Id Cards For Away Travel!

[Always Believesham]

id only like the idea if it said i was 18

its pointless sorry

if the knobheads are going to get in ...theyll get in...if they want a fight theyll hit the town anyway, it's too big brother for me

[ciderup]

You need to get a grip on what watching football is about. This is the same person who took there young son to see City at Palace, saw a bit of handbags (and that's all is was) and then vouched never to attend another City away game because his son cried. So I'm quite suprised to see the same guy back here complaining that his son had to listen to City supporters swearing (OMG) at QPR yesterday......I thought you weren't travelling anymore! Might be best if you don't bother in future, your son could end up a nervous wreck.

My personal feelings are totally irrelevant.

I raised this topic as 'A POINT FOR DISCUSSION!!. Why do people have to assassinate fans because of previous posts? I am not happy with my nipper being trodden on by idiots,no I am not!

Wether you understand my concerns or not, I raised this thread for a DISCUSSION, not an assassination of me! I should not have to justify a DISCUSSION thread.

I will, and already have, discussed things with my son, and take umbridge at people taking the liberty of telling me how to bring MY kid up!

I have been following City home and away for 34 years! Why should I have to justify myself for bringing up a topic of CONVERSATION/ DEBATE or are you too stupid to understand the concept?

Maybe you newbies don't want us long term fans (and their families) supporting City now we are doing OK!

I AINT GOING ANYWHERE, THE CITY ARE MY TEAM AND I DO NOT NEED YOUR BLESSING!

I apologise for trying to start a discussion on a City discussion forum!

[bcfc_4_life]

id only like the idea if it said i was 18

its pointless sorry

if the knobheads are going to get in ...theyll get in...if they want a fight theyll hit the town anyway, it's too big brother for me

Too true mucker, too true, the rest of us shoudn't have to be part of this "id scheme" as most people ain't theyre for the fights but there to support the team.... if this ID scheme did get in place i for one will not bother going to away games anymore

[ciderup]

Indeed, the same guy who actually stated he'd like City fans to die.

I would be interested to see my quote!

JEEZ

IT'S A TOPIC FOR DEBATE!!!

[CiderJar]

If we did put this ID card inplace our away following won't be as good as it has been the last few years...

Why wouldn't it? If 10,000 bothered to get season tickets, why wouldn't 3,000 bother to get ID cards? Why not issue an ID card as part of the season ticket? Why not make them the same thing?

and rightly so, why should the rest of us fans do this when theres a minority of hooligans that will still just turn up and cause trouble with ID cards or not?

Because there is absolutely no risk of doing so. If you are arrested at a football match you will be identified to the club. If you are a season ticket holder you will have your season ticket revoked if convicted of a football hooligan related offence. So what harm is there in carrying an ID card?

So the hoolies still turn up. They don't get in the ground without the card, they don't get to start any trouble inside the ground and their actions are disassociated with football. The problem then becomes the social one that it actually is instead of being dismissed as football hooliganism.

We get too hung up about this "infringement of civil liberties" nonsense, your liberty is only infringed if you infringe the liberty of others. ID cards are used all over Europe without a problem. It's not particularly "big brother", no one is making you do anything. Think of all the information divulged about you just from using a credit card. It doesn't stop you using it does it?

God this SuperBowl is boring.

[bcfc_4_life]

Why wouldn't it? If 10,000 bothered to get season tickets, why wouldn't 3,000 bother to get ID cards? Why not issue an ID card as part of the season ticket? Why not make them the same thing?

Because there is absolutely no risk of doing so. If you are arrested at a football match you will be identified to the club. If you are a season ticket holder you will have your season ticket revoked if convicted of a football hooligan related offence. So what harm is there in carrying an ID card.

So the hooles still turn up. They don't get in the ground without the card, they don't get to start any trouble inside the ground and their actions are disassociated with football. The problem then becomes the social one that it actually is instead of being dismissed as football hooliganism.

We get too hung up about this "infringement of civil liberties" nonsense, your liberty is only infringed if you infringe the liberty of others. ID cards are used all over Europe without a problem. It's not particularly "big brother", no one is making you do anything. Think of all the information divulged about you just from using a credit card. It doesn't stop you using it does it?

