluntarily transacted.
Yes.
bb
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:20:50 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I took (and indeed still take) a similar view over smart meters. Whatever
their pros and cons, trying to persuade people they magically "save
money" as a phrase to end debate was probably the best way to engage my
smell-o-meter. What are they *really* up to ?
If often considered raising a complaint with ASA especially when
Einstein tries to convince me they will save me money. How exactly
other than all the cheaper tariffs are on "smart" meters, but sending
a reading every month and paying by credit card gives me the minimum
of hassle as well as forcing me to keep track of my usage and cost.
On 21/01/2025 20:26, AnthonyL wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:20:50 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I took (and indeed still take) a similar view over smart meters. Whatever >>> their pros and cons, trying to persuade people they magically "save
money" as a phrase to end debate was probably the best way to engage my
smell-o-meter. What are they *really* up to ?
If often considered raising a complaint with ASA especially when
Einstein tries to convince me they will save me money. How exactly
other than all the cheaper tariffs are on "smart" meters, but sending
a reading every month and paying by credit card gives me the minimum
of hassle as well as forcing me to keep track of my usage and cost.
Smart meters are useless as they don't tell you how much individual appliances use,
never mind the cumulative consumption (to, for example cook a meal); or the average
consumption (of, for example, a fridge).
They might scare people to turn things off, until the novelty wears off.
And they might "nudge" you to cook your dinner at a different time.
And they *do* enable the supplier to switch off your supply (including erroneously).
After my heart operation, I could not drive for six weeks and the
hospital advised the DVLA of that.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:lva3faF27slU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/01/2025 12:12 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Max Demian wrote:
That it can be presented for inspection at will?I really don't know what the objections are to ID cards, I would find >>>>>>>> one very useful. Implementation would be fun. the government does not >>>>>>>> have a good record with IT systems and they would need to be as close >>>>>>>> to fool proof as possible.
If it becomes used for too many identification purposes, it could become
in practice essential to carry it everywhere, and we could live in a >>>>>>> "Papiere, bitte" society where all manner of officials will ask for it. >>>>>>> You might not be able to enter a museum or other public building without
producing it.
If it was introduced then it would be essential to carry it everywhere I >>>>>> would have thought, I would have no problem with that. According to the >>>>>> best Sci Fi books RFID chips would be the next stage.
Well that's the other objection. What's the point of an ID card if it >>>>> can't be inspected "at will" ?
How is that not obvious? An ID that you can present to the people you
choose if you wish to do so is useful to you. An ID that you have to
present to people who demand it if they wish to do so is useful to
people other than you.
Surely all ID must be useful to other people; otherwise what's point
of carrying it around, or showing it to anyone ?
What would be tbe point of ID if it was up to the carrier whether
they showd it to anyone or not ?
Which is not to say that there might be occasions where 3rd
parties may require ID; when there is no obvious justifiction
for their doing so.
Surely the individual is within their rights to decline to produce the ID in such
private sector circumstances as they see fit?
That is true. But then why bother carrying it about at all ? That's the
point I'm making. What's the point of ID if you're not going to show it
to other people ?
That's assuming of course that a person can remember their own name and
other details possibly printed on the card. With possibly a photo to
confirm that it is their own card that they're looking at. But other
than that...
And then the 3rd party may decline to take the proposition any further.
After all, trade is voluntarily transacted.
Yes.
In message <lv2hd7FpvlvU1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:31:36 on Sat, 18
Jan 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/01/2025 05:47 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper licence. >>>>Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc) birthday? >>>
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't?
Perhaps you moved house, which is one of the triggers.
On 20/01/2025 02:19 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lv2hd7FpvlvU1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:31:36 on Sat, 18
Jan 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/01/2025 05:47 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper
licence.
Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc)
birthday?
Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't?
Perhaps you moved house, which is one of the triggers.
Not in the last forty-two years (and a couple of months).
On 20/01/2025 16:34, JNugent wrote:
On 20/01/2025 02:19 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/01/2025 05:47 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper
licence.
Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc)
birthday?
Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't?
Perhaps you moved house, which is one of the triggers.
Not in the last forty-two years (and a couple of months).
Perhaps not relevant here, but what would happen if you (still)[1] had a paper licence and you acquired some points for a driving offence?
Would the DVLC see that as an opportunity to force a change to plastic?
