Added: Saturday, 30 June, 2007, 10:18 GMT 11:18 UK

Completely safe, thank you.

And even if I didn’t, I would not be prepared to give terrorists any victory by changing my habits or pandering to any ‘increased security’ in response to their threats.

Megan, Cheshire UK

Recommended by 215 people

———————

Added: Saturday, 30 June, 2007, 10:06 GMT 11:06 UK

Statistically and practically you have more chance of being hit by a bus on Oxford Street than being a victim of these deranged, brainwahsed psycopaths. Lets get on with our lives and don’t give them the satisfaction of thinking we’ll change of behaviour or way of life. As someone regularly in London on business I will continue to use the tube and visit nightclubs when socialising and these spineless cowards won’t stop me.

john smith, leeds, United Kingdom

Recommended by 193 people

———————

Added: Saturday, 30 June, 2007, 11:28 GMT 12:28 UK

Ooooh, I’m SO scared! Please, Mr Brown, pass some more draconian laws which limit our freedom.

I’m sick of being made to feel fearful by clowns who failed their “car bombing 101” course.

During the WWII blitz, when the danger was very real, the message wasn’t one of fear and angst, but “Keep Calm and Carry On”. I wish we had that message in today’s phony war on terra.

Marc Brett, London, UK

These are the most recommended answers to the question “How safe do you feel in the UK”, as asked at BBQ.

Its as if the usefulness of these acts are being tested by BBQ as part of a carefully coordinated planned study of effectiveness. As you can see, no one is buying it.

Everyone now understands that giving up your rights for safety is bullshit. Even more people understand that the people engineering these ‘attacks’ are the same people who are taking away your rights.

Watson has an interesting and insightful thing to say about this:

If we were really at war with Islamic terrorists then the British government would impose stringent controls on letting Muslims into the country in the first place and would deport others en masse – but instead the opposite has happened, while everybody’s rights are violated and abused in the name of security.

No one can say that this is a lie. People up and down the country are saying it openly. It cant be long before the newest buzzword in the UK is ‘Repatriation’. Denmark have already swallowed hard and said the words:

1.2. The Danish Repatriation Scheme

In Denmark repatriation is considered a voluntary matter. For repatriation to be successful, it must be carefully prepared. A decision to return is never easy, but often a lengthy process for the individual who has to consider many aspects. It must be ensured that the decision is made on an as sound and well-informed basis as possible.

The current repatriation scheme gives refugees and immigrants the opportunity to apply for financial support towards resettlement in their native country or former country of residence and towards the costs of the journey. In addition the scheme contains a fixed-term right to regret for refugees. […]

reintegration.net

Now look at this.

See what I mean?

But I digress. The focus is going to be moved, wether the grotesque ‘Uncle Joe’ Gordon Brown likes it or not, to eliminating ‘the enemy within’ and no one is going to accept even more useless legislation, which is literally useless at stopping crime.

Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

[…]

In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization.

[…]

Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.

According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.

[…]

Propaganda Matrix

Who can say that this is a lie?

The people of the independent states of Europe are against it becoming a super state, and where an election was held, the populations voted ‘no’. In spite of this, they are brining in all the elements of that evil and discredited document into force via a treaty, directly disobeying the electorate. That is PRECISELY the sort of thing that was the norm in the Soviet Union. Bukovsky is right. The EU should be dismantled, leaving only its currency intact. SHENGEN, Maastricht, everything needs to be thrown out, because the people who run the EU cannot be trusted and the EU’s very existence is a deadly poison to liberty.

And as for calling Bukovsky a Terrorist, read about it yourself.

330,000 users to have access to database on England’s children

• Family campaigners raise concerns over security
• Index is intended to avoid another Climbié case

Lucy Ward, social affairs correspondent
Monday June 18, 2007
The Guardian

A giant electronic database containing sensitive information on all 11 million children in England will be open to at least 330,000 users when it launches next year, according to government guidance.

A final consultation on the plan reveals that the index, intended to help children’s services work together more effectively following the death of Victoria Climbié, will be accessible through any computer linked to the internet, whether at work or at home, providing users have the correct two-part security authentication.

Guidance on the £224m project warns those authorised to use the system not to access it in internet cafes or on computers in public reception areas, and instructs them never to leave the database logged on in case of unauthorised use.

Though it stresses the sophistication of the electronic security surrounding the databank, it acknowledges: “No system can be 100% guaranteed against misuse.” The government was warned by family campaigners that parents would be concerned about the number of people able to search the database, and about the potential security risk.

Mary MacLeod, chief executive of the Family and Parenting Institute, said: “Our research with parents suggests they will have great anxiety about the proposals.”

The universal database, forecast to cost £41m a year to run, has prompted controversy since the government set out its legal underpinning in the 2004 Children Act. Ministers argue the system will help prevent the lack of communication between children’s services revealed in the Laming inquiry into the death of eight-year-old Victoria Climbié, and will boost early intervention where children need it.

However, critics argue it breaches a child’s right to privacy, while others have raised concerns about security.

The database, named ContactPoint, will store basic identifying information including date of birth, address, name of parent and an identifying number for each child up to the age of 18. It will also hold contact details for services involved with the child, including school and GP practice but also others, though consent is required for details of sensitive services such as sexual and mental health.

No one will be allowed to opt out of the database, but children or their parents will have the right to ask to see information about them and challenge it if it is wrong. Children’s details can also be electronically “shielded” if they are considered to be at increased risk – an exemption which, controversially, could extend to the offspring of high-profile figures.

[…]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2105187,00.html

Every Child Matters, but it seems, some children matter more than others.

The right to CHALLENGE information if it is wrong is completely different to being able to CHANGE information if it is wrong, and if this insanity goes ahead, you can imagine the horrible process that would be involved in any such ‘challenge’.

And of course, they will use these unique numbers and roll them over into the NIR, creating a system that automatically populates it from birth from now (2008, if they manage to create this database) on.

This is pure evil, and the fact that they are going to ‘shield’ the identities of the children of the rich and famous proves that this database is dangerous to every child.

From the policy document:

Objectives of ContactPoint

4. The objectives of ContactPoint are to:
• help practitioners identify quickly a child with whom they have contact, and whether that child is getting the universal services (education, primary health care) to which he or she is entitled;

and then:

Which children and young people will be covered?

9. ContactPoint also supports the policy objective of identifying early those children with additional needs which should be addressed if they are to achieve the Every Child Matters outcomes, and then addressing those needs swiftly and effectively. It is estimated that at any one time 3-4 million children have such needs.

10. ContactPoint will cover all children and young people in England.
This is because:
• it is not possible to predict in advance which children will have needs for additional services;
• any child or young person could require the support of those services at any time in their childhood; and
• all children have the right to the universal services (education, primary health care), and the basic data will show whether or not they are receiving, and will then, as necessary, support local action to ensure they do receive them.

What this says is very clear; every child has the right to education, and this system will make sure that they will be forced to receive these ‘rights’.

If it is shown that a child is not receiving the ‘right’ to go to school, then the system will flag them, and the ‘right’ to attend school will be enforced.

