Anyone know more about this BT "uk identity verification" scheme?

[Brian Beesley]

On Monday 17 March 2003 12:27, Ian Miller wrote:
>
> I have had three different banks, all present me with essentially the same
> requirements and all of them told me that it wasn't their doing, they were
> just obeying orders.  They also said that it was new.  They all required
> what they described as "proof of address".
>
> I don't know whether this is a change in the law, or a change in the way
> the law is being enforced, or a new code of practice.  However I do know
> that all banks I have been through this with are all singing the same new
> tune.

It's getting quite hard to take out new savings policies - except with your 
current agents. I may be unduly cynical about this, but one aspect of 
enforcement of these "regulations" (whether or not they're legal) is to 
prevent (or at least deter) customers taking out new savings policies with 
other agents, or transferring savings to schemes under different 
administration.

The same restrictive policies don't seem to apply to credit facilities. Odd, 
that, seeing as how a person you can't identify is probably more likely to 
default on a loan than someone you know. Catch-22 - I'd like to transfer my 
savings to institutions which are more restrictive about issuing loans, 
thereby risking _my_ assets, but I can't because of the way the 
"restrictions" are enforced :(

The effects of this ridiculous over-regulation are helping depress a savings 
market which is already in trouble (due in a large part to Government policy 
- excessive use of means-related benefits, taxation of pensions, depression 
of interest rates (indirectly through control of the official inflation 
index)). 

The basic problem here is that "money laundering" is seen as a problem - it 
isn't, it's a wholly natural part of any economy - laundered money encourages 
economic growth by stimulating demand for goods and services in exactly the 
same way as money generated from legal activities. The problem is that money 
being laundered is profit from illegal activities; the way to deal with that 
is effective policing i.e. preventing the crime from occurring, or at least 
catching criminals in the act of commission of a crime. But, oh no, 
legislation is framed in such a way that we are all seen as guilty until 
proved innocent - so we suffer from badly-judged restrictions, enforced in 
ways which suit big business. As well as now being subject to seizure of our 
assets without proper proof that it is the proceeds of crime. If I were sure 
that these policies could never be used against the innocent, I'd be much 
less unhappy; unfortunately the problem is that, the way legislation is being 
"rebalanced" in favour of the Crown, I personally feel threatened even though 
I should have "nothing to fear".

Perhaps the Government should eliminate its own despotic tendencies before 
engaging in military action to overthrow despotic regimes in third-world 
countries.

Brian Beesley