# FILE NAME: 00001488.soc
# TITLE: Should every person have to carry some form of national identification? [c0354969d60b5c1132d391590d002445]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Final consensus statement: In general, the group were opposed to the idea of having to carry national identification. They felt that this was an infringement on personal liberties and that it was not necessary in the majority of cases. They did agree that it would be useful in certain situations, such as when dealing with the police or in a nightclub, but they felt that this was not a sufficient reason to have to carry it all the time. They felt that it was not necessary to carry national identification in order to prove who you are, as most people would be able to recognise you from your face. The group did acknowledge that there were some exceptions to this general view, such as cases where government benefits are being claimed and it is important that people are able to prove who they are.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There are pros and cons to having to carry national identification. In the majority of cases, we do not think that it is necessary. However, in certain situations, such as being stopped by the police, it would be useful to have some form of ID on your person. We feel that in general it is not necessary to carry national identification all the time, but it would be beneficial to have it on your person in certain situations.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Final consensus statement: In the group's opinion, carrying around national identification is not absolutely necessary and should not be required to be carried at all times. It would be very useful to carry around when the situation warrants it (for example, in case of a police check). The group felt that although it is essential for us to have national identification, we should not be forced to carry it on our person all the time.   Participant 1 can be classed as a "consensus builder" as he does not exhibit any particular personality traits and there was no particular instances of him having sway over the group's overall opinion, though this may not always be the case. In cases where the other participants hold a clear opinion, the effect of a "lone dissenter" is to prevent a group from reaching a consensus opinion as they are less likely to be swayed by outside influences. In situations where all members of a group have similar personalities or traits, the effect of a "dissenter" can be undone by another group member that acts as a "consensus builder". These "consensus builders" do not show any clear patterns and often keep to the background of a debate, but they can
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - The group of participants was generally opposed to the idea of having to carry national identification. They felt that this was an infringement on personal liberties and that it was not necessary in the majority of cases. They did agree that it would be useful in certain situations, such as when dealing with the police or in a nightclub, but they felt that this was not a sufficient reason to have to carry it all the time. They felt that it was not necessary to carry national identification in order to prove who you are, as most people would be able to recognise you from your face. They agreed that carrying ID may be helpful in certain emergency situations, but that this would not be a sufficient reason to make it mandatory to carry ID at all times.
2: 1,2,4,3
1: 1,4,2,3
1: 2,1,4,3
1: 3,1,4,2