[1] There cannot be many left 'in circulation'. I held onto mine until
my 70th.
On 25/01/2025 07:02 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 20/01/2025 16:34, JNugent wrote:
On 20/01/2025 02:19 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/01/2025 05:47 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper >>>>>>>> licence.
Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc)
birthday?
Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you
don't?
Perhaps you moved house, which is one of the triggers.
Not in the last forty-two years (and a couple of months).
Perhaps not relevant here, but what would happen if you (still)[1] had
a paper licence and you acquired some points for a driving offence?
Would the DVLC see that as an opportunity to force a change to plastic?
I *do* still have the paper licence (which I think was called the "counterpart").
It's hard to see why there would be a need to change to plastic. The
licence card is not the official record, any more than a paper licence
is.
The official record is on the DVLA's computers.
That is where endorsements (if any) definitively exist.
[1] There cannot be many left 'in circulation'. I held onto mine until
my 70th.
At a guess, there are probably still a few million paper licences still
in existence.
The physical card or document is something you can produce when a police officer demands it. The plastic cards with photo are easier to match to
the driver and probably harder to forge than the paper document.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2025 07:02 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 20/01/2025 16:34, JNugent wrote:
On 20/01/2025 02:19 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/01/2025 05:47 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper >>>>>>>>> licence.
Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc)
birthday?
Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't? >>>Perhaps you moved house, which is one of the triggers.
Not in the last forty-two years (and a couple of months).
Perhaps not relevant here, but what would happen if you (still)[1] had a >>> paper licence and you acquired some points for a driving offence?
Would the DVLC see that as an opportunity to force a change to plastic?
I *do* still have the paper licence (which I think was called the
"counterpart").
The counterpart was the paper issued with the plastic photocard license between 1998 and 2015. It never had value on its own and has been useless since 2015.
It's hard to see why there would be a need to change to plastic. The
licence card is not the official record, any more than a paper licence is. >>
The official record is on the DVLA's computers.
That is where endorsements (if any) definitively exist.
The physical card or document is something you can produce when a police officer demands it. The plastic cards with photo are easier to match to the driver and probably harder to forge than the paper document.
[1] There cannot be many left 'in circulation'. I held onto mine until
my 70th.
At a guess, there are probably still a few million paper licences still
in extistence.
People may have kept old paper licenses or counterparts even if they are no longer valid so existence is not so interesting.
According to my calculations, those who hold valid paper licenses must have been born between 1955 and 1981. Census data puts that at about 20 million but only around 74% hold driving licenses so the maximum is around 15 million.
We then have to exclude people who moved. Census data says that 10.1% of usual residents aged one year and over moved in the year before the 2021 census down from 11.1% in 2011. A rough calculation with a few assumptions suggests that around 6% of the population have not moved since 1998 when
the paper license was replaced.
That would put the number of people who potentially have a valid paper license at under one million. That would be my estimate based on plausible assumptions.
On 25/01/2025 07:02 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 20/01/2025 16:34, JNugent wrote:
On 20/01/2025 02:19 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/01/2025 05:47 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper >>>>>>>> licence.
Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc)
birthday?
Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't?
Perhaps you moved house, which is one of the triggers.
Not in the last forty-two years (and a couple of months).
Perhaps not relevant here, but what would happen if you (still)[1] had a
paper licence and you acquired some points for a driving offence?
Would the DVLC see that as an opportunity to force a change to plastic?
I *do* still have the paper licence (which I think was called the "counterpart").
It's hard to see why there would be a need to change to plastic. The
licence card is not the official record, any more than a paper licence is.
The official record is on the DVLA's computers.
That is where endorsements (if any) definitively exist.
[1] There cannot be many left 'in circulation'. I held onto mine until
my 70th.
At a guess, there are probably still a few million paper licences still
in extistence.
According to my calculations, those who hold valid paper licenses must have been born between 1955 and 1981. Census data puts that at about 20 million but only around 74% hold driving licenses so the maximum is around 15 million.
We then have to exclude people who moved. Census data says that 10.1% of usual residents aged one year and over moved in the year before the 2021 census down from 11.1% in 2011. A rough calculation with a few assumptions suggests that around 6% of the population have not moved since 1998 when
the paper license was replaced.
That would put the number of people who potentially have a valid paper license at under one million. That would be my estimate based on plausible assumptions.
