No ID, No Entry -- SEOne Cub

schnake wrote:

i really don't get it. if one life is saved by these measures, isn't it worth it?

To me, the key word in your sentence is "IF. There's no evidence that this procedure saves lives, and I can't think of a realistic way that this helps to save lives. It may help with detection after the event, but that's arguable.

schnake wrote:

surely the council and police wouldn't have to introduce these measures, if they didn't think they were necessary.

Are you saying that the council and police are infallible, know what's best for us, and should basically be allowed/encouraged to do whatever they fancy?


Did the Honourable MPs and Noble Lords know what was best for the country when deciding on their approach to expenses?

Did those clever, well-dressed, respectable bankers know what was best for our pension schemes when they decided that subprime loans would make a great investment?

Personally, I prefer to keep a sceptical view. I also think that the council and police are doing a job on our behalf, so I'd see it as entirely appropriate to question what they are doing and why.

I don't trust myself to know what's best for me half of the time, so I certainly don't have automatic trust of the police or the council.

Well said Ivanhoe. Further, the bulk of the really bad problems at SEOne seem to have taken place outside.

I'd add that it simply isn't true that whatever it takes to (potentially) save a life is a measure worth taking.

I know this is an extreme example but, if the council and the police decided that their life would be easier if we all wore tracking devices and had to preregister our movements, would that be OK?

Assuming your answer to this is "no", we've established that there is a line. Now we can argue where it is.

Isn't it easier just not to got to that club?

I know that's not the point, and the police are currently killing more people a year in driving accidents than terrorists and swine flu combined manage in several, but isn't that the bottom line when you've no other voice? Vote with your feet?

Well yes, but what if there are events there you actually want to go to, for example the Last Tuesday Walpurgis Night - A Hendrick's Halloween Ball recently? A very fine evening it was too.

If it were simply SEOne that were unilaterally imposing the restriction, Davis, that would be a fair suggestion.

However, the danger is if the council or police are seek to make this a condition of every license.

Then one couldn't go out to any licensed premise without compromising your privacy in a significant way. To follow your "vote with your feet" analogy, you'd be voting in a one party state.

You are probably right. It's all very depressing.

If people feel strongly about the right to privacy, you might be interested in this government consulation. It's about how the police and security agencies should be allowed to use information gathered on us by monitoring our communications:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-communications-data