Mr Goggins people bought the cards in the full knowledge that the Conservetives said they would scrap the scheme, therefore they have had full the full value of the card from issue to expiry. No refund needed

A full refund..I think not....The owners of these cards have already had a good few months 'usage'.The question is whether they got good value for money,and on that basis we should all have a refund for the years of Labour Government.

It was a voluntary Pilot.

Offering refunds is completely uneccassary, Perhaps some one who has bought one voluntarily would post a comment on why they bought one and if they feel they deserve a refund explain why?

Labours financial incompetence and carefree spending over the past 13 years has resulted in a National Debt of over £16k per person.
£30 is neither here nor there.
Those that bought cards should think themselves lucky if that is the only financial disadvantage they reap from the excesses of the Labour years.

Me thinks Mr Goggins is doing a bit of stirring.if he believes in a refund let the Labour party give it out of their own funds. They wanted the cards in the first place.

i say no! most people knew that this was a failed experiment way before they where scrapped.

there where reports that even european countries where not going to recognise them without a valid passport being shown.

so there was no point to them.

these where people who fooled by labour into making these card look more popular than theywhere, these people thought they where saving money by getting them at the special half price discount .

if you where foolish to pay for one then you actually deserve to have your money taken off you.

unless you want to fully reimburse these people out of your own pocket mr goggins, then please do so.

Mr Goggins: No doubt you went along with this piece of Labour's stupidity. If you think the fools who bought one deserve a refund, please feel free to pay for them from your own pocket. Your profligate Labour pals have cost us all dearly, there is nothing left in the pot!!

No refund due. Anyone who bought these cards were (a) gullible and (b) stupid (since they must have seen a Labour defeat coming). Though I suppose a civilised society should protect the gullible and stupid, but there are limits!

Don't these people ever give up? The scheme is dead and almost buried - an ex scheme.

It was always obvious to most people, except to New Labour and the Home Office, that the scheme would not survive the general election, so more fool them for parting with their money for a pointless bit of plastic. Never was there a greater waste of £30 in buying a bit of coloured plastic when a biometric passport, which one also had to hold and pay for before one could be issued with an ID card, would serve the same purpose.

If the airport workers in his constituency were issued with them for free then they have not actually lost anything except for their privacy to a database. I suspect that many of the other holders, except for a certain columnist who ought to know better, were coerced into obtaining them by their employer (Government department or airport service company), which should have footed the bill anyway.

He says, “The card was already proving to be a handy way for people to confirm their identity and an ideal document to use instead of a passport when travelling through Europe."

Somebody should tell Mr Goggins that there are no internal boundaries on the European Mainland any more within the EU, only between the UK and the outside world. It has been reported that the German authorities would not accept the UK's ID card but they are quite happy for me to use my European Standard Driving Licence or my Driver's Card, which contain my name, address, DoB, place of birth, photograph, signature, reference number, country of issue and issuing authority for identification purposes. What more is needed? They never asked to see my passport!

In all probability the scheme would have been quitely abandoned anyway, even if Labour had been returned to power, as unaffordable in the present circumstances, giving them a perfect way to get out of a public policy disaster without too much loss of face. They could even have abandoned it when the Republican administration fell in the USA and gained public credit for making a clean break with Uncle Sam but they chose to plough on flogging an unwelcome dead horse which was already beginning to smell. New Labour is now history but still they will not give up on their obsession with the database state.

“As a result of the new government’s decision to scrap the card without compensation card holders will be left with a defunct card and £30 out of pocket. In my view they should be offered a refund or given a credit towards the cost of their next passport.”

As a result of your government's decision to make mephodrone illegal, people who bought the substance while it was legal may have found themselves having to dispose of it. Will you be campaigning for those people to be compensated for the loss suffered because of your government's actions, or is this just typical hypocritical political point scoring?