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:42:05 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
The physical card or document is something you can produce when a police
officer demands it. The plastic cards with photo are easier to match to
the driver and probably harder to forge than the paper document.
Surely forging one is useless unless you also create the corresponding
record in the DVSA database ? Certainly for showing a police officer ?
On 26 Jan 2025 at 14:42:05 GMT, "Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2025 07:02 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 20/01/2025 16:34, JNugent wrote:I *do* still have the paper licence (which I think was called the
On 20/01/2025 02:19 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/01/2025 05:47 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper >>>>>>>>>> licence.
Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc) >>>>>>>>> birthday?
Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't? >>>>Perhaps you moved house, which is one of the triggers.
Not in the last forty-two years (and a couple of months).
Perhaps not relevant here, but what would happen if you (still)[1] had a >>>> paper licence and you acquired some points for a driving offence?
Would the DVLC see that as an opportunity to force a change to plastic? >>>
"counterpart").
The counterpart was the paper issued with the plastic photocard license
between 1998 and 2015. It never had value on its own and has been useless
since 2015.
It's hard to see why there would be a need to change to plastic. The
licence card is not the official record, any more than a paper licence is. >>>
The official record is on the DVLA's computers.
That is where endorsements (if any) definitively exist.
The physical card or document is something you can produce when a police
officer demands it. The plastic cards with photo are easier to match to the >> driver and probably harder to forge than the paper document.
[1] There cannot be many left 'in circulation'. I held onto mine until >>>> my 70th.
At a guess, there are probably still a few million paper licences still
in extistence.
People may have kept old paper licenses or counterparts even if they are no >> longer valid so existence is not so interesting.
According to my calculations, those who hold valid paper licenses must have >> been born between 1955 and 1981. Census data puts that at about 20 million >> but only around 74% hold driving licenses so the maximum is around 15
million.
We then have to exclude people who moved. Census data says that 10.1% of
usual residents aged one year and over moved in the year before the 2021
census down from 11.1% in 2011. A rough calculation with a few assumptions >> suggests that around 6% of the population have not moved since 1998 when
the paper license was replaced.
That would put the number of people who potentially have a valid paper
license at under one million. That would be my estimate based on plausible >> assumptions.
This seems very plausible, but one confounding factor you may not have considered is socioeconomic and geographical variations in how likely people are to move. If such variation exists, and I haven't been able to find out in 3 minutes of Googling, then you may have underestimated the number who never moved.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The forgery would have the details of some unlucky victim but the photo
of the malefactor, probably. Unless the on the spot lookup includes the
photo registered with the database, that might satisfy a police officer
at the roadside.
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 17:58:56 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
The forgery would have the details of some unlucky victim but the photo
of the malefactor, probably. Unless the on the spot lookup includes the
photo registered with the database, that might satisfy a police officer
at the roadside.
Technically trivial these days. In fact I would be amazed if it wasn't
the case.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/01/2025 07:02 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 20/01/2025 16:34, JNugent wrote:
On 20/01/2025 02:19 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
Jan 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/01/2025 05:47 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
I don't have a photocard, just a *really* old pink/green paper >>>>>>>>> licence.
Really?
Does the licence expire on your 70th 73rd / 76th / 79th (etc)
birthday?
Yes, valid until day before my 70th
I wonder how it is that I have the newer, photo-ID card and you don't? >>>Perhaps you moved house, which is one of the triggers.
Not in the last forty-two years (and a couple of months).
Perhaps not relevant here, but what would happen if you (still)[1] had a >>> paper licence and you acquired some points for a driving offence?
Would the DVLC see that as an opportunity to force a change to plastic?
I *do* still have the paper licence (which I think was called the
"counterpart").
The counterpart was the paper issued with the plastic photocard license between 1998 and 2015. It never had value on its own and has been useless since 2015.
It's hard to see why there would be a need to change to plastic. The
licence card is not the official record, any more than a paper licence is. >>
The official record is on the DVLA's computers.
That is where endorsements (if any) definitively exist.
The physical card or document is something you can produce when a police officer demands it. The plastic cards with photo are easier to match to the driver and probably harder to forge than the paper document.
[1] There cannot be many left 'in circulation'. I held onto mine until
my 70th.
At a guess, there are probably still a few million paper licences still
in extistence.
People may have kept old paper licenses or counterparts even if they are no longer valid so existence is not so interesting.