God this SuperBowl is boring.

Good points, although i still don't think we should go through it because of a few hooligans and the coppers playing up....

The id cards might stop the hooligans at city away matches but what about some of the coppers who behave as if every one of the traveling cider army is a hooligan?

Superbowl is confusing me don't know the rules or owt

[CiderJar]

Good points, although i still don't think we should go through it because of a few hooligans and the coppers playing up....

The id cards might stop the hooligans at city away matches but what about some of the coppers who behave as if every one of the traveling cider army is a hooligan?

They wouldn't do that, they'd ask if you had an ID card, if you couldn't produce one they'd bash you repeatedly on the head with a big truncheon (or baton I think the trendy ones call it, either way it is more effective than a baseball bat) whilst you plead that it was in your other jacket which is at the dry cleaners. They would of course be disappointed because half of the police force, the Met especially, are hooligans themselves.

[bcfc_4_life]

They wouldn't do that, they'd ask if you had an ID card, if you couldn't produce one they'd bash you repeatedly on the head with a big truncheon (or baton I think the trendy ones call it, either way it is more effective than a baseball bat) whilst you plead that it was in your other jacket which is at the dry cleaners. They would of course be disappointed because half of the police force, the Met especially, are hooligans themselves.

Do i dare go to cardiff away??!!!

[Hicksy-BCFC]

Like all areas in football and outside of football.

Bringing in laws to stop people that have disregard for the law anyway solves nothing.

It simply hits the people who abide by the law and will destroy any idea of City getting decent away followings to games.

Football matches and motorists - the police rake it in from both.

[bcfc_4_life]

Like all areas in football and outside of football.

Bringing in laws to stop people that have disregard for the law anyway solves nothing.

It simply hits the people who abide by the law and will destroy any idea of City getting decent away followings to games.

Football matches and motorists - the police rake it in from both.

Nail on the head there mate.

[Nibor]

Why wouldn't it? If 10,000 bothered to get season tickets, why wouldn't 3,000 bother to get ID cards? Why not issue an ID card as part of the season ticket? Why not make them the same thing?

Stoke and Millwall both experienced massive drops in away support after introducing similar schemes. Many supporters who travel away aren't season ticket holders (there are plenty who really only go to away games due to their location for example.)

Because there is absolutely no risk of doing so. If you are arrested at a football match you will be identified to the club. If you are a season ticket holder you will have your season ticket revoked if convicted of a football hooligan related offence. So what harm is there in carrying an ID card?

So the hoolies still turn up. They don't get in the ground without the card, they don't get to start any trouble inside the ground and their actions are disassociated with football. The problem then becomes the social one that it actually is instead of being dismissed as football hooliganism.

Fighting outside the ground might not be the responsibility of the club, but it is not disassociated with football at all, it still puts supporters at risk and it still affects how games are policed and how police treat fans.

There is also the danger that thugs will buy tickets in the home ends.

We get too hung up about this "infringement of civil liberties" nonsense, your liberty is only infringed if you infringe the liberty of others. ID cards are used all over Europe without a problem. It's not particularly "big brother", no one is making you do anything. Think of all the information divulged about you just from using a credit card. It doesn't stop you using it does it?

I think ID cards in general aren't a bad idea and I tend to agree that requiring people to be able to identify themselves isn't an infringement of civil liberties but it is a step along a very dangerous path and I don't really see the point for football matches alone because they will solve nothing in that respect and only inconvenience real fans.

There are some serious valid concerns about ID cards in general aside from principles. Firstly with the government's shockingly bad record on data security do you really want them putting lots of your data all in one place? Second, given their general incompetence about IT projects, are they even capable of introducing them? Third - quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How do we know a central database will be used only for the stated purposes?

I've worked in GCHQ and some of the things the state can do right now are quite scary but at least they're controlled to an extent by the judiciary. The danger I see is that ID cards could be the thin end of another nanny state wedge.

God this SuperBowl is boring.

I wasn't watching it but I can certainly agree. It is American Girlieball after all.

[Always Believesham]

nothing stops hooligans going into the town centre to cause trouble anyway though.