Note how they justify putting EVERY CHILD in the system because, “it is not possible to predict in advance which children will have needs for additional services”, in other words, every parent is a potential criminal, and every child is a potential victim, and so we must put everyone under surveillance.

They understand that people do not like to be surveilled:

In order to ensure universal coverage, and also to ensure that the most vulnerable children have a record, inclusion of a child or young person on ContactPoint will not be subject to consent. However, where a practitioner is delivering a sensitive service to a child or young person, inclusion of that practitioner’s contact details on the child’s record will be subject to the informed and explicit consent of the young person, or, in the case of a child, the parent. Access to this information, once placed on the child’s record, will also be tightly restricted. Sensitive services are specific services in the fields of sexual health, mental health, and substance abuse. The purpose of this approach is to prevent children and young people being deterred from accessing these services.

Once everyone with a sensitive medical problem understands that touching this system in any way marks you forever, they WILL stay away from it, becauase they will understand that anyone can find out everything about them. And this will be carried over into adulthood:

ContactPoint will cover children and young people up to their 18th birthday. To help ensure that the transition from youth to adult services is managed smoothly, it may also be desirable to make provision to retain some basic information for young adults with multiple needs, (for example care leavers and young people with disabilities), beyond their 18th birthday, with their consent.

So, your consent to be kept on this database can be asked if you are 18; does this mean that the records pertaining to each child as it reaches its 18th year will be deleted?. Also, why is it that parents cannot opt out of this system on behalf of their children, but children themselves can do so when they reach 18? If it is good for you when you are less than 18, surely it is good for you after you are 18; why should you be given the choice to opt out then, and not before?

Parents have the absolute right to care for their children in the way that they see fit. By saying that the parent does not have the right to opt their children out, the state is taking on the role of the parent in saying what is and is not of benefit to the child which is totally unacceptable to any decent person. They are making the children of the UK into property.

Parents have an obligation to protect their children from harm. This database constitutes real harm, and so, all parents who object to it, should opt out of it by any means necessary.

People with money (people with means) will now have to find private doctors who use only paper to keep records, and who are true to their Hippocratic Oath. This database violates the privacy of children, puts them in harms way, damages them and their families and so therefore, all doctors should refuse to engage with it in any way.

And the people without money? I guess they will just have to vote Tory next time round.

How are they going to populate this database?

To avoid double-inputting of data and to ensure high standards of accuracy, information will be drawn from and updated through, a range of existing national and local systems, using proven technology.

This means that it is going to be a total mess. Which is a good thing, because if it does not work, eventually it will be shut down as non cost effective.

And what if people abuse the system? (other than the hackers who will be able to own this system within 15 minutes of it going live)

A range of sanctions are available to manage inappropriate use, and can include disciplinary action, fines and custodial sentences.

Of course, none of these sanctions will put the data back in the database. Once it is out there, it is out there forever, and no amount of prison time, fines, disciplinary action or any thing else will change that.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of data, and it also shows a lack of understanding of the risk such a system poses.

By assembling this system, they are putting ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE UK AT RISK because a statistically small number of children are being mistreated. By creating this system, they are abusing ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE UK, where they were not before being abused and violated.

This government has, through this project, become the single biggest abuser of children in the history of Great Britain.

And finally:

18.

During the implementation phase, each Local Authority will be funded to provide a small team to support data migration, matching and cleansing during roll-out. There will also be a role for authorities to communicate and consult widely in their areas and to locally promote ContactPoint. Each Authority will maintain a small team to support ongoing data migration, matching and cleansing, and technical support for authorised users. This team would be responsible for service management, systems administration, data management, professional support and administration of local access. Local authorities will be supported by the central project team through this process, and will receive training, guidance and support to carry out this important role.

So there will be hoards of people given access to this database as it is being created, who will sift and sort through everyone, looking through everyones personal details as they ‘match and cleanse’. This is a total nightmare.

LEts think about some security breach scenarios, many of which we have discussed on BLOGDIAL before:

Casually shared login details:
We all know about the sharing of logins and passwords that is rampant throughout many systems world wide. All it will take is one person to allow their account to be used for the entire system to be compromised, and of course, once the data is out there, it is out there FOREVER.

Hackers Owning the DB:
I guarantee you that some hackers will own this database within minutes or days of it going online. They will then do an SQL dump of the whole database, and then all of it, records of every child in the UK will be out there, FOREVER. This is a scenario that WILL take place.

Duplication by increments:
This database and its entire contents will be duplicated over time, as every small breach and copying of a record means that particular record is out there forever. Over 10 years (if this nightmare goes ahead) we will see near complete copies of this database in private hands.

This database is not only extremely valuable to sex monsters, but it is literally millions of times more valuable to toy, clothes and book manufacturers who would pay anything (even fines and jail time) for access to the clean database of names ages, genders and addresses of all the children in the UK, so that they can market to them directly and individually. This database represents a business opportunity without precedent. And you can guarantee that the selling of it will be proposed as a way to offset the cost of running it.

Bad insiders:
Bad insiders; we have talked about them on BLOGDIAL before, and there is nothing that you can do about them. No amount of ‘enhanced criminal records checks’ will be able to predict which of these 330,000 people will crack under pressure. Criminal records checks only tell you the people who have not yet committed a crime, they cannot predict the future.

This government is totally insane to be doing this. No doubt about it.

The ultimate question for all parents is, what are you going to do to protect your children and to keep them out of this database? How far are you willing to go to do it?

The new film ‘Taking Liberties‘ is all about everything anyone with a brain-cell has understood for years. What is interesting is that on its weblog, when you want to publish a comment it is set to:

“This blog does not allow anonymous comments.”

Nice one. Anonymity and the ability to publish anonymously is an important right:

In the legal tradition, the right to anonymity is integrally related to an individual’s freedom of expression guarantees. Historically, many authors publish anonymously because their message is too controversial and they risk persecution or social ostracization for the content of their speech. Fundamental principles upon which the US Constitution is grounded were first espoused in The Federalist Papers , by “Publius”, the famous moniker used by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton when they wished to publish anonymously. Ironically, George Orwell, author of 1984 and Animal Farm , concealed his name and identity, Eric Blair, out of fear of political backlash for his views. The historical and political use of anonymous speech demonstrates that it is a vital part of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

Like the right to distribute thoughts and ideas, the right to anonymous publishing is an essential component to freedom of expression guarantees. It protects the most valuable speech in a free society: the views that challenge the status quo, the majority, or government.

The US Supreme Court has historically recognized that the constitution’s freedom of expression guarantees protects a publisher’s right to anonymity. According to the US Supreme Court, the right to speak anonymously, “exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment in particular.” ( McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm ., 514 U.S. 334 (1995). According to Justice Stevens, anonymity is a prerequisite for speech in some cases. He pointed out that the motivation for anonymous publication may be to avoid social ostracism, to prevent retaliation, or to protect privacy. It is anonymous speech that shields individuals “from the tyranny of the majority … [It] protects unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – a the hand of an intolerant society.” Id.

In Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton , 122 S. Ct. 2080, 2090 (2002), the US Supreme Court ruled that a municipal ordinance requiring pamphleteers to disclose names implicates “anonymity interests” rooted in the First Amendment’s freedom of expression guarantees. The US Supreme Court also struck down a law requiring citizens to wear identification badges because it violated citizens’ First Amendment right to anonymity. ( Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Foun., Inc. , 525 U.S. 182 (1992).