According to my calculations, those who hold valid paper licenses must have been born between 1955 and 1981. Census data puts that at about 20 million but only around 74% hold driving licenses so the maximum is around 15 million.
We then have to exclude people who moved. Census data says that 10.1% of usual residents aged one year and over moved in the year before the 2021 census down from 11.1% in 2011. A rough calculation with a few assumptions suggests that around 6% of the population have not moved since 1998 when
the paper license was replaced.
That would put the number of people who potentially have a valid paper license at under one million. That would be my estimate based on plausible assumptions.
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
I *do* still have the paper licence (which I think was called the >"counterpart").
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences" might
only be technically valid.
In message <K1QlP.492$LLy7.273@fx09.ams1>, at 18:14:02 on Mon, 27 Jan
2025, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences"
might only be technically valid.
They are on the list of people subscribed to the "Tell us once" system,
which persons registering a death are strongly encouraged to use.
On 28/01/2025 07:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <K1QlP.492$LLy7.273@fx09.ams1>, at 18:14:02 on Mon, 27 Jan
2025, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences"
might only be technically valid.
They are on the list of people subscribed to the "Tell us once" system,
which persons registering a death are strongly encouraged to use.
Looks complicated to register a death with them. What proportion of the bereaved use it? How would they know the system exists? Why would they bother?
On 28 Jan 2025 at 11:55:44 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 28/01/2025 07:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <K1QlP.492$LLy7.273@fx09.ams1>, at 18:14:02 on Mon, 27 Jan
2025, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences"
might only be technically valid.
They are on the list of people subscribed to the "Tell us once" system,
which persons registering a death are strongly encouraged to use.
Looks complicated to register a death with them. What proportion of the
bereaved use it? How would they know the system exists? Why would they
bother?
Having gone through the process fairly recently, I don't know how many use it,
but everyone has to register the death and the registrar recommends the the system. There are at least some parts of government you have to inform (eg DWP) and it is as easy or easier to use the "Tell us once" system as to find and inform any one of those. It is what the Americans call a "no-brainer".
Roland Perry wrote:
the "Tell us once" system
Looks complicated to register a death with them. What proportion of the bereaved use it? How would they know the system exists?
Why would they bother?I found it saved time.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
I *do* still have the paper licence (which I think was called the
"counterpart").
No, the counterpart is a paper record of things which neither fit onto,
nor can be endorsed upon, a tiny bit of plastic.
At some point (I forget when, but maybe ten years ago) they told
everyone to destroy the counterparts because they were no longer the definitive record, which is now on their computer.
On 28/01/2025 07:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <K1QlP.492$LLy7.273@fx09.ams1>, at 18:14:02 on Mon, 27 Jan >>2025, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences"
might only be technically valid.
They are on the list of people subscribed to the "Tell us once"
system, which persons registering a death are strongly encouraged to
use.
Looks complicated to register a death with them.
What proportion of the bereaved use it?
How would they know the system exists? Why would they bother?
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences"
might only be technically valid.
They are on the list of people subscribed to the "Tell us once" system, >>>> which persons registering a death are strongly encouraged to use.
Looks complicated to register a death with them. What proportion of the
bereaved use it? How would they know the system exists? Why would they
bother?
Having gone through the process fairly recently, I don't know how many use it,
but everyone has to register the death and the registrar recommends the the >> system. There are at least some parts of government you have to inform (eg >> DWP) and it is as easy or easier to use the "Tell us once" system as to find >> and inform any one of those. It is what the Americans call a "no-brainer".
Oh, and I forgot to mention that it covers you, morally at least, against >forgetting to inform some obscure but relevant corner of government. And that >is of great value to the obsessive or anxious among us.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 08:51:10 +0000, Colin Bignell wrote:
After my heart operation, I could not drive for six weeks and the
hospital advised the DVLA of that.
With your full knowledge and consent, or without? When you say "the hospital", who exactly do you mean?
In message <vnagjv$1qhno$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:55:44 on Tue, 28 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 28/01/2025 07:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <K1QlP.492$LLy7.273@fx09.ams1>, at 18:14:02 on Mon, 27 Jan
2025, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences"
might only be technically valid.
They are on the list of people subscribed to the "Tell us once"
system, which persons registering a death are strongly encouraged to
use.
Looks complicated to register a death with them.