"Sorry sir you can't use the m5 you don't have a bristol city away travel id card"

i believe its a farse, ok it will take time but there will be certain people finding their way around a plastic cards that identifies you as a safe supporter.

next idea? monitored chips in the hooligans arms and detectors at grounds...i saw the term civil liberties, one thing will develop into another and we will have the certain issue of infringing on civil liberties

[Barrs Court Red]

I refuse to go to coach only games, and would not bother getting a membership card. There's no need one, and it's another step toward pricing fans out of football as there would obviously be some cost.

Some of my greatest away trips have been spur of the moment things, which would be impossible with such a scheme.

[Hicksy-BCFC]

I refuse to go to coach only games, and would not bother getting a membership card. There's no need one, and it's another step toward pricing fans out of football as there would obviously be some cost.

Some of my greatest away trips have been spur of the moment things, which would be impossible with such a scheme.

Last season v Swansea was the first coach only trip I'd been on in a while.

I was surprised how well run it was to be honest.

Kick off was 1pm, went with the old man and my brother in law - we were back at home in Downend by about 6pm I think.

Whereas I went up to Scunny bit spur of the moment last year, had the day off, nothing on so drove up to Scunny!

What a schithole! And we lost.

[Barrs Court Red]

Last season v Swansea was the first coach only trip I'd been on in a while.

I was surprised how well run it was to be honest.

Kick off was 1pm, went with the old man and my brother in law - we were back at home in Downend by about 6pm I think.

Whereas I went up to Scunny bit spur of the moment last year, had the day off, nothing on so drove up to Scunny!

What a schithole! And we lost.

That's fair enough, at least they're well run, but it's the principle of the schemes that I'm against.

We're already filmed non stop at football. No matter where you sit or who with the will be a time where you are filmed. Is this right? Some matches we are forbidden to travel to certain parts of the country, I've seen 40 Stoke turned back at Temple Meads because they were ticketless. Free country?

Now a membership scheme would just be another form of control, more information held and more cost to fork out. It hasn't worked for England matches, it hasn't worked for Millwall or Stoke.

[Nibor]

We're already filmed non stop at football. No matter where you sit or who with the will be a time where you are filmed. Is this right?

Perhaps football fans should start wearing burqas to away games

[CiderJar]

There are some serious valid concerns about ID cards in general aside from principles. Firstly with the government's shockingly bad record on data security do you really want them putting lots of your data all in one place? Second, given their general incompetence about IT projects, are they even capable of introducing them? Third - quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How do we know a central database will be used only for the stated purposes?

I've worked in GCHQ and some of the things the state can do right now are quite scary but at least they're controlled to an extent by the judiciary. The danger I see is that ID cards could be the thin end of another nanny state wedge.

You'd think this was true by reading the papers recently. I'm not saying that this is how you base your arguement, I am sure you have plenty of other information to go on, so lets not start a who knows what debate, however, I too work* in a Government Department. They have a shockingly bad record because of the very fact that they are required to keep records about the data they hold about you. If you truly analysed data security you will realise that most of it is stolen from private companies who don't give two hoots about what data they hold and who they give it to or, perhaps more tellingly, who they sell it too. I am having to respond to the knee jerk reaction of the Permanent Under Secretary of State in order to run strict controls on the data holdings that we have and how it is stored. No private company will be doing the same.

The truth is that most personal data is lost from credit companies, and by association your High Street bank. Most require that you carry a personal card - much like an ID card - and that it is "secured" using personal information such as your mothers maiden name, or your favourite pet, or your place of birth. This data is useful in the wrong hands because it can be used to create a new identity for someone. You are also required to memorise a PIN number. Does it stop you using the card? No it doesn't because you need to use the card. Is it an infringement of your civil liberties? No it isn't seen as such, but it is far less secure than any Govt scheme is. Is it nanny state? No it is progress. Iris scanners at airports, finger print scanners on laptops. All are part of a more secure enviroment. All are advances in technology. And all of them are an infringement of your freedoms. But they are all bloody useful too.

*I say "work" but in truth I spend most of my time on the internet, shocking.

[Hicksy-BCFC]

Perhaps football fans should start wearing burqas to away games

Ha ha, I'd actually like to see 1,000 City fans turn up to an away game all wearing them.