Lower federal courts have specifically extended the right to publish anonymously to the Internet, ruling that “the constitutional rights of Internet users, including the right to speak anonymously, must be carefully safeguarded,” ( Doe v. 2TheMart.com, Inc ., 140 F. Supp.2d at 1097). The First Amendment right communicate anonymously over the Internet was also upheld in ACLU v. Johnson , 4 F. Supp.2d 1029, 1033 (D.N.M. 1998), aff’d, 194 F.3d 1149 (10 th Cir. 1999) and in ACLU of Georgia v. Miller , 977 F. Supp. 1228, 1230 (N.D. Ga 1997), which additionally recognized the constitutional right to communicate pseudonymously on the Internet.

Canadian courts have likewise extended the right to speak anonymously to the Internet:

“Some degree of privacy or confidentiality with respect to the identity of the Internet protocol address of the originator of message has significant safety value and is in keeping with what should be perceived as being good public policy.” Wilkins J. in Irwin Toy v. Doe (2000), 12 C.P.C. (5 th ) 103 (Ont. S.C.J.) […]

But there is much worse about these people….

What is most galling about them is their ‘what you can do‘ page.

As you know being an avid reader of BLOGDIAL, we understand that demonstrations are totally ineffective, and anyone who asks you to demonstrate is actually a part of the problem.

The only way we can permanently stop war is to think obliquely use common sense and do not do anything that will not permanently fix what is wrong.

We had this debate on BLOGDIAL before the historic march organized by StopWar. Demonstrations are pointless because they do not achieve their ends, and the people who go on them are nothing more than stupid monkeys; the people who organize them are actually working for the enemy. Time and time again we have said this, (and other stuff) and had it proved, sadly.

Now the directors of this film, after everything we have said and witnessed are asking everyone to:

Join Amnesty
Visit and sign up online:
web.amnesty.org/pages/join-eng

Join Liberty
Visit and sign up online:
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/join

Email Your MP
Demand to know what they are doing about the issues raised in the film:
www.writetothem.com

Join the Mass Lone Demos
Demonstrations take place 5pm to 7:30pm on the third Wednesday of every month, forms [MS WORD] [PDF] must be handed in or sent by recorded delivery 1 week beforehand.

[…]

Joining Amnesty will not cause one law to be repealed, nor will it stop new bad legislation from being enacted.

Similarly, Joining Liberty will achieve absolutely nothing at all.

Emailing the very people who pass the laws that enslave you is just STUPID.

And joining demonstrations we know about, don’t we?

Telling the truth is not enough. Acting is not enough. Correct Action is the only thing that will change what you want changed.

But you know this!

Push towards pay-as-you-go roads
The government is pushing ahead with plans to introduce road pricing schemes in England and Wales despite a huge public campaign against them.

It has published a draft bill updating the rules for local authorities who want to set up charging trials.

It insists there are no plans yet for a national scheme but critics say it is not being open about its intentions.

A petition against road pricing on the Downing Street website received nearly two million online signatories.

Widespread road pricing is at least 10 years away technically – but 10 local authorities have expressed an interest in developing smaller-scale charging systems in their areas, which could be up and running within five years.

‘No decision’

The draft Local Transport Bill will give councils more flexibility to match road pricing schemes to local conditions, while ensuring they remain compatible with schemes in other areas.

KEY POINTS OF DRAFT BILL
Update existing powers so councils can propose local road pricing schemes
Any scheme expected to be part of anti-congestion plan and to fit in with those run elsewhere
Councils to bring in “quality contracts” to specify companies’ bus routes, timetables and fares
Reform passenger transport authorities in major towns outside London to enable a “more coherent” approach

But a Department for Transport spokesman said this did not mean the government was pressing ahead with a national pay-as-you-drive scheme.

“No decision has been made on a national scheme. We have got to see the results of the pilot schemes,” he said.

He said there would be a three-month consultation period for those in favour and against road pricing to have their say before a final bill is drawn up.

[…]

BBQ

And so, as many people have told you, including me, these petitions are nothing more than simple steam valves to allow the weak minded to let off steam. The murderers Bliar and Brown do not care about what you think, on any level. They use these phoney tricks to lull you into a false sense of participating in democracy. It is a sham and lie like everything else about them.

Now, The Prime Minister in Waiting has a chance to differentiate himself from Bliar:

Gordon Brown, BACK DOWN!

Cancel this universally unwanted road pricing scheme and DEMONSTRATE that you are different from your War Criminal cohort.

My emphases in the nested blockquote above; if these mini schemes ‘to fit in with those run elsewhere’ it means that when there are many of them, you can join them all up into a gigantic system, by which time there will be a de-facto national system.

Very smart, very sneaky.

It also means data-sharing across all of them obviously.

Bad Mojo!

SEATTLE – A man operated a “warehouse bank” out of his suburban home, taking at least $28 million from people around the country who wanted a discrete bank account, according to court documents.

An IRS investigator said Robert Arant had hundreds of customers, many of whom apparently used his bank, Olympic Business Systems LLC, to conceal assets for the purpose of evading taxes.

On his now-defunct Web site, Arant advertised his services to those “who would rather not deal directly with the banking system,” court records said.

Arant took customers’ money – promising to keep their identities private – and pooled it in six accounts at Bank of America, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo Bank, IRS agent Susan Killingsworth said in court papers.

Arant would pay the customers’ bills from those commercial bank accounts, charging about $75 a year in fees for the service, plus fees for wire transfers and for initial account set-up, court record said. For $30, customers could buy debit cards to access their money more easily; otherwise, they could access it by check, money order or wire transfer, she said.

Reached by phone at his home Tuesday, Arant said he intended to represent himself in court, but declined to comment further.

“I’m not where I need to be as far as responding to the IRS at this point,” he said.

A civil complaint charges Arant with promoting abusive tax shelters and unlawfully interfering with internal revenue laws. And a federal judge has frozen the assets of Arant’s bank.

Agents seized computers and financial records last month from the home where Arant lives with the property’s owner, Martin F. Dugan.

Killingsworth was initially assigned to investigate Arant’s failure to file income tax returns since 2001.

She said she has been able to identify 13 people who used Arant’s service while underreporting or not reporting their income from 2002, when the bank opened, to 2005.

Arant could face civil penalties of $1,000 per false statement he made in promoting the scheme – typically calculated as one false statement for each of his customers.

Warehouse bank schemes were popular as illegal tax shelters in the 1980s, but several have been busted in more recent years – including one broken up in Boring, Ore., in 2000, involving $186 million in deposits from 900 people over 14 years. The six organizers of that scheme were sentenced to up to four years in prison. (1 image)

[…]

LibertyPost

A long while back, I wrote about the privacy shielding services that are going to and that have now started to appear:

Privacy will be taken very seriously when Nectar is everywhere, and there is very little privacy; in other words, when it becomes scarce. When that happens, people will pay for privacy.

