Home Office consultation summary on ID cards

[Tom Thomson]

> At 23:25 +0000 11/11/03, Ian Johnson wrote:

> IANAL but I have a copy of PACE 1984.  What I think you are
> referring to is section 25 (3) (b) which allows for arrest
where
> "the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether the
name
> furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real
name".
> (Also see very similar wording in 25 (3) (c) (ii) for
address.)
>
> The question is what is "reasonable grounds".  It is also
> interesting that it introduces the concept of a "real name".
(Can
> any of the lawyers say if this has a special meaning in law?
I
> cannot find a definition of it in PACE.)  This is especially
> interesting given the "entitlement card" consultation's
proposal to
> out-law "fictitious" names.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I prettty sure of two things:-

1) You can have many real names
2) Plod is really upset by your having more than one name.

I run into (1) a lot, because I have a lot of real names:
a)    Colin Micheal Thomson
b)    Colin Michael Thomson
c)    Colin Thomson
d)    Micheal Thomson
e)    Michael Thomson
f)    Colin Thompson
g)    Micheal Ban Chailein
h)    Micheal Ban Chailean Thomais
i)    Micheal MacChailein
j)    Micheal MacThomhais
k)    Micheal Chailean MacThomais
l)   Tom Thomson
and a few more variations on the same theme.  And that's mostly
without counting spelling variations like putting or leaving out
a "p" after the "m" in "Thomson" or an "h" after the "m" in
"Thomais", or wriiting an acute accent over the o in "Thomais"
(in theory, since the 1982 new orthography rules in Scotland,
that should be a grave rather than an acute - but with a grave
accent instead of an acute it wouldn't be a "real name" because
no-one would ever be stupid enough to write it that way).  Of
the list above, I have bank accounts using (b), (c), and (k),
other credit cards using (d), (k) and (l), the NHS insists on
calling me (f) when I'm in England (which I find offensive -
they might at least learn to spell - but it's still one of my
"real" names" because the NHS commonly use it for me) and (j)
when I'm in (northern) Scotland and (e) when I'm in Southern
Scotland, I normally sign myself using (a) (but with just a "C"
rather than my father's name in full) or or (j) or (l) (depends
on language context - mixed, Gaelic, or English), and the others
turn up in various social contexts.  Since they are all names
that people commonly uise for me, they are all my "real names".
While the UK continues to insist on translating names between
its various native languages, and the various regions of the UK
continue to pretend that their local convention is the only
convention for ordering components of the name, it will be
common for people to have many "real names" - and British law
(both Scottish law and English-Welsh law) has up to now
recognised this.  If the ID card game attempts to impose a
single name on people like me, it will fall foul of ECHR, of
European directives on minoriy languages, and indeed of the Acts
of Union (restrictions to changes in the private law of
Scotland - I would claim that the British parliament is acting
ultra vires on this matter, as a matter of international law
since its powers are limited by the treaty embodied in the two
Acts) although the last is probably not relevant since it is a
treaty more honoured in breech that in observance.

I ran into 2) recently:  my youngest son was pulled over for a
(claimed - plod gave up and brought no case) for a minor
motoring offence, and produced his driving licence with the name
"Calum Niall Thomson"; so plod noted down that name;  as he got
back into his car to drive off, his front seat passenger
addressed him as "Niall" - an plod then arrested him for giving
a false name - after all "Nialll" isn't "Calum", and he couldn't
possibly be known other than by his first name. This seems to me
to be pretty clear evidence of (2) - using a forname other than
the first in your collection is regarded as an offence.

Tom Thomson