When Shami Chakrabarti opened the Convention On Modern Liberty last week, she told a story she had heard about how frogs, tipped in to a pot of boiling water, will jump out to safety; but that the same frogs, put into a pot of cool water that is slowly brought to the boil, will splash around happily until it is too late. It was an analogy for how authoritarianism can get a stranglehold on society if it just moves gradually enough that people never notice any single great, objectionable change.

Today's Times reports on new legislation coming into effect next month to deal with the problem of foreign drivers not turning up in court for traffic offences. From April 1st (ho ho ho) foreign motorists deemed by police to have committed a traffic offence will have to pay a 'deposit' of up to £900 at the roadside, or have their vehicle clamped until they do. The 'deposit' can then be reclaimed if they wish to contest the decision in court.

What has caught my eye, though -- apart from the amusingly Orwellian branding of an on-the-spot fine as a 'deposit' -- is the report's third paragraph:

The law will also apply to British residents who cannot prove at the roadside that they have a valid address in Britain.

Ben Webster, Foreign drivers face £900 roadside fines to halt rise in crashes

So now British motorists must carry proof of their address whenever they drive, or risk having to pay a fine -- sorry, a 'deposit' -- that they can only get refunded by going to court. Is it me, or is that water starting to get a little warmer?

Firstly, I spy with my cynical eye an outrider for mandatory ID cards. By introducing hundreds of little policies like this, the government creates a situation in which it becomes impossible to live without carrying ID. Sure, it won't be mandatory as far as the law's concerned, but if you want to get through your day without answering questions, filling in forms and paying 'deposits', you'll have to have a state-approved ID card on you at all times.

But more fundamentally than that, these sorts of policies do harm to the basic relationship between the individual and the state.

Ours should be a society where, unless there's evidence to the contrary, you are treated as a responsible, law-abiding citizen who can be trusted to give true information to the police and attend court when summoned. But policies like this one take us towards a society where no-one is trusted and everyone must be made to comply with the needs of the state.

Of course, the argument in this case will be that something needs to be done about drivers who give the police a false address, and I quite agree. But there are other, better ways of helping the police than simply making us all suspects. And besides, as someone wise once said: "only in a police state is a policeman's job easy."