It's quite simple. In fact pretty much every death is successfully registered, it's the law.
What proportion of the bereaved use it?
Almost all of them, it's the law.
How would they know the system exists? Why would they bother?
System: Registering a death - common knowledge it has to be registered,
and the funeral director will remind the bereaved (or the person issuing
the cause-of-death paperwork).
System: Tell us once - the Registrar will nag the informant incessantly--
to take that small extra step.
On 29/01/2025 05:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vnagjv$1qhno$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:55:44 on Tue, 28 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 28/01/2025 07:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <K1QlP.492$LLy7.273@fx09.ams1>, at 18:14:02 on Mon, 27 Jan
2025, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences"
might only be technically valid.
They are on the list of people subscribed to the "Tell us once"
system, which persons registering a death are strongly encouraged to
use.
Looks complicated to register a death with them.
It's quite simple. In fact pretty much every death is successfully
registered, it's the law.
What proportion of the bereaved use it?
Almost all of them, it's the law.
Registering death is not the same as "tell us once".
How would they know the system exists? Why would they bother?
System: Registering a death - common knowledge it has to be registered,
and the funeral director will remind the bereaved (or the person issuing
the cause-of-death paperwork).
I would have thought that registering death is the job of whoever issues
the death certificate. Isn't that what it is, like birth certificates?
Isn't the death certificate just a copy of the entry in the death register?
System: Tell us once - the Registrar will nag the informant incessantly
to take that small extra step.
On 29 Jan 2025 at 12:20:46 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 29/01/2025 05:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vnagjv$1qhno$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:55:44 on Tue, 28 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 28/01/2025 07:55, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <K1QlP.492$LLy7.273@fx09.ams1>, at 18:14:02 on Mon, 27 Jan >>>>> 2025, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences"
might only be technically valid.
They are on the list of people subscribed to the "Tell us once"
system, which persons registering a death are strongly encouraged to >>>>> use.
Looks complicated to register a death with them.
It's quite simple. In fact pretty much every death is successfully
registered, it's the law.
What proportion of the bereaved use it?
Almost all of them, it's the law.
Registering death is not the same as "tell us once".
How would they know the system exists? Why would they bother?
System: Registering a death - common knowledge it has to be registered,
and the funeral director will remind the bereaved (or the person issuing >>> the cause-of-death paperwork).
I would have thought that registering death is the job of whoever issues
the death certificate. Isn't that what it is, like birth certificates?
Isn't the death certificate just a copy of the entry in the death register?
But it isn't the job of the issuer of the death certificate, any more than it is the job of the midwife to register a birth. I don't know the precise rules,
but the relative whose duty it is to take the death certificate to the registrar usually knows who they are. Actually birth certificates are the same. The mother or father is legally obliged to register the birth. The entry
in the register is copy of the information on the death certificate, and further copies of the registry entry are issued by the registrar (or in later years the government bureaucracy).
On 29/01/2025 12:31, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 12:20:46 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>> On 29/01/2025 05:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vnagjv$1qhno$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:55:44 on Tue, 28 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 28/01/2025 07:55, Roland Perry wrote:
But it isn't the job of the issuer of the death certificate, any more than itIn message <K1QlP.492$LLy7.273@fx09.ams1>, at 18:14:02 on Mon, 27 Jan >>>>>> 2025, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences" >>>>>>> might only be technically valid.
They are on the list of people subscribed to the "Tell us once"
system, which persons registering a death are strongly encouraged to >>>>>> use.
Looks complicated to register a death with them.
It's quite simple. In fact pretty much every death is successfully
registered, it's the law.
What proportion of the bereaved use it?
Almost all of them, it's the law.
Registering death is not the same as "tell us once".
How would they know the system exists? Why would they bother?
System: Registering a death - common knowledge it has to be registered, >>>> and the funeral director will remind the bereaved (or the person issuing >>>> the cause-of-death paperwork).
I would have thought that registering death is the job of whoever issues >>> the death certificate. Isn't that what it is, like birth certificates?
Isn't the death certificate just a copy of the entry in the death register? >>
is the job of the midwife to register a birth. I don't know the precise rules,
but the relative whose duty it is to take the death certificate to the
registrar usually knows who they are. Actually birth certificates are the
same. The mother or father is legally obliged to register the birth. The entry
in the register is copy of the information on the death certificate, and
further copies of the registry entry are issued by the registrar (or in later
years the government bureaucracy).