Should it not be the Labour who should be offering refunds? If people were daft enough to buy one when they did not really need one, in full knowedge the idea was going to get scrapped after an election don't really deserve any compensation.

I bought a card which has been handy for proving my identity (saving me from carrying my passport with me when going to pubs/bars and supermarkets). It has also be useful for travel in Europe where you can leave your passport at home or store it safely in the hotel room or apartment as a back-up.

My main complaint about the lack of refund is that the staff who were processing the applications were telling people that even if the card scheme was scrapped the card would still be valid for travel in Europe until it expires in 10 years time. If this is not the case, as it now seems to be, then the card was missold and any other product I would have some sort of comeback, however the Government and the IPS don't seem to want to know.

not sure really they should get a refund but some of the reason suggest on here are ludecrus and have no logic behind them

"No refund due. Anyone who bought these cards were (a) gullible and (b) stupid (since they must have seen a Labour defeat coming)."

Its daft comments like these, whether their gullible or stupid does not affect whether they should, and as for predicting the future of the election how stupid to suggest people can know the outcome of a future event, not one person knew for absolute certain they would be defeated, you can say you though they would lose but no one knew until it was confirmed.

As a result of the new government’s decision to scrap the card without compensation card holders will be left with a defunct card and £30 out of pocket. In my view they should be offered a refund or given a credit towards the cost of their next passport.”

As a result of your government's decision to make mephodrone illegal, people who bought the substance while it was legal may have found themselves having to dispose of it. Will you be campaigning for those people to be compensated for the loss suffered because of your government's actions, or is this just typical hypocritical political point scoring? "

You've gotta love it, will you ever come up with a suitable example to prove your point, there are so many to choose from yet you choose to compare none like with none like once again.

Oh give it up you losers. Ask Blair, Brown, Blunkett, Smith et al for your money back - it was their idea after all.

PedigreeRecords: "I bought a card which has been handy for proving my identity (saving me from carrying my passport with me when going to pubs/bars and supermarkets)."

There were already cards available to allow you to do that, such as the ValidateUK card (£10) or the Citzencard (£15), which also don't require the level of personal intrusion that was associated with the ID card.

It hasn’t received much publicity, but if you’ve got an ID card, you can get a free Citizencard as a replacement, so you can continue to carry a card to prove your age in supermarkets, bars, etc. (which is what you are proving, not, as you claim, your identity):

http://www.citizencard.com/free_national_identity_card_replacement.php

lovinthebanter: "You've gotta love it, will you ever come up with a suitable example to prove your point. "

I have.

If what you're trying to ask is if I'll ever be able to come up with an example which won't go over your head, the answer is "probably not." From now on, just assume that anything I post which isn't addressed to you specifically probably isn't pitched at your level.

so you can continue to carry a card to prove your age in supermarkets, bars, etc. (which is what you are proving, not, as you claim, your identity):"

How can you prove the age of someone without proving that they are who they are. Yes he is 18, but is he who you think he is.

Well if he may not be who you think he is then he may also not be that age because you think john wood is 18 but if he is not John Wood then you cannot prove he is 18 as you can only prove John Wood is 18 and so without him proving he is John Wood then he cannot say he is 18, as the age is only relevant for the person who's name is on the card.

lovinthebanter: "You've gotta love it, will you ever come up with a suitable example to prove your point. "

I have.

If what you're trying to ask is if I'll ever be able to come up with an example which won't go over your head, the answer is "probably not." From now on, just assume that anything I post which isn't addressed to you specifically probably isn't pitched at your level."

Black Flag, no mater how much you tout it to believe in yourself, you will never be able to pitch high enough to be at my 'level' hense the pointing out of how stupid your comparison was and how it in no way is a suitable example, once again comparing none like with none like, I would explain it to you but I feel wasting my time explaining something you will never be able to grasp is pointless, it would probably be easier to come up with a relevent example for you. I feel the difference between making something illegal and just abandoning a operating system will always be a struggle for you.

lovinthebanter: "How can you prove the age of someone without proving that they are who they are. Yes he is 18, but is he who you think he is.