There will be legions of people and services providing privacy, in the same way that there are professional dog walkers in the major cities of the world. You will pay someone to do your shopping for you, in their name though the goods will be going to you. These Dorian Greys will take on all the sin of your shopping, and heap it onto themselves, leaving your record clean and lean. Your ID will show that you never buy anything, except (if you are careless) the services of one or two people, who might not even be real people, who will seem to have the buying power of 100 human economic units.

Don’t worry, this does not mean that you will loose your Nectar points. The Dorian Greys will keep perfect accounts of what was spent on your behalf, anonymously, and your points will be redeemed for you on whatever you desire. You will get it all, the anonymity AND the privacy.

BLOGDIAL

So, what can we infer from this? If you pay someone else’s bills regularly, is this a crime? If you hold on to someone’s cash for them, is that also a crime?

You had better believe that there are many people who do not use these services, but who use other similar services that have no footprint at all.

The point is that people turn to these services because something is wrong with the services currently on offer everywhere.

But you know this!

UPDATED FOR THE 2010 ATTACK!
Crytome, a very old and very useful service run by John Young, has been told by its ISP that its contract is being terminated. This is a shenanigan, since his ISP was very supportive of the site up till now:

[By certified mail, received 28 April 2007.]
VERIO
An NTT Communications Company

Writer’s Direct Numbers
o) 303-645-1912
fax) 303-708-2445
e-mail: dthompson[at]verio.net

April 20, 2007

Via Certified Mail

John Young
Cryptome Org
251 West 89th Street
New Yor, NY 10024

RE: www.cryptome.org

Dear Mr. Young,

This letter is to notify you that we are terminating your service for violation of our Acceptable Use Policy, effective Friday May 4, 2007. We are providing you with two week notice to locate another service provider.

Sincerely,

VERIO INC.
an NTT Communications Company

[Signed]

Danna Thompson
Legal Department

Verio Inc.
8005 S. Chester Street
Suite 200
Englewood, CO 80112
www.verio.com

————————————————————
Cryptome note:

This notice of termination is surprising for Verio has been consistently supportive of freedom of information against those who wish to suppress it. Since 1999 Cryptome has received a number of e-mailed notices from Verio’s legal department in response to complaints from a variety of parties, ranging from British intelligence to alleged copyright holders to persons angry that their vices have been exposed (see below). In every case Verio has heretofore accepted Cryptome’s explanation for publishing material, and in some cases removal of the material, and service has continued.

In this latest instance there was no notice received from Verio describing the violation of acceptable use to justify termination of service prior to receipt of the certified letter, thus no opportunity to understand or respond to the basis for termination.

It may be wondered if Verio was threatened by an undisclosable means, say by an National Security Letter or by a confidential legal document or by a novel attack not yet aired.

Every few months our Verio service rep, Warren Gleicher, Senior Account Manager, (wgleicher[at]verio.net) writes to see if service is satifactory.

Danna and Warren: Cryptome would appreciate your telling what has led to the termination for publication. Send the information anonymously if necessary to keep your jobs.
————————————————————

Sample legal notice[s] from Verio:

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:06:12 -0400
To: cchunt[at]hway.net
From: John Young 
Subject: British Request to Remove Document

Mr. Charles Hunt
Acceptable Use Department
Verio
Tel: 561-912-2536

Dear Mr. Hunt

It was a pleasure to speak with you today about the
document on my site Cryptome:

 http://cryptome.org/mi5-lis-uk.htm.

Your courtesy and supportive remarks are very much
appreciated.

This will confirm that I decline to remove the document
in response to your forwarded request from a "British
Intelligence Agency" made to Verio's legal department.

I do not believe that posting the document is illegal
under US law and does not violate Verio's terms of
acceptable use. And that an informal request, not a
court order, is insufficient reason to remove the
document which provides significant public information.

I told you that I knew of three other instances of
British intelligence documents being posted on the
Internet, and that they had been removed by the ISPs
(Yahoo and Geocities) without public explanation of
why or what justification was given for their removal.
Thus, I would like to obtain information on the British
request to Verio in or to publish the information on Cryptome.

In response to your invitation to send a letter for
forwarding to Verio's legal department I would very
much appreciate learning, in writing if possible:

1. Who made the request: person, title and agency.
2. When it was made.
3. To whom it was made.
4. Its format, whether verbal or written or both.
5. A description of the request or a copy if it was written.
6. Other means discussed between British Intelligence and
Verio to remove the document.
7. How the request relates to Verio's acceptable use policy.

Verio's response and this message will be published on
Cryptome to provide information on how British Intelligence
conducts its affairs in the US.

Regards,

John Young
Cryptome
251 West 89th Street
New York, NY 10024
212-873-8700

That is how REAL PEOPLE respond to threats, in case you didn’t know.

I am sure that Mr. Young is being flooded with offers of free space. All he has to do is take all the offers, upload Cryptome to each of them, and then keep them all identical with rsync.

Then, like TPB he will be impossible to shut down.

Shutting down Cryptome is like burning books. The BASTARDS who have ordered this are the lowest ‘humans’ on the scale.

FAST FORWARD

its 2010 and the completely evil Micro$oft has managed to get Network Solutions to deregister cryptome.org, effectively making it invisible.

Here it the document that Micro$oft does not want you to read. I suggest you download, it, read it and then seed it.

Not only is Micro$oft unable to innovate, its worthless products destroy your work, track you, allow the totalitarian governments of the world back door access to your private documents… the list goes on and on. If you do not already shun them, you should shun them completely. If you have money, buy Apple, who are less evil. If you want to keep your equipment, switch to Ubuntu; it is a superior and moral operating system. You have no excuse, other than your own lazyness, to keep putting up with and financially supporting the evil of this bad company.

Now M$ seems to think that they can remove other people’s websites and stop information on their nefarious acts from spreading. They did not understand the internet when it first started to become important, and now they demonstrate that they are without any clue when it comes to the modern internet, the intentions of the people who run it (you and me) and most importantly, the Striesand effect. Now that they have tried to remove this document, the number of people reading it and storing it will increase by orders of magnitude.

No one is safe whilst evil companies like M$ are able to use the violent state as their enforcing arm. There must be a consequence to this company being evil. That means you must boycott them and their products completely.

Micro$oft is evil, stupid, destructive and in this instance, on the wrong side of history. In the future, Micro$oft will replace Watt in a book about how copyright and patents were eventually destroyed.

At the time of this update Thu Feb 25 10:34:26 GMT 2010, whois says the following of Cryptome.org:

Domain ID:D7496146-LROR
Domain Name:CRYPTOME.ORG
Created On:25-Jun-1999 14:58:29 UTC
Last Updated On:24-Feb-2010 18:47:18 UTC
Expiration Date:25-Jun-2011 14:58:29 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT HOLD
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:24163306-NSI
Registrant Name:Cryptome
Registrant Organization:Cryptome
Registrant Street1:251 West 89th Street
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:New York
Registrant State/Province:NY
Registrant Postal Code:10024
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.9999999999
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.9999999999
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:jya@PIPELINE.COM
Admin ID:24163306-NSI
Admin Name:Cryptome
Admin Organization:Cryptome
Admin Street1:251 West 89th Street
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:New York
Admin State/Province:NY
Admin Postal Code:10024
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.9999999999
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+1.9999999999
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:jya@PIPELINE.COM
Tech ID:24163306-NSI
Tech Name:Cryptome
Tech Organization:Cryptome
Tech Street1:251 West 89th Street
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:New York
Tech State/Province:NY
Tech Postal Code:10024
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.9999999999
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.9999999999
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:jya@PIPELINE.COM
Name Server:NS47.WORLDNIC.COM
Name Server:NS48.WORLDNIC.COM
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
Name Server: 
DNSSEC:Unsigned

Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary, said yesterday that it was “perfectly legitimate” for NHS trusts to refuse some treatments to heavy smokers or patients who are obese.