I would have thought that the death certificate is a copy of the entry
in the death registry, not the other way round.
There must be a different document that your nice Dr Shipman signs that
says who died, when and why.
Do death certificates say why you died?
On 29 Jan 2025 at 12:50:03 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
I would have thought that the death certificate is a copy of the entry
in the death registry, not the other way round.
The certificate signed by the doctor is properly called the medical >certificate of the cause of death. This is taken to the registrar by a >relative and an entry made in the register of deaths. A copy of this entry is >also popularly called a death certificate.
There must be a different document that your nice Dr Shipman signs that
says who died, when and why.
Do death certificates say why you died?
Max Demian wrote:
Do death certificates say why you died?
The medical certificate does. The death certificate (the one which is issued when a death is registered in the Register of Deaths) does not.
On 29/01/2025 05:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vnagjv$1qhno$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:55:44 on Tue, 28 Jan >>2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
On 28/01/2025 07:55, Roland Perry wrote:It's quite simple. In fact pretty much every death is successfully >>registered, it's the law.
In message <K1QlP.492$LLy7.273@fx09.ams1>, at 18:14:02 on Mon, 27
Jan 2025, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> remarked:
Question: Do the DVLA get direct notice of death certificates?
If not, then a number of those "4.7 million valid paper licences" >>>>>might only be technically valid.
They are on the list of people subscribed to the "Tell us once" >>>>system, which persons registering a death are strongly encouraged
to use.
Looks complicated to register a death with them.
What proportion of the bereaved use it?Almost all of them, it's the law.
Registering death is not the same as "tell us once".
How would they know the system exists? Why would they bother?System: Registering a death - common knowledge it has to be
registered, and the funeral director will remind the bereaved (or the >>person issuing the cause-of-death paperwork).
I would have thought that registering death is the job of whoever
issues the death certificate.
Isn't that what it is, like birth certificates? Isn't the death
certificate just a copy of the entry in the death register?
System: Tell us once - the Registrar will nag the informant
incessantly to take that small extra step.
Do death certificates say why you died?
Apparently for about ten years now they aren't supposed to put "Old
Age" (which was code for "something eventually got them, but no-one
really cares exactly what").
On 29 Jan 2025 13:39:01 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Jan 2025 at 12:50:03 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>>
I would have thought that the death certificate is a copy of the entry
in the death registry, not the other way round.
The certificate signed by the doctor is properly called the medical >>certificate of the cause of death. This is taken to the registrar by a >>relative and an entry made in the register of deaths. A copy of this entry is >>also popularly called a death certificate.
And, just to add to this, the primary responsibility for registering a death >lies with the deceased's relatives. But if they are unable or unwilling to
do so (or if they simply don't exist, or can't be traced), then a death can >be registered by anyone who was present at the time of death, a hospital >administrator (if the death happened in hospital), or the person in charge
of making funeral arrangements.
Given that the local authority has the fallback responsibility of arranging >the funeral of someone who has no living relatives or friends able or
willing to do it, that means that, ultimately, the local authority also has >the fallback responsibility of registering a death.
There must be a different document that your nice Dr Shipman signs that
says who died, when and why.
Do death certificates say why you died?
The medical certificate does. The death certificate (the one which is issued >when a death is registered in the Register of Deaths) does not.
There are very good reasons for this, not least preserving matters
which relatives of the deceased may consider confidential. The death >certificate is a public document and may need to be shown to various >suppliers and authorities. But the DVLA doesn't need to know that your >husband had a heart attack while shagging his mistress,
and HMRC doesn't need to know that your mum died from an overdose of >prescription medicine.
In message <vnd85q$2cac3$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:50:03 on Wed, 29 Jan
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
Do death certificates say why you died?
They say why the doctor who produced the precursor to that certificate
thinks they died. Which absent a post mortem in most cases, can be a bit fuzzy.
Apparently for about ten years now they aren't supposed to put "Old Age" (which was code for "something eventually got them, but no-one really
cares exactly what").
One certificate I saw recently said, in effect "pneumonia". But that
covered up a multitude of sins. The actual reason was "they tripped over their zimmer frame".
Which resulted in a trip to A&E, who decided they couldn't be discharged
back home, so they were put in a temporary care home, where they caught
a bug, were sent back to A&E, who put them on a ward, where a couple of
weeks later they caught pneumonia, and died.
