I'm surprised they needed public support to implement an ID-card scheme yet didn't quite bother with public support to maintain TV licence fees...

Say 100 Pounds for an ID card every 10 years VS 169.50 Pounds EVERY year.

Maybe the 100 quid price-tag encompassed the overall implementation of the system, but surely once everything was up and running the costs would have been much, much lower.

Google is your friend. As I said, some might be surprised and they're not all places that nobody goes to. Many of them are major tourist attractions.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if you make an assertion - the other party has to just accept it because you said it, or at least prove it for you.
Google "Ipse dixit" - I'll help you - "an assertion without proof".
I'd be obliged if you Google it yourself or at least answer the question. I'd be quite happy to know.

There are several posts here about the reasons. Just because you came in late and missed them doesn't mean it's not been said.

You just demonstrated you can use google so I recommend using it. You could have found the same answers I did if you had.

Reasons? What do you mean, reasons? Reasons for what? Not answering a question? Or you mean reasons when you make a statement and feel you don't have to justify it? Is it some other reasons I never asked about?
Are you misunderstanding what I asked and what the answer should be?

You said, "How about places visited that stamp passports because they don't all have the necessary chip reading equipment."
I asked what countries.
When you asserted that I actually said, "Which ones do you know that to be?"
That's all I want to know - so.....?
Google which countries and get back to me.

Reasons. Context. Previous posts. It's not difficult.
You can easily answer your question. See I wondered if other countries might not use chips in passports and what other countries might not have the capability to read chips at passport control.
I wasn't interested in them specifically, just generally so as not to assume everywhere was the same. You know, different countries have different practices
If such countries exist then that makes chips useless and would be a reason for not all travel information getting back to a passport issuing authority.

If you want the specifics, look it up yourself as I did for my question. Don't be so lazy.

"Reasons. Context. Previous posts. It's not difficult."
So not what I was asking for then, for the countries. The question itself wasn't difficult either.

"....look it up yourself as I did for my question."
If you already looked it up then why the avoidance, just answering Google it?
You could have just said you didn't find any where that was the case. Fair enough. You just wondered what would happen if there was. An easy enough answer.
You could have said countries a, b and c. Again fair enough, question answered, no big deal.

You say, "If such countries exist....." - but you said previously -
"And what of the countries that don't have that? ........ You might be surprised at them." - and -
"As I said, some might be surprised and they're not all places that nobody goes to. Many of them are major tourist attractions."
Ahhhh.... so there are countries. You hint you know which they are, so why the "If such countries exist...."? Are they a secret you don't want to tell?

You make an assertion, you've done research, someone asks you a simple question to clarify what you say, you have looked it up and you know the answer, and you become evasive.
Laziness doesn't come into it, does it.
The actual answer would be of interest and relevant to the thread. I hope nobody else would like to know otherwise they'd have to google it as well or be accused of being lazy if they didn't.
By the way, I went to a school where you unfortunately had to learn Latin as well as other things of little use. I didn't have to google it as you suggest, It was one of the few things I knew and and for some reason, retained.

It's not avoidance. I'm not going back to find it all again when you could do it yourself.
As I clearly stated, "I wondered if other countries might not use chips in passports and what other countries might not have the capability to read chips at passport control."
That's two separate searches that I did for my question. Satisfied that there were a bunch of countries without chips and also a bunch of countries without the capability, I made my comment.
Obviously I should have listed all the countries in both sets just in case someone had their own question later and wanted me to provide those details instead of looking it up themselves.

It's not only me that has answered why it was needed - others posted links and quotes from the official sites mentioning things like travel information.

Take the trouble to look through the thread instead of expecting to be being spoonfed.

"Satisfied that there were a bunch of countries ........ without the capability, I made my comment."
I've looked through the thread. Twice before, three times if you count when I've been following it anyway, and once more just now. No mention of a country without the capability to read normal passport chips or a link followed through that answers that question either.
The conundrum is if the answer was already there in the thread, why you then delved deeper. I can only believe there wasn't an answer.

That is why I press you to answer it as you seem to know which countries. But are keeping it to yourself for some unreasonable reason I cannot fathom. I also wonder if you are mixing up my enquiry regarding which specific countries you found cannot, as opposed to a plain, there are countries that can't, or countries that can't read the newer NFC chips. Apparently you say there are specific ones that are major tourist destinations.

That's fine then. I admire you sticking to your unloaded guns. Rather pointless not sharing information on a forum all about questions being answered, but you deem it to be necessary to make some unhelpful point to only yourself.
You may as well answer any other questions with a rote, I know but I'm not telling you. Do your own research. To say, Google it, look back in the thread, you're not here to be spoon fed.
Maybe just a cut and paste the relevant words from a pro-forma would suffice to save you the effort.

I myself am actually curious how the biometric data in passports is actually used. Do immigration officers simply check it to correlate the most basic name+surname+DOB+passport# data or do they actually use the technology to compare the photo (and its characteristics) as well? As in the REAL biometric stuff.

We've always been told (or at least I have!) that the chip is for increasing passport security due to it containing biometric data... in other words, some biometric calculations concerning the photo.

Fair enough when it comes to these new machines that you use to go through immigration, but who checks this when it comes to manually-staffed desks? I recently went through "manual immigration" with the entire family (in an advanced biometric country when it comes to documents) and somehow both of my daughters' (not twins!) passports got switched. They weren't even lined up one after another, but stood in separate lines. How many do you think got through without ANY trouble or delay whatsoever? BOTH.

I would doubt the passport and the owner are checked beyond a cursory level.
I suggest the only time the passport is placed in the reader in the manual booth is for the officer to allow the computer to see if there were any reason not to allow you through.
So next time they do it, they think you are suspect...
Well that's what I think as the UK chip doesn't have anything other than a digital copy of the main page anyway...

On another note, my wife's passport was received on Friday lady week. Monday I got a message to say they were checking it. Tuesday was told it was approved and just now have been told it's been printed and will be in the post by the end of the week.
So with a week to get back here. That's a good service as far as I'm concerned.

I did a Freedom of Information request to the UK Border Force asking what information the border official can access and/or see on his screen.
They said we're not telling you for security reasons -
"After careful consideration we have decided that this information is exempt from disclosure under section 31 (1) (a) and (e) of the FOIA. This provides that information can be withheld where disclosure would or would be likely to, prejudice law enforcement and the public interest falls in favour of maintaining the exemption, in terms of the detection of crime and immigration controls operations."

Thats rubbish seeing as there are apps available for free that can read the chip details and show them on your mobile phone.
Try this one ReadID Me. There are many others available...

I know of these but not looked too far into it. I did think that you need an external reader for the older RFID chips and maybe pair it to a phone. But the newer NFC chips in ePassports can be read directly by a phone app. Something like that.

They usually clip the corner off the old passports and send them back to you.