Miss Hewitt defended the right of doctors and managers to draw up local guidelines on treatment after a survey revealed that some trusts are already banning operations.

[…]

Telegraph

Oh dear, Miss Hewitt seems to be confusing the NHS Trusts with a private healthcare system – and we aren’t there yet (HA!).

The NHS has no right to turn away patients from services that it has been deigned to provide unless there is a compelling medical case to the contrary. Every tax payer in this country is compelled to pay National Insurance contributions towards their healthcare, pension, and welfare benefits – the quid pro quo of this is the State is obliged to provide services to each and everyone of the people.

If the State is not to provide services to certain people it must stop demanding payment of National Insurance so that they are able to buy medical insurance without it being a punitive measure. It should then be taken as read that anyone wishing to opt out of State welfare services should have the right to not pay National Insurance also.

Naomi Wolf was born in 1962.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree – domestically – as many other nations.

Only the weak minded and people who never watched Star Trek re-runs have a hard time ‘considering’ this. This person is of the exact age she needed to be to have this built in apprehension. Also, the American Constitution and its founding fathers designed the country SPECIFICALLY to stop the emergence of tyranny; every REAL american understands that ALL government, ESPECIALLY your own is capable of turning to tyranny. Americans of her generation were taught about this ever-present danger in great clarity; everyone who did ‘social studies’ class was given lessons in this, in healthy distrust of government. it is bewildering that an american of that age can even say this.

Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government

You did, and you forgot!

– the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens’ ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors – we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled.

It is only finally outsourced when you have no guns. In the UK until recently, access to the text of the law was restricted to lawyers….but I digress.

Because we don’t learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of “homeland” security – remember who else was keen on the word “homeland” – didn’t raise the alarm bells it might have.

It rang alarm bells ALL OVER THE INTERNETS YOU NUTCASE.

Where were you when your country was hiring ex Stasi nastyman Markus Wolf to help design programs at the ominously named ‘Homeland Security‘?

This essay is too little too late…more on that down below.

It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable – as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise.

Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to understand the potential seriousness of the events we see unfolding in the US.

AND THEN DO WHAT?

We need to look at history and face the “what ifs”. For if we keep going down this road, the “end of America” could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before – and this is the way it is now.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … is the definition of tyranny,” wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.

Guardian

YES you need to look at history.
NO there are no ‘what ifs’ to face, IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED YOU NUMBSKULL.
NO You are already at the end of the road.
NO if you are feeling this ONLY NOW you must have been living under a rock at the bottom of this hole.

And finally

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!

You need to stand your ground, fight for your nation take up your GUNS.

Taking up a BANNER against FASCISTS will achieve ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

You need to kick out the people who have ruined that country and put them on trial, and then cleanse the legislation of all anti-american laws.

Also, because there are millions of pig ignorant fascist facilitators in your midsts, who will follow anyone as long as they can have beer, and some who will actively fight you to keep their illusions and [burst_into_song]fascist baby utopia[/burst_into_song] illusions you are OBLIGED to TAKE what is rightfully yours, just like the founding fathers did.

They specifically ensured that you should have access to guns for PRECISELY THIS PURPOSE.

GUNS, not BANNERS.

There are MANY people who are WAY ahead of you Naomi, and its a good thing that you are finally waking up, but honestly, you and your type are and have been PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Penn & teller tell it like it is, in their usual style.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”””God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Thomas Jefferson.

Published: Apr 18, 2007
Author: Darren Toms
Post Date: 2007-04-18 14:57:56 by duckhunter
106 Comments

(Cleveland) – Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to ban hand guns in America.

Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of hand guns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.

Kucinich announced this move in the aftermath of Monday’s deadly shooting at Virginia Tech.

Kucinich noted in a speech to congress that about 32 people die each day in America due to hand gun related incidents. 33 died at VT.

Kucinich says it’s becoming “painfully obvious” that the easy availability of handguns constituents a growing national crisis of public health and safety, one that he says calls for a powerful, wide-ranging response from congress.

He says the level of violence in our society constitutes a national emergency.

Already this Congress, Kucinich has introduced HR 808, legislation to establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. It would address the issue of domestic violence, gang violence, and violence in the schools, which is reflected in the current homicide rates.

Kucinich notes recent studies that indicate many killers had histories of mental illness. He says the lack of parity for mental health care remains one of the most serious deficiencies in healthcare in the United States.

Kucinich has also proposed HR 676, Medicare for all. It would establish a universal not-for-profit healthcare system, which would provide full and comprehensive mental healthcare.

And some comments:

1. To: duckhunter (#0)

The last UFO that stopped by planet earth seems to have left behind a pet.

2. To: All (#0)

Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of hand guns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.

Hopefully this ends his aspirations for higher office.

4. To: duckhunter (#0)

Kucinich Seeks To Ban Hand Guns In America

Dear Jesus,

Thank you so very much for have Dennis run for POTUS again, these campaign seasons tend to get boring and dull. It’s nice to laugh.

Amen

5. To: All (#0)

He says the level of violence in our society constitutes a national emergency.

Three times as many people are killed in many days in Iraq as died in Blacksburg yesterday. Yet we are constantly told we are winning in Iraq. Yet we have a “national emergency” over here. Politicians really piss me off sometimes.

22. To: duckhunter (#0)

Ban colleges from keeping students after their campus police deal with them for stalking other students on campus and they were involuntarily committed by their own parents – like Cho was two years ago – Kucinich. Ban “deinstitutionalization” of diagnosed psychotics, Kucinich. The overwhelming majority of Americans refuse to live in a giant open-air padded cell so that the very-few diagnosed psychotics can roam free.

26. To: garryowen (#25)

legislation that would require a 30 day waiting period plus psychological

testing before a handgun could be purchased.

Would you support the same legislation in regards to conceiving?

27. To: garryowen (#25)

legislation that would require a 30 day waiting period plus psychological

Would you support the same legislation prior to publishing a news article or choosing to practice a religion or wishing to secure your private effects or to not incriminate yourself?

54. To: yukon, garryowen (#26)

legislation that would require a 30 day waiting period plus psychological testing before a handgun could be purchased.

Since you’re supporting those limitations on that Constitutional right from the Bill of Rights, how about a similar limit on free speech?

Sometimes words hurt people, even lead them to do harm to others reputations, careers, even goading them into crime or injury. This menace to our society must be stopped.