Do death certificates say why you died?
They say why the doctor who produced the precursor to that certificate
thinks they died. Which absent a post mortem in most cases, can be a bit
fuzzy.
Apparently for about ten years now they aren't supposed to put "Old Age"
(which was code for "something eventually got them, but no-one really
cares exactly what").
One certificate I saw recently said, in effect "pneumonia". But that
covered up a multitude of sins. The actual reason was "they tripped over
their zimmer frame".
Which resulted in a trip to A&E, who decided they couldn't be discharged
back home, so they were put in a temporary care home, where they caught
a bug, were sent back to A&E, who put them on a ward, where a couple of
weeks later they caught pneumonia, and died.
So the underlying cause was whatever led to their frailty and need for a >Zimmer frame? If you say the cause was the fall then the doctors can't issue a >certificate and the case has to go to the coroner,
who may require a post
mortem before issuing a cause of death of misadventure or whatever. Not >necessarily the best outcome for the family, nor necessarily (see my first >sentence) actually reflecting the real underlying cause. These are difficult >issues.
Roland Perry wrote:
Apparently for about ten years now they aren't supposed to put "Old
Age" (which was code for "something eventually got them, but no-one
really cares exactly what").
My Dad's from ~4 years ago has primary cause as "old age" and secondary >causes as the list of things he'd been to doctor/hospital about in the >previous few years, he didn't have a PM.
In message <m0144lFnl3rU2@mid.individual.net>, at 10:55:19 on Thu, 30
Jan 2025, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Apparently for about ten years now they aren't supposed to put "Old
Age" (which was code for "something eventually got them, but no-one
really cares exactly what").
My Dad's from ~4 years ago has primary cause as "old age" and
secondary causes as the list of things he'd been to doctor/hospital
about in the previous few years, he didn't have a PM.
My mother's of almost exactly the same date simply said "Old Age" (like anyone in her 90's she'd had plenty of GP/Hospital contact).
I forget who told me, but they said "That's no longer an acceptable
thing to put".
Roland Perry wrote:
Apparently for about ten years now they aren't supposed to put "Old
Age" (which was code for "something eventually got them, but no-one
really cares exactly what").
My Dad's from ~4 years ago has primary cause as "old age" and secondary causes as the list of things he'd been to doctor/hospital about in the previous few years, he didn't have a PM.
On 30/01/2025 10:55, Andy Burns wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:Which lead me to wonder:
Apparently for about ten years now they aren't supposed to put "Old
Age" (which was code for "something eventually got them, but no-one
really cares exactly what").
My Dad's from ~4 years ago has primary cause as "old age" and secondary
causes as the list of things he'd been to doctor/hospital about in the
previous few years, he didn't have a PM.
Who pays for post mortems?
Will we see a time when the costs are charged to the deceased's estate?
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 18:09:02 +0000, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 30/01/2025 10:55, Andy Burns wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:Which lead me to wonder:
Apparently for about ten years now they aren't supposed to put "Old
Age" (which was code for "something eventually got them, but no-one
really cares exactly what").
My Dad's from ~4 years ago has primary cause as "old age" and secondary
causes as the list of things he'd been to doctor/hospital about in the
previous few years, he didn't have a PM.
Who pays for post mortems?
Will we see a time when the costs are charged to the deceased's estate?
It could be said we pay for them in advance with our taxes.
This modern fetish with hypothecation is amusing.
On 30/01/2025 10:55, Andy Burns wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:Which lead me to wonder:
Apparently for about ten years now they aren't supposed to put "Old
Age" (which was code for "something eventually got them, but no-one
really cares exactly what").
My Dad's from ~4 years ago has primary cause as "old age" and
secondary causes as the list of things he'd been to doctor/hospital
about in the previous few years, he didn't have a PM.
Who pays for post mortems?
Will we see a time when the costs are charged to the deceased's estate?
On Sun, 26 Jan 2025 14:42:05 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:
The physical card or document is something you can produce when a police
officer demands it. The plastic cards with photo are easier to match to
the driver and probably harder to forge than the paper document.
Surely forging one is useless unless you also create the corresponding
record in the DVSA database ? Certainly for showing a police officer ?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 54:22:10 |
| Calls: | 9,811 |
| Calls today: | 13 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,190,583 |