You'd just have to demand as your religious right, you insist it is your right to wear it.

I reckon the old bill wouldn't have a clue what to say or do.

[Hicksy-BCFC]

You'd think this was true by reading the papers recently. I'm not saying that this is how you base your arguement, I am sure you have plenty of other information to go on, so lets not start a who knows what debate, however, I too work* in a Government Department. They have a shockingly bad record because of the very fact that they are required to keep records about the data they hold about you. If you truly analysed data security you will realise that most of it is stolen from private companies who don't give two hoots about what data they hold and who they give it to or, perhaps more tellingly, who they sell it too. I am having to respond to the knee jerk reaction of the Permanent Under Secretary of State in order to run strict controls on the data holdings that we have and how it is stored. No private company will be doing the same.

The truth is that most personal data is lost from credit companies, and by association your High Street bank. Most require that you carry a personal card - much like an ID card - and that it is "secured" using personal information such as your mothers maiden name, or your favourite pet, or your place of birth. This data is useful in the wrong hands because it can be used to create a new identity for someone. You are also required to memorise a PIN number. Does it stop you using the card? No it doesn't because you need to use the card. Is it an infringement of your civil liberties? No it isn't seen as such, but it is far less secure than any Govt scheme is. Is it nanny state? No it is progress. Iris scanners at airports, finger print scanners on laptops. All are part of a more secure enviroment. All are advances in technology. And all of them are an infringement of your freedoms. But they are all bloody useful too.

*I say "work" but in truth I spend most of my time on the internet, shocking.

This is far too long a post when you're at work.

I'm paying your wages mate, get back to work!!!

[CiderJar]

This is far too long a post when you're at work.

I'm paying your wages mate, get back to work!!!

The work is dull and underpaid. Surfing the internet keeps me sane and therefore more productive. I am making every use of your taxes, believe me. The women in the office are currently doing much the same. They are wittering on and on and on about absolutely nothing. It works for them.

[BIGPHIL]

All though you started this topic as a point of discussion, it appears for one reason or another most are against such action. Probably because as many say it would probably prove unworkable. There is however the option (as it seems many games are going down this route) the all ticket option. And before you shoot me down in flames, this would allow the Club the opportunity to refuse to issue tickets if they felt such action was needed. I am also aware that if trouble makers really want to go to a game and cause trouble they would find a way. You do have a come back on whoever purchased the relevant tickets and supplied them to the problem few would be held responsible.

[Nibor]

You'd think this was true by reading the papers recently. I'm not saying that this is how you base your arguement, I am sure you have plenty of other information to go on, so lets not start a who knows what debate, however, I too work* in a Government Department. They have a shockingly bad record because of the very fact that they are required to keep records about the data they hold about you. If you truly analysed data security you will realise that most of it is stolen from private companies who don't give two hoots about what data they hold and who they give it to or, perhaps more tellingly, who they sell it too. I am having to respond to the knee jerk reaction of the Permanent Under Secretary of State in order to run strict controls on the data holdings that we have and how it is stored. No private company will be doing the same.

The truth is that most personal data is lost from credit companies, and by association your High Street bank. Most require that you carry a personal card - much like an ID card - and that it is "secured" using personal information such as your mothers maiden name, or your favourite pet, or your place of birth. This data is useful in the wrong hands because it can be used to create a new identity for someone. You are also required to memorise a PIN number. Does it stop you using the card? No it doesn't because you need to use the card.

From my experience I'd say the reverse is true - private companies I've worked for have been very careful about what data they hold and the government don't seem to be.

I'm doing a contract for a credit reference agency at the moment and the data security is pretty tight. They spend an awful lot of time and money making that the case because they know if they have a theft they will be crucified (because nobody likes them anyway). They are absolutely rigid about only storing what they need to store, for example they don't hold anybody's card details - just a hash constructed from them so that they can uniquely identify a card without having the details that would be of interest to a criminal. They pay people a great deal of money to constantly audit their security practises and review their systems.

When I worked at GCHQ (which was 4 years ago admittedly) they held everything because it never occured to them that they shouldn't. It was the default behaviour, just store it. We might want it later. What's the harm?