Well if he may not be who you think he is then he may also not be that age because you think john wood is 18 but if he is not John Wood then you cannot prove he is 18 as you can only prove John Wood is 18 and so without him proving he is John Wood then he cannot say he is 18, as the age is only relevant for the person who's name is on the card."

If somebody had a card, issued by a trusted authority (however that is defined) which contained a photo and a symbol indicating the person indicated in the photo had been verified as over 18, it would be completely irrelevant, for the purposes of proving age, whether or not the person in the photo was John Wood.

You’re just embarrassing yourself with these continual ridiculous comments.

[quote name=lovinthebanter, Manchester]so you can continue to carry a card to prove your age in supermarkets, bars, etc. (which is what you are proving, not, as you claim, your identity):"

How can you prove the age of someone without proving that they are who they are. Yes he is 18, but is he who you think he is.

Well if he may not be who you think he is then he may also not be that age because you think john wood is 18 but if he is not John Wood then you cannot prove he is 18 as you can only prove John Wood is 18 and so without him proving he is John Wood then he cannot say he is 18, as the age is only relevant for the person who's name is on the card.[/quote]

Yes, but, how would you know if the person presenting a national ID card is actually the person named on the card, especially as the authorities can not or will not provide absolute proof that one's biometric attributes are actually unique?

The only reason I can see for people wanting one of these cards was to get a cheaper passport rather than forking out the full (yet extorsionate) fee.

A fair solution? Apply for a passport, surrender your id card and get £30 off the standard £77.50 fee with your passport back-dated to the start date of your identity card.

Now to deal with all the people who signed-up to be HIPs evaluators! (Yet another barmy idea)

Black Flag, no mater how much you tout it to believe in yourself, you will never be able to pitch high enough to be at my 'level' hense the pointing out of how stupid your comparison was and how it in no way is a suitable example, once again comparing none like with none like, I would explain it to you but I feel wasting my time explaining something you will never be able to grasp is pointless, it would probably be easier to come up with a relevent example for you. I feel the difference between making something illegal and just abandoning a operating system will always be a struggle for you.
Lovinthebanter

Hmmm. I think the onus is on you to show why BF's mephaprone example was not relevant. Not upon him to show how it was. And this is largely because the example was so blindingly obvious that a child could understand the point being made.

The fact of the matter is, lvinthebanter, you didn't reply to BF's analogy, you replied to BF because you didn't like the analogy. More than likey it was just an attack on a person rather than an attack on the persons example.

Just to confuse you a bit more while I am at it. The Mephaprone example is particularly relevant as it was proved a couple of days ago that the two 'young persons' who were thought to have died from the substance, had never actually taken it - according to toxicology reports produced after the hysterical attempt at desperate vote grabbing that resulted in the ban.

So, will the government pay back those who bought it when it was legal - now that it has been proven that it has had no recordable ill effects on anybody after all? It is plant food. It is now illegal for plants to take plant food. Apart from everything else - sure even you must find this a bit odd?

[quote name=lovinthebanter, Manchester]"No refund due. Anyone who bought these cards were (a) gullible and (b) stupid (since they must have seen a Labour defeat coming)."

Its daft comments like these, whether their gullible or stupid does not affect whether they should, and as for predicting the future of the election how stupid to suggest people can know the outcome of a future event, not one person knew for absolute certain they would be defeated, you can say you though they would lose but no one knew until it was confirmed.[/quote]

No doubt the current government will want to change many of the taxation and spending prioities of the previous one; will everyone who finds themself worse off be compensated?
What about those who bought HIPS packs, or, people with houses or savings once the Capital gains changes come into place?
To suggest that everybody be compensated is a foolish idea; especially for something like this, which was voluntary, controversial and very likely to be scapped, as all the parties except labour had said they would abandon it.