Letters: ID cards

All this debate about the effectiveness of ID cards is beside the point. Politicians and higher civil servants are driven by the idea of power; power and control are what turn them on. There is a dynamic intrinsic to the relationship between citizen and state which drives the state to try always to increase its means of power and control, and to use every opportunity to do so. ID cards are the current round in this battle, set off by 9/11 and talk of "terrorists".

The idea of ID cards is very seductive to the power-hungry mentality, leading as it does to thoughts of huge databases recording everything about citizens' lives and movements. Politicians will reach for any argument that falls to hand, if they think it has sufficient plausibility, in support of this delicious addition to their arsenal of means of control.

ID cards should be resisted by those of us who don't want the state to become always more powerful. In addition, function creep would certainly lead to every jobsworth asking to see one's ID card before anything can be done. Even those of us who believe that ID cards would make their lives safer must surely wonder whether the possible increase in safety is worth the certain loss of privacy.

Dennis Leachman

Reading, Berkshire

Presumably your paranoid readers opposed to ID Cards (letters, 6 October) don't have a credit card, a store card, an organ-donor card, a passport, a bus pass or a railcard; never use the NHS or claim social-security benefits, and keep their money in a sock under the bed.

Stephen Mullin

London EC1

Judging by recent letters it would appear that crime can be stopped by ID cards. A saintly halo hologram for a goody? A Bart Simpson hologram for a baddy? Perhaps for baddies they could state the baddy type, such as Burglary Management Executive.

Nick Anderson (Goody)

Groombridge, Kent

Tax to encourage healthier markets

Andreas Whittam Smith no doubt raises loud cheers when he says it is time to put bankers in the dock (Opinion, 6 October). It would surely make us all feel much better if we could find someone to blame for the present financial disaster.

But didn't we all think we were benefiting too, through our insurance policies and pension funds, if not otherwise? We have all become far too reliant on the stock exchanges and fancy financial products peddled apparently on our behalf. Far too much effort is being devoted simply to exchanging ownership and mortgaging so-called assets, rather than to genuine productive capacity or human happiness.

And, we now find, these financial markets have been far too "efficient"' (making the most from the least) for their or our good, and not nearly as effective (making the best use of poor and scarce resources) as is required. We need to curb their appetites for the simple exchange of ownership. How? Tax all stock transactions at, say, 1 per cent.

Such a tax would hardly affect long-term or occasional exchanges of ownership, but would seriously discourage those trying to shave the margins of such trades, where volume of trade and the margin is what counts, rather than the real value. Volatility of the finance markets so taxed should be substantially reduced, and they should become more reliable indicators of the real (productive) value of the assets they are supposed to reflect.

Unilateral action by, say, the UK government on the London Stock Exchange might well drive the short-term speculators elsewhere. But who needs them if they do not contribute to the reliability of the market? Unilateral action should encourage more productive capital inwards to the UK and the London exchange. In any event, the proceeds of the tax would be some recompense for the efforts of our governments (at our expense) to stabilise the finance markets.

David Harvey

Tyemouth, Tyne & Wear,

The governments of western developed economies justify using their taxpayers' money to bail out banks, which have failed because of their disastrous pursuit of profit at all cost, by cries that the only alternative is the collapse of their economies.

Nonsense. The money could be used by governments to lend directly to firms which needed capital and finance, who are part of the real economy – producing goods and services rather than Monopoly money – thus ensuring continued production. The banks could make their own arrangements. Some would disappear (good riddance) while others would regroup, take a good hard look at themselves and survive. Meanwhile the real economy would function perfectly well, and the taxpayer would not have to pay for the ridiculous profits made by reckless bankers.

Jim Cordell

Manchester

British history of oppression

I am just old enough to have been subjected to a little of the traditional teaching of history which Michael Gove favours.

It took me too many years afterwards to realise that the "rhythm of the past" (Tristram Hunt, 4 October) is that of the dispossession of the population, from the Norman Conquest, through to the annexation of Wales and Ireland, the enclosure movement, the Highland clearances, the Industrial Revolution, and privatisation, up to the present day when our tax system has been crafted to bear most heavily on those who have least. And all that's before leaving these islands on imperial adventures.

A few weeks ago, in Extra, one of your reviewers wrote of England's "mean and cruel past" covered up by hypocrisy and self-indulgence. That sums up our reality only too well.

A history of pride and patriotism is just another self-indulgence and self-deception; we must discard it now if we are to understand Britain's cruel and mean present and forestall a similarly indefensible future.

R J Fearnley

Debenham, Suffolk

Creationism has no place in science

Echoing the whine of the pseudo-scientific the world over, Nigel Halliday complains that creationists and supporters of "intelligent design" are unfairly excluded from the scientific debate by scientists who are acting like a kind of politburo that can brook no criticism. They are forced, he says, to publish their "scientific" papers in journals of their own.

This profoundly mis-characterises science in a way that is common among True Believers. Scientists love a challenge and there isn't a serious scientist in the world who would not change her mind when the facts change. If creationists ever came up with a single piece of plausible evidence in support of their claims, that would cause evolutionary biologists immediately to revise their ideas. If there were one – just one – fossil in an anachronistic geological stratum it would be dramatic evidence of the deficiency of evolutionary theory and impossible to ignore.