Let’s just keep it fair. We’ll keep the same restrictions on the right of free speech as you and many others would like upon the right to bear arms. You have to register to excersize your right to free speech with each excersize you want to make thereof. You must do this 30 days in advance before being allowed to make your statement, if authorized at the end of a background check and waiting period. You will be taxed on this as well. If there is anything that can be construed as psychological problems in your background you can be denied a permit to excersize your right of free speech, to keep other people safe from the harm your words might do. (woulda stopped the Church of Scientology in it’s tracks at least).

Maybe if someone had stood up to this guy and wrapped a chair around his neck when he was reloading, or if someone with a CCW permit were allowed to excerise their *Constitutional Right* to bear arms, this wouldn’t have happened, or would have at least saved some of those lives. Instead, there are those in our society that would rather teach us to cower, line up, bow our heads, and take what is dished out to us without fighting back. Til Americans remember how to fight back (and that we don’t have to be Euro-style Pacifists), madmen will know that they can pull off stunts like this. Same goes for 9-11. The flight where people resisted is the one that never hit it’s mark!

And so on…all over the blogosphere…

Cautious Brown keeps option of scrapping ID card scheme
Richard Ford, Home Correspondent

Gordon Brown has left open the option of scrapping the identity card scheme if he becomes Prime Minister.

The Chancellor has refused to approve the multimillion-pound budget for the whole scheme and has given the Home Office permission to spend only a set amount of money towards developing it, it was disclosed yesterday. The overall cost, set at £5.4 billion by the Home Office, will exceed the spending limit set by the Treasury.

Before John Reid, the Home Secretary, can press ahead with issuing millions of the cards, he will have to seek further permission from the Treasury. Mr Brown’s decision to keep his options open by refusing to authorise payment for the total cost was revealed in a written parliamentary answer to Mark Francois, a Tory backbencher.

Stephen Timms, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said that the Home Office had been authorised to “commit resources up to certain defined limits”, which would be exceeded by the total cost of the scheme. He said that completing the scheme would require Treasury approval, adding: “Approval will be sought at an appropriate stage in the project planning process.”

By last summer the Home Office had spent £46 million on preparing for the scheme.

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said yesterday: “This is a stunning admission that Gordon Brown has not yet backed the ID card project. It is hard to know what the Treasury thinks is an ‘appropriate stage’ in the planning process since millions of pounds has been spent and is continuing to be spent on this ill-designed and poorly planned multibillion-pound waste of money.

“This suggests that the Home Office has not submitted a robust costing plan, casting real doubts on their claim that this system would cost less than the £20 billion that independent experts estimate.”

The Government plans to start issuing biometric resident permits to foreign citizens next year and to start issuing identity cards to Britons in 2009.

A Home Office spokesman said: “The Home Office, like other government departments, are required in certain cases to refer business cases for large projects to the Treasury for approval. There is nothing unusual in this.”

[…]

The Times

So, GB the scourge of GB is preparing an exit strategy for the doomed ID card scheme, so that the Tories cannnot use it to crowbar his fat backside out of power.

We win either way…unless of course you are FOR ID cards, since, [whine]it’s good for society[/whine]

And any attempt to force ID cards on foreigners exclusively will be taken to the court of human rights, since it is blantant (yes, ‘blantant’) discrimination.

Next comes the dismantling of the NIR, and fingerprinting for passports, and then we are done!

German army ‘depicted blacks as target practice’
By Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin
Published: 16 April 2007

A German army instructor has been shown on television ordering a soldier to fire his machine gun while imagining he was in the Bronx facing hostile African Americans.

In New York, the Bronx borough president demanded an apology from the German military and said the clip on German television “indicates that bias and assumptions and racism is alive and well around the world”.

Coming after scandals involving photos of German soldiers posing with skulls in Afghanistan and the abuse of recruits by instructors, the video seemed likely to raise more questions about training practices in Germany’s conscript army.

The Defence Ministry said the video was shot in July 2006 at barracks in the northern town of Rendsburg and that the army had been aware of it since January.

“We are currently investigating the incident,” an army spokesman said.

The clip shows an instructor and a soldier in camouflage uniforms in a forest. The instructor tells the soldier: “You are in the Bronx. A black van is stopping in front of you. Three African-Americans are getting out and they are insulting your mother … act.”

The soldier fires his machine gun several times and yells an obscenity several times in English.

[…]

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2452385.ece

Ah yes!

These men are the products of that great German school system, designed to encourage plurality, tolerance and to prevent the creation of a segmented society:

“In our increasingly wertepluralistischen society the school is the place, where a peaceful dialogue between the different views, values, religions and world views takes place and can social authority in handling other-thinking one be learned. Homeschooling is for Germany therefore no model.”

From the press release in response to the UN’s criticism of Germany’s ban on Home Schooling.

So, this is the product of your philosophy. This is the result of your ‘peaceful dialogue’, between the ‘different views, values, religions and world views’. Once again, the whole world sees you for what you really are and we all see what you really want to protect and promote.

I have no doubt that this video will appear on LiveLeak shortly. In the meantime, sit back and enjoy this other example of the product of German schooling!

Update….and here it is!

The latest Conservative Party proposals about policing have hit the news, they purport to be about decentralistaion and cutting bureaucracy (as you’d expect). Let’s rummage around.

Police authorities would be replaced by directly-elected commissioners who would take control of budgets, target setting and policing plans, leaving chief constables in “operational control” only of their force.

Failing police chiefs should be removed but replacement by election seems unwarrented, the role of the police is to uphold the law impartially (for better or worse, this is the case), therefore the efficacy of a police chief is primarily a matter of professional ability rather than policy (this being limited to how to prioritise resources) – it would seem that professional interview would be more effective than election. Additionally elections are unnecessarily costly with the need to fund the losing candidates, they also distract from the upholding of law and refocus upon populist agendas.

Under the Tory proposals, residents would get a “right to policing”, including cash to tackle local crime and safety issues by “hiring” a police officer or buying equipment.

A community has an absolute “right to policing”, in terms of ‘rights’ any group of people has the ‘right’ to employ anyone else to enforce any contract between themselves – including what they deem to be ‘the law’, as long as ‘the law’ is accepted by guests within the group or visitors upon its private properties (i.e. by the clear posting of bye-laws) then it can be further applied to these people too.
Back to the real situation, the impartiality of a police officer acting ‘for’ a certain community is compromised and may reduce the validity of their evidence in court.

And forces would also face tougher scrutiny from a new independent watchdog to look at value for money as well as standards.

Independent scrutiny is important but only worthwhile if it informs local decision making

It calls for more graduates to be recruited as well as professionals from outside the force, a new military-style senior staff college and a revamped promotion system.

Military-style in relation to the police seems un-British and makes me distinctly uneasy. In any case senior police officers need experience of day-to-day policing and combined with elections for commissioners you could be left with ‘career officers’ in charge of delivery with no real experience of community wishes (much like the UK Government)

More work should be handed over to civilian staff and private firms in a bid to allow officers more time on the beat, it says, to the point of paying commercial security firms to guard crime scenes, hunt down people who jump bail, monitor “at risk” prisoners and carry out security checks.