The most recent government data losses have come from CDs going missing in transit between departments and nicked laptops that weren't properly encrypted. In the high profile case recently the biggest problem was not that the CDs went missing which will always happen from time to time, it was that there was information on the CD which should never have been there because it was not required, and that the information was not properly protected (it should have been encrypted with a key shipped separately not just password protected).

Is it an infringement of your civil liberties? No it isn't seen as such, but it is far less secure than any Govt scheme is. Is it nanny state? No it is progress. Iris scanners at airports, finger print scanners on laptops. All are part of a more secure enviroment. All are advances in technology. And all of them are an infringement of your freedoms. But they are all bloody useful too.

Of course there is no infringement of civil liberties because you can choose not to use a bank card and my bank has never lost my data either.

I don't really think that making people identifiable is a civil liberties infringement either (though I wouldn't want to be forced to carry a card or get a producer as it's just an irritant), but as I said it's where that path leads that is the problem.

Same thing with the smoking ban - now that's been done and dusted have you noticed how the number of anti-alcohol stories have increased?

[CiderJar]

Okay, different perspectives on the same thing. I don't see the harm though. Interestingly 2nd PUS has jerked his knee and insisted on full data encryption however the Govt approved software (DataVault) does not allow full encryption. So now we have had no option but to recall all laptops; they cannot be removed from Govt property under any circumstances until a solution is found. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a laptop in the first place doesn't it?

If the consensus is not to have ID for football fans then like any system it is, as has been said, unworkable. To vilify someone for suggesting the idea without suggesting a viable alternative is more than a little harsh. What other options are there then to keep the violent minority (majority?) away from the game?

My suggestion has always been a safe hoolie area, a warehouse somewhere, where they could fight to the death. Radical maybe, but it would soon lose it's appeal if death was the prescribed outcome. I don't like the fact that violence is still associated with football and that all football supporters are associated with violence. So how do we disassociate ourselves from it? Any suggestions?

[Rob k]

Why wouldn't it? If 10,000 bothered to get season tickets, why wouldn't 3,000 bother to get ID cards? Why not issue an ID card as part of the season ticket? Why not make them the same thing?

Because there is absolutely no risk of doing so. If you are arrested at a football match you will be identified to the club. If you are a season ticket holder you will have your season ticket revoked if convicted of a football hooligan related offence. So what harm is there in carrying an ID card?

So the hoolies still turn up. They don't get in the ground without the card, they don't get to start any trouble inside the ground and their actions are disassociated with football. The problem then becomes the social one that it actually is instead of being dismissed as football hooliganism.

We get too hung up about this "infringement of civil liberties" nonsense, your liberty is only infringed if you infringe the liberty of others. ID cards are used all over Europe without a problem. It's not particularly "big brother", no one is making you do anything. Think of all the information divulged about you just from using a credit card. It doesn't stop you using it does it?

God this SuperBowl is boring.

Our followings would not be as good, in our group of 5 on sat 2 were with us for the night out and came to the football because we were going, they would not have had an ID card so would not have been able to go - all that will happen is more people will go in the home ends. Its not for me.

[CiderJar]

Our followings would not be as good, in our group of 5 on sat 2 were with us for the night out and came to the football because we were going, they would not have had an ID card so would not have been able to go - all that will happen is more people will go in the home ends. Its not for me.

Cool. So what do you suggest?

[Rob k]

Cool. So what do you suggest?

nothing keep it as it is there are no real problems. Soon you wont be able to travel how you like as it will be supporters coaches only. Keep things as it is which 95% of the time are fine. If you don't want kids to be upset by swearing then take them when they are old enough.

[CiderJar]

nothing keep it as it is there are no real problems. Soon you wont be able to travel how you like as it will be supporters coaches only. Keep things as it is which 95% of the time are fine. If you don't want kids to be upset by swearing then take them when they are old enough.

Tell that to those that under police escort on Saturday didn't get to the ground until 3.30pm and were initially refused entry even though they had tickets.

Alternatively stay blinkered to the problem and delude yourself it will just go away.