There is only one reason why creationists do not appear in peer-reviewed journals, and that has nothing to do with authoritarian scientists who prefer to shut out their arguments. It is because their "evidence" is non-existent, their methodology is risible and they offer no testable hypothesis. Where do you go from there?

John Clinch

London EC2

Dr Nigel Halliday complains that the scientific community refuses to engage with creationism. Perhaps I can help him to understand the reasons.

I suggest he rereads his letter, replacing the words "creationism" and "intelligent design", with any of the following: alchemy, astrology, Lamarckism, telegony, phlogiston theory, luminiferous aether, phrenology or geocentric universe. He might then begin to understand why scientists do not wish to waste valuable time on long-superseded explanations that, in the case of the pseudo-sciences of creationism and intelligent design, survive for the moment only because of fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Ian Quayle

Fownhope, Herefordshire

Unheard 'victims' of teacher affairs

For all kinds of good reasons, intimate student-teacher relationships are not to be encouraged ("It started with a classroom kiss", 6 October). As things now stand, for instance, a student of 16 or more who has a consensual affair with a teacher is at great risk of devastating emotional harm.

The harm, that is, of seeing one's lover's career and life destroyed, as he or she is pilloried in the press, convicted in court and branded for life a perverted sex offender. The despair at being powerless to protect your foolish paramour from this fate – since your consent, wishes and feelings will be dismissed as irrelevant. The overwhelming guilt of feeling responsible, at least in part, for causing this disaster.

I suspect that a growing number of young people have experienced such an ordeal – at the hands of a system designed, we're told, for their own protection. Yet their voices are seldom heard, amid the incessant clamour of angry villagers with their pitchforks and flaming torches. Perhaps if such young "victims" were actually listened to, once in a while, the system might serve them better – and acquire a little more compassion, rationality and common sense.

Andrew Clifton

Edgware, Middlesex

Farcical planning for nuclear attack

Dr Kristan Stoddart, quoted by Cahal Milmo (3 October), states that the government's 1973 contingency planning for the aftermath of a nuclear attack "was very well done".

Ten years before, I took part in a debate about civil defence at Goldsmiths' College. We did a lot of research into county council planning for post-nuclear existence and it was obvious that reality had no part in it. Raymond Briggs found the same thing and produced When the Wind Blows. All the authorities could do was to prevent mass panic and flight before the event. To this end, ludicrous advice was offered, primarily to keep people in their houses. Once the bombs had dropped on this crowded island all bets were off.

I don't know what changed between 1963 and 1973, except for the increased efficiency of the weapons. The only hope was to be close enough to an explosion to die instantly. Anything else would have been a nightmare and any planning mere hot air. As for the famous broadcast, forget serious newsreaders, far better to have had Bluebottle from The Goon Show. At least we would have died laughing.

Peter Rice

Chilgrove, West Sussex

Briefly...

Freedom to live or die

Alison Davis is wholly entitled and welcome to her personal feelings about her life and its altered perspectives (Letter: "My life is worth living, despite the pain and suffering", 6 October). What bewilders me is why she should want to interfere with the freedom of others who, being "enabled and supported", wish to make their own, in some cases, different, choice.

Sally Festing

Manningtree, Essex

Worthy winners

As a person with HIV, diagnosed twenty years ago, I should like to congratulate Luc Montagnier and Franç-oise Barre-Sinoussi on being awarded the Nobel Prize for their work on identifying the cause of Aids. Their discovery in 1984 led directly to better care and to the development of treatments that globally have saved, and dramatically prolong, the lives of millions of people. Rarely, in my opinion, has a Nobel Prize been so richly deserved.

Paul Clift

London SE6

Dealing with pirates

"On 19 January 1839, the British East India Company landed Royal Marines at Aden to occupy the territory and stop attacks by pirates against British shipping to India" (Wikipedia). Maybe it's time that the UN did the same but took over Socotra or Kamaran Island instead ("EU ministers to set up Somalia anti-piracy unit", 3 October).

Rupert Fawdry

Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire

Lost in the wash

Yes, Mr Brook (letter, 2 October) I do indeed have a coping strategy for Sock Drawer Coherence Management: Marks and Spencer seven-packs are not only colour-coded but marked clearly with days of the week. You should be aware, however, that for sock-pedants they can be extremely anxiety-inducing for both wearer and buyer (usually a male-female divide). My husband declares his day ruined if he can only find Friday's socks on Thursday, or vice versa.

Betsy Everett

Askrigg, North Yorkshire

I have very much enjoyed your lighthearted duvet correspondence. It has been a refreshing alternative to the world financial crisis and its blanket coverage.

Stephen Dodding

Peterborough

Incorrect language

I feel we have to be thankful that the legal aid form referred to by Ken Cohen (letter, 7 October) uses the term "sex" and not "gender".

Fiona Jackson

Carshalton, Surrey

Interesting? Click here to explore further