That is slightly different though. That is more like stealing. Of course if someone was 'stealing' off me I would report them. Though would I let them know I was doing it? After all these people will prob be walking right over to you. That will create a certain amount of resentment (though maybe it is better to know who is watching than to think everyone is). If someone was not wearing their seatbelt, or was smoking in a pub, as long as it wasnt affecting me or anyone else in anyway (eg blowing smoke into kids faces may get a response), I would probably just leave it alone.

Yes, but should people who are in effect members of the public be trained to do such a thing? They are not the police. They are 'off duty', as in not at work. So why are they being trained to do this? Surely it will create problems. If im in my local and a policeman cautions me/fines me, fair enough. If an ordinary person (perhaps even a regular) comes over and gives me a fine, it would create an air of mistrust. Here is what the BBC said on the issue

"Ministers have given councils £29.5m to pay for staff, who will be able to give on-the-spot £50 fines to individuals and take court action against premises.

They will have the power to enter premises undercover, allowing them to sit among drinkers, and will even be able to photograph and film people. "


I wasnt suggesting that landlords would ignore it. I simply meant that if it wasnt insome way seriously enforced, many would let patrons smoke, for fear of losing custom.

Oh, and as to 'it' I know the govenment in a democracy is the people. However, in our democracy we have three parties that differ in policies very slightly. Once in office (esp if they have a large majority) they can pass laws etc almost in disreguard to what the people say. Of course the fear of an iquiry or the possibility of losing an election prevents this from happening (though one could argue Blair get through all that quite well).

Anyway, as an aside, I think our system is more like a republic. I think democracy is where we all get to vote on all issues (like the Greeks) rather than elect people who we then entrust to do what we want them to do. We are in effect saying you guys look like you will do what we want more so than the others, now we entrust you to go off and do it. I think we also to a certain extent entrust them to do what is best for us, as often we either dont know the full story or dont have time to look into everything.

I was just reading an article on the smoking ban. Apparently thousands are to be employed to enforce it. What do you guys think of this? I mean I am all for a smoking ban. After all I dont smoke and I hate leaving a pub smelling of the stuff. But they want to employ thousands to enforce it. Isnt that a little extreme? And an intrusion of privicy? But then how do you go about enforcing an issue with which half the people despise, and the rest think its a great idea, but are not that bothered about it (meaning in a fight the ones who despise it will obviously win). Leaving it up to the pub owners will probably just result it it being ignored (sort of happening in some places in Hong Kong). Surely there is a middle ground?

Maybe all cigs should come with a chip in them. If you light up in a pub, it sends a messege to the police who then send you a nice fine

However, I dont beleive that PhD really is the make or break time of an academic career. That comes later. So as long as you know you will enjoy the project, have got good supervisor and dont annoy too many people (more important if you want to work in their fields later). Not saying that it doesnt help to be in a nobel prize lab and publish 8 times in nature.

I think to be fair, one looks at this desicion as a very important one. Esp if you want academic career. It can be very difficult to know what to do (esp if your only experience of academia is undergrad). So you will obviously ask those in the 'know' what to do. If they start saying it would be a bad move, surely they must know something (at least thats how someone who doesnt know academia would think). As such you can find it very hard to ignore what someone who is obviously much more informed is saying. So I think saying grow a spine is a little harsh. Why should any of us not been through the process be able to make a better decision than someone who has been through the process.

But I still fail to see how they will have loads of control over us. So they know what we are up to. That doesnt mean they are controling us. The govenment already knows a lot about us. If it didnt it wouldnt be able to run (eg collect taxs). It can currently contol us as much as it likes (pass new law, employ more police to enforce it etc). I fail to see how having a centralised database changes any of this.

You can do what you like at the moment, within the rules of the law. Extra survalience only means that they catch more who dont. I dont see how this is any different from having a bobby on every corner (which a lot of people want, but to me sounds like a police state). Its all about getting a balance between freedom and saftey, security and allowing the govenment to run effiecently.

Hmm, I doubt that the govenment has either the wish or the means to monitor every move. After all, only a large dedicated team (I suppose the police) would be sitting at it watching it all on tv.