As I wrote, in theory there is no problem with private firms upholding private contracts, however these proposals will give private companies jurisdiction over third parties, i.e. ‘society’ as a whole which, in the UK, has not explicitly consented to anything.
Additionally in the light of NIR and the police DNA database these private companies will presumably have easy access to the personal details of many innocent persons.

Bits from the guardian

Instead of fiddling with the police service and presumably turning it into a political tinker toy as the NHS has become all political parties should be looking at removing unecessary laws and politically motivated knee-jerk regulations which the police are compelled to implement, they should be removing all apects of politicisation from the police so it reverts to being a simple public service.

Home births offered to all pregnant women

All pregnant women in England will be offered the choice of a home birth overseen by a midwife, the health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, pledged today.

What a generous offer!

Home birth is the right of every women. There are no ‘laws’ or ‘rules’ which say a women must have her child in hospital. However, the NHS has a default setting of We Know Best© , which they clealy do not. Women are currently ‘persuaded’ away from home birth by the culture of paranoia and control-freakery which fills the NHS, and to the greatest extent this happens during pregnancy.

We had to stand firm against GP, NHS and cultural pressure in order to have our home birth. But the midwife team who assisted on the day were wonderful. They work by the assumption that, all being well, all the midwife should do is make tea and catch the baby. And maybe not even that much!

Under a new plan for maternity services expectant mothers will be offered a “full range of birthing choices,” including home births, by 2009. Setting out the plans, Ms Hewitt said pregnant women would be given minimum guarantees about the level of service they can expect from the NHS.

Let me make it clear. This witch is offering you a gift of nothing, wrapped up in falsehoods. It is your absolute right to demand a homebirth.

She said: “I am making it absolutely clear: if you have a baby at home or indeed in a midwifery-led unit, it is only a professionally qualified midwife who can supervise that birth.”

She lies! A mother, a taxi driver, a husband or a child can supervise a birth. Here we see the hand of control-freakery, and the lieing voice of a dictatorial system who does not want you to realise that YOU have the power. Through these subtle lies they take this power away, making you subservient and dependent upon The State.

“Everything will be all right. You are in my hands. I am here to protect you. You have nowhere to go. You have nowhere to go. “

[…]

“There are clearly far more women out there who would like to have a home birth and could do so safely, but aren’t at the moment getting that option,” she added.

Wrong! They are being told there is no option, but this is a lie! If you demand a home birth, it must be provided for you. It is not an ‘option’, it is a right.

And worst of all, that most heinous of crimes, misinformation through poor reporting:

Asked why the government was keen on promoting home births despite known increased risks for mother and child, she said: “I think the important thing here is to give women choice and give them the information so they can make an informed choice.”

LIES!!!!!!

Home births are safer. Home births have less problems, use less drugs, stand less chance of post partum infection, are less stressful to mother and child, give control back to the mother… need I go on?

These people will tell you the truth. More truth. And yet more.

From the NHS website: “Home birth is becoming increasingly popular. For a healthy woman experiencing a normal pregnancy with no major complications anticipated during the birth, studies have shown that it is equally safe to be attended by midwives in the comfort of your own home as to have your baby in hospital.”

Birth is a natural process, not a disease. Know your rights. Own your body.

A passport to misery, if you ask me…

We’re askin; are ye dancin?!

By Jenny McCartney
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 25/03/2007

When it emerged last week that people who apply for a passport will soon be required to submit to an official interrogation, in which they will be compelled to answer in person from a list of 200 questions, I was filled with a distinct unease. For the truth is that I have only a hazy impression of the factual details of my own life. Indeed, it is quite possible I would fail a test to prove that I am me.

I’m good on names but worryingly poor on dates, and I see that some of the sample questions are rather keen on the latter. A query such as “Precisely when did you move into your current residence?” is exactly the sort that could have me bemusedly gaping like a goldfish as the interrogator slowly, grimly shakes his head.

Bernard Herdan, the executive director of the Identity and Passport Agency, wishes to reassure us: “This is not meant to be a daunting experience for people. We will seek to make it customer-friendly.” Whatever Mr Herdan’s intentions, he is wrong: the process will be intensely unfriendly. My reason for so thinking is that a visit to the London Passport Office last summer, even under its current system, left me feeling as though I had narrowly made it through Checkpoint Charlie into West Berlin.
advertisement

A few weeks before going on holiday, we had realised that our baby would need his own passport imminently, and that it would be swifter to make an appointment to sort it out in person. The passport form was complicated, and there seemed to be infinite ways of messing it up. On the day of the appointment, already frayed from the effort of marshalling the baby and his documentation to a given place at a fixed time, we found ourselves in a snaking queue outside the passport office. Suddenly an official appeared, herding people according to reference numbers. “Without a reference number you can’t come in!” he cried.

We had no reference number. Gradually, a dim recollection took shape in my mind, of something scribbled down and placed carefully in a kitchen drawer. I felt like crying. Fortunately, however, there was a number you could ring to rediscover your reference number. The pleasant lady next to me was carrying a sheaf of applications on behalf of her brother and his family: he had just broken his leg, and they were all due to go on holiday in two days’ time.

Half an hour later I stood in front of a female passport official. We both understood our roles: she was sternly officious, I was humble and ingratiating. Then she discovered that my Christian names were apparently displayed in the wrong order on my own passport. She paused, quizzical and outraged, as though seriously considering whether to refuse the whole thing.

Finally, I was allowed to creep away with the baby’s new passport and a ticking off.

The nice lady from the queue, who was at the desk next to me, was not so lucky: her distracted brother had apparently filled in a detail incorrectly, and the application was promptly rejected. As she left, despondent, the official concerned turned to his colleague and remarked with a distinct whiff of self-righteous satisfaction: “Well, that’s another one who won’t be going on holiday this year!”

Most British people intensely loathe such brushes with paperwork and officialdom. Since passports are important and necessary documents, however, we are prepared to put up with a bit of it. Yet this Government seems intent upon vastly increasing the tiresome bureaucracy we must endure. It is establishing 69 centres across the country, at an enormous cost to the taxpayer, in order to “authenticate by interview” first-time applicants. By 2009, anyone wishing to renew a passport will also be compelled to attend one of these centres, in which they will be fingerprinted and have their details fed into a national database. Passports and their administration centres are being used as the Trojan horse for the ID card scheme, which will carry a wealth of personal information and biometric data.

The Government has justified these intrusive methods as a security measure, which is presumably why it was so eager to advertise last week that 10,000 British passports each year are sent out to bogus claimants. It cited in particular the case of Dhiren Barot, the British al-Qaeda member who was found to have seven British passports in his own name and two in false ones.

Yet seemingly no one at the sharp-eyed passport agency even noticed that Mr Barot had “lost” an unusual number of passports. Why not? Surely it would be easier to devise a scanning system whereby a passport reported lost or stolen is automatically invalidated and detected if used, than to criminalise the blameless majority of citizens. If the government’s passport and ID card schemes come to fruition, however, I suspect that my stressful little trip to the Passport Office last year will seem, in comparison, as serene as a yoga session on a far-away beach. […]

Telegraph

My emphasis.

I wonder if the very intelligent and insightful Jenny McCartney has read BLOGDIAL, and all the things we have been writing.

