Christopher Edward Buckingham is starting a jail sentence for obtaining a passport using a false identity. Actually, he isn’t Christopher Edward Buckingham at all. We don’t know who he is. Neither does his ex wife. We know little about him, yet that doesn’t stop the speculation:
“He’s obviously got something to hide. He’s lived a lie for 23 years and he’s still living it,” said Det Con Dave Sprigg.
Well, yes, technically, that is true. However, what constable Sprigg is implying, with this further statement;
“This man has gone to jail today flatly refusing to reveal his identity to us and I believe he probably has a serious reason for not telling us who he really is.”
is that Buckingham is hiding something criminal. Otherwise it is absolutely none of Sprigg’s or anyone else’s business. That “serious reason” may be perfectly legitimate.
Just because people wish to reinvent themselves and refuse to reveal their old identity does not automatically mean that we can assume criminal activity. Yet, over at the Brighton Regency Blog, Neil Harding has done just that:
“…unless we know what other identities he has had, which we don’t, then we will never know what crimes he has committed…”
As I have pointed out, we don’t know that he has committed any crimes – the police search using fingerprints et al has turned up nothing. Naturally, Mr Harding tells us that this is a case for having Identity Cards. Well, he would, wouldn’t he? This is something of a wet dream for him; cataloguing us all because a minority of naughty people misbehave, so we all have to be punished and controlled by the nanny state.
Unfortunately, the logic is flawed. The ID Cards Bill would have not prevented this activity. It might, in certain circumstances, lock someone into their new assumed identity – presuming all the technology works, but it certainly wouldn’t stop it happening. And, why should we expend too much effort doing so anyway? It is hardly the crime of the century and despite the hyperbole bombarding us from the Home Office, this is not a massive area for criminal activity. It is increasing, but is still nowhere near the epidemic that we are being told that it is. Indeed, if the ID Cards Bill was not currently being discussed, this would have been a small story with little interest. The timing is convenient, but does not make a case for identity cards. Indeed, the “solution” is disproportionate to the problem.
The Earl of Buckingham may be a fraud – but the case for ID Cards is a bigger one.
—–