I still dont see this as a move away from democracy. In itself it is not. All it is doing (as far as I can tell) is allowing the govenment to enforce laws that are already in place. What is so wrong with that?

After all, a democracy is surely to a certain extent an illusion. We are not free to do as we please. Really we are all penned in by laws, that in actual fact already dictate much of what we can do in our lives. We have an illusion of freedom, but in general we are not willing to allow anarchy to be present in exchange for complete and total freedom. I think that provided you can do more or less what you want to do, and 'feel' like you have control over your life then you will be happy and 'free'

Or, the person who processed your application doesnt really know much about a PhD, and so assumed that you may be a doctor already. Esp if you phoned and they still didnt change it.

It may be more because people havent got enough data on you, rather than someone having to much (after all, they got it wrong didnt they). It seems more likely they are infering things about you from the small amount of info you have. After all, if I was to send someone something in another uni, and I didnt know if they were a doctor, I would call them doctor regardless. It would be more about trying not to offend anyone.

After all, you prob said on your application im doing a PhD. Your credit company may think that this is like a normal degree and you are more or less guarenteed the doctorate. So instead of giving you a card you have to replace in a year or so, they are giving you one in anticipation that can have a long expiary date. This has prob then gone onto your credit record when that application was accepted.

I dont disagree with what you are saying. It just that I still dont see what the govenment or comapnies will do with this. So what if tesco knows what you buy? Or indeed the govenmnet. What will they do with it thats bad? They will know everything about you. Then what?

Im not saying I agree with it all, im just interested in hearing other points of view on it.

Anyway, I was thinking about the new scheme for charging people per mile (instead of fuel duty apparently). That is pretty much the same thing. The govenment keeping an eye on where you go etc.

Hmm, slightly hijacked this thread. Yes, I do use facebook. Addicted, no. I only go on when I remember (usually when I get an email saying someone has writern on my wall, which is pretty rare (I have so few friends ).

Isnt the proposal at the moment to just combine two databases from two govenment departments, not collect a whole load of new data? ID cards will probably not contain anymore info than that found in your wallet (which will be on file at a number of govenmnet agencies, eg inland revenue). So, where is the new data the govenment plans to get?

Hmm, but immoral people can get hold of your data if they want with or without it being collected by the govenment. However, I will take your point that it is a worry that this can happen, and of course being able to get hold of such a large quantity of data is a big concern. However, the same can be said for banks etc.

I fail to see how collecting data effects democracy. Knowing what your citzens are up to does not change anything. Trying to interfer with them and stop them doing X or Y, then maybe you have a point. However, im pretty sure anything the govenment wants to 'crack' down on is already under survailence. I can see concern that this data could be used to stop people doing stuff.

Thats what I was trying to say, they do not have a birthright. However, they can if they wish ask for it and if you refuse to give it then they can refuse to serve you (there is nothing to stop them). My point is that this sort of policy for a private comapany is up to them. The consumer votes whether he likes it by using his feet.

I meant the govenment has a lot of your details. Such as name, address, date of birth, national insurance number etc etc. Most of it is fairly easy to access, for example on the electoral register.

Anyway, my question is what does the govenment do with this data that is so bad? I mean the govenment has always spied on us to some extent, eg the doomsday book. I also dont think being in a democracy has anything to do with this. After all if what you say about the majority of us wanting to live in a big brother nation is true, then surely this is democracy working at its finest.

Though is it not within the shops/hotels rights to ask that? If you dont want to answer, they lose the buisness! However, it is not inherently wrong that they ask (or legally).

Its a bit like going to a restuarant and the chef refuses to cook for you. It is a private buisness so in theroy the chef can do what he wants. He could demand that you stand in the middle of the room and sing and dance for everyone before he will cook, or whatever else he may deem he wants. Of course if you want to eat you have to do it. If not then you dont and you go somewhere else to eat. Only by taking buisness elsewhere can you stop this sort of thing.

Anyway, I fail to see what the state can do to us with all this info. I would expect that if they really wanted to they could get all the info anyway (usually all personal data is held by some govenment body). It just makes it all a lot faster (fewer legal processes to go through).