[Nibor]

Okay, different perspectives on the same thing. I don't see the harm though. Interestingly 2nd PUS has jerked his knee and insisted on full data encryption however the Govt approved software (DataVault) does not allow full encryption. So now we have had no option but to recall all laptops; they cannot be removed from Govt property under any circumstances until a solution is found. Kind of defeats the purpose of having a laptop in the first place doesn't it?

Yep it does defeat the object, the question that I'd be asking here is why store any real volume of data on a laptop anyway? Store the data on a server and use secure VPNs etc when working remotely. Use simple encryption software to store small volumes of data temporarily if you have no connectivity. If you really need a huge database then typically this is for statistical analysis and the data should be anonymized.

Bottom line - don't transport around entire databases of real sensitive personal data on laptops

Having laptops that are encrypted at the o/s level is nice but not necessary. I think the problem is that the decision makers here are not IT experts and in all fairness they can't be expected to be either. They need better advice.

If the consensus is not to have ID for football fans then like any system it is, as has been said, unworkable. To vilify someone for suggesting the idea without suggesting a viable alternative is more than a little harsh. What other options are there then to keep the violent minority (majority?) away from the game?

Identify, arrest and prosecute them. It's the only thing that has ever worked.

It seems to me the police are expending massive resources preventing football violence and few on catching the perpetrators. The former approach inconveniences normal fans and addresses the symptoms not the cause IMO.

My suggestion has always been a safe hoolie area, a warehouse somewhere, where they could fight to the death. Radical mybe, but it would soon lose it's appeal if death was the prescribed outcome. I don't like the fact that violence is still associated with football and that all football supporters are associated with violence. So how do we disassociate ourselves from it? Any suggestions?

I don't mind that idea but I doubt it would cut much ice with the bleeding heart liberals.

The club has to do whatever it can to relentlessly pursue hooligans and to my mind it's worked hard to that end in recent years, but I think it should be working equally hard to protect the interests of genuine fans and put pressure on the police and the justice system to deal with the troublemakers.

[CiderJar]

Yep it does defeat the object, the question that I'd be asking here is why store any real volume of data on a laptop anyway? Store the data on a server and use secure VPNs etc when working remotely. Use simple encryption software to store small volumes of data temporarily if you have no connectivity. If you really need a huge database then typically this is for statistical analysis and the data should be anonymized.

Bottom line - don't transport around entire databases of real sensitive personal data on laptops

Having laptops that are encrypted at the o/s level is nice but not necessary. I think the problem is that the decision makers here are not IT experts and in all fairness they can't be expected to be either. They need better advice.

That was my advice (encrypt data and restrict the o/s to admin) but no-one listens to me, I am but a mere mortal.

Identify, arrest and prosecute them. It's the only thing that has ever worked.

It seems to me the police are expending massive resources preventing football violence and few on catching the perpetrators. The former approach inconveniences normal fans and addresses the symptoms not the cause IMO.

I don't mind that idea but I doubt it would cut much ice with the bleeding heart liberals.

The club has to do whatever it can to relentlessly pursue hooligans and to my mind it's worked hard to that end in recent years, but I think it should be working equally hard to protect the interests of genuine fans and put pressure on the police and the justice system to deal with the troublemakers.

Yup nice idea, now to put it into practice. As with your encryption argument, the police need better advice. At the moment the resources are ploughed into heavy handed policing in and around grounds. My understanding is that most "meets" are organised away from the ground. And a few late arrivers will put in a few windows of emptying pubs just as a token gesture. It wouldn't take much to infiltrate this. If you and I can pick up on what is going on, a few of the more intelligent in the police service could surely work it out?

[Nibor]

Yup nice idea, now to put it into practice. As with your encryption argument, the police need better advice. At the moment the resources are ploughed into heavy handed policing in and around grounds. My understanding is that most "meets" are organised away from the ground. And a few late arrivers will put in a few windows of emptying pubs just as a token gesture. It wouldn't take much to infiltrate this. If you and I can pick up on what is going on, a few of the more intelligent in the police service could surely work it out?

I reckon it's as much about what is politically more palatable as it is intelligence. I think it might be better in the long run to let them have a few rucks so you can get them all on camera with plenty of evidence and locked up doing nice long stretches, but even if the police agreed I'm not sure that would go down too well in the press.