The attack pattern is tried and tested.

first, say that there is going to be a consultation.
second, find cases (related or unrelated) of abuse or wrongdoing to justify legislation
third, collect responses in a false exercise to ‘gauge opinion’
fourth, ignore all responses that do not support the party line
fifth, introduce the legislation unchanged

The fist salvo has now been fired.

They have found a case that is completely unrelated and irrelevant to home schooling, and are using this as a pretext to bring in the new and onerous regulations.

The ignorant and brain dead journalists are lapping it up and regurgitating it like the dogs that they are.

Not one of them has the brain to understand that people who do foster care are already registered as a prerequisite, and that registration does absolutely nothing to prevent abuse. Secondly, they are conflating child fostering with the care given by parents OF THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

This whole episode, and the way that they are trying to use it as a pretext to bring in controls over home schoolers is COMPLETELY BOGUS.

Lets take this nonsense apart line by line:

HOW COULD THIS BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN?
Date : 21.03.07

The Citizen asked Gloucestershire City Council to answer the following questions:

Concerns were raised in the 80s and 90s about Eunice’s care of the children but they were not acted on. Why?

Initially these children were placed in Mrs Spry?s care by their parents. Once she became a local authority foster carer, we monitored her as required by regulations at the time.

So, they already monitor foster care, and they cannot detect when things are going wrong. Monitoring does not work to prevent abuse. The current mania for registering is simply that; a mania and a gimmick.

Once the court had given her legal parental rights, there was no role for social workers to monitor her parenting.

We responded to concerns reported to us and investigated them. Concerns included:

1) Allegation that children were left alone in a mini bus outside the house. When she was challenged Mrs S said that they were using it as quiet space to do their homework.

2) School expressed concerns about attendance and lateness. Mrs S explained it was because one of the children was slow eating breakfast

The level of allegations that came out in the trial had not been reported before.

Once again, this is all fluff and nonsense. These people are not able to organize or protect anyone. They are not even able to stop people putting garbage out on the wrong days; why do they think that they have the right to control home schoolers, and why do they think that these bogus propaganda tactics are going to work?

The council “inspected” Eunice twice a year throughout the 90s when she was teaching the children at home. Did any of these visits raise questions about the way she was treating them?

The accommodation was seen on each visit, but the most recent visits were made to the barge on which they were staying. There was no suggestion that the care of the children or the living conditions seen were unsatisfactory.

Home education staff do not have the right of access to the home.

And if they did? They would have failed as they always fail. Inspections twice a year are completely ridiculous, and nothing more than a hoop which people are forced to jump through. This is not what the DfES is after though; they want very invasive, total control over home schooling, where they will dictate what you teach to your children and how you do it, and you will be tested on that. Let us not forget that these people cannot run the schools that they are already in charge of. They have no basis for any new regulation, that is why they have to manufacture this garbage as a false pretext. They are incompetent control addicts, pure and simple.

Gloucestershire County Council has previously raised with the DfES concerns that this does not allow effective safeguarding of potentially vulnerable children.

A full national consultation is expected this spring. In the meantime, all staff working in the home education service have received training in identifying potentially harmful situations.

This is utter nonsense of course. These people should be spending time looking after the unruly schools in their catchment areas. Gloucester has a good record when it comes to its schools, but it is exceptional in this regard and the new regulations will apply to you wether you live there or in the worst part of the country. In any case, all of this is irrelevant. Even if the schools were perfect, you should not be compelled to send your child there, and if you choose to home school, you should not be subjected to monitoring, registration, surveillance, testing and any other sort of interference from any government body at either the national or local level.

4. What procedures did Spry have to go through to be accepted as a foster mother and when she formally adopted the children? What checks were carried out?

The process 20 years ago was not as vigorous as the one in place today.

When considering her application there was discussion about the fact that the children had been placed with Mrs Spry by their own parents under private arrangements and had been with her for some time. The alternative would have meant the children would have had to move from what appeared to be a settled home.

None of the concerns that had been raised at this point appeared to justify removal of the children. In fact, staff from a number of agencies working with the family gave strongly positive reports of her parenting.

What no one in the jabbering classes in the UK seems to be able to understand, is that you will never be able to absolutely guarantee that everyone is safe. There will always be crime; crime is a part of human behavior. It is a minority behavior, and the majority, the decent people should not be penalized or have their freedoms curtailed in an insane rush to try and do the impossible. The act of trying to eliminate the possibility of crime makes life itself become less and less worth living. It is only the free man that enjoys life to he full. We must accept that criminals will exist. We must watch out for them, and look after each other, but not give in to paranoia and police state measures as is all the rage in the UK

How often was Eunice’s care of the children reviewed? What did this involve? Why was nothing picked up on?

Visits were made by the supervising social worker and review meetings were held to look at the children?s progress.

None of the information that was known at the time would have led to the ending of the placement.

There is now a requirement for monthly supervisory visits to all foster carers and children and a formal annual review of the foster carers themselves.

And all of this is practically useless, and of course, has nothing to do with home schooling, though you can see how they will try and transfer these requirements to home schoolers. Remember, this war is against not children in the care of strangers, but children in the care of their own parents. It is completely absurd. What they are saying is that parents are not qualified to raise their own children, and need guidelines and inspections from the state to make sure they are doing it right.

This is anti-family, anti-logic, offensive and utterly insane.

After the adoptions and residence orders Mrs Spry became the children?s legal parent, which ended the duty to monitor their care.

There will always be crime, criminals and victims. It is very sad, but we must not over-react and throw out the baby with the bath-water.

How did Eunice manage to ill-treat these children so badly for so long without it being picked on?

Mrs Spry was given legal parental responsibility by the court that effectively ended the involvement of social care services.

Almost as soon as these orders were granted, Mrs Spry removed the children from school, taking them away from the important source of child protection monitoring that schools can provide.

And here is the lie that they inject to start their crusade against home schooling!

Mrs Spry involved numerous medical professionals, denying any one person from building up a picture of the children?s care.

As a result of this, no-one was able to build a complete picture of what was happening to the children.

Everyone who comes into contact with a child has a duty to share information when they have concerns about a child. All agencies have now signed up to an agreement on better information sharing.

See how they just slipped that in there? Appalling. There is absolutely no evidence that if these children were in school that they would have been picked up. It is total nonsense, and no one with even a single working brain cell buys any of this nonsense.

What has been done to ensure this will never happen again?

There is nothing you can do to ensure this will never happen again. Only children think in these terms. Adults understand that bad things happen, and we try and make sure that they do not, but we do not, for example, forbid the playing of golf because some people get hit by lightning every year on golf courses. This is a stupid question from a very stupid person.

Since the Climbie Inquiry (2003), a range of measures have been put in place to improve the safeguarding of children and young people. These include:

That poor girl’s case is being used to justify everything and anything. It is disgraceful.

A requirement that all children are seen and spoken to alone when concerns about them are raised
An expectation that records held by all agencies will contain a clear diary of key events so anyone accessing the records can see the picture at a glance
Appropriate sharing of key information between agencies to ensure that each knows about the others? work with a family
The creation of a Safeguarding Children Board to ensure that child protection remains a high priority

We are not complacent and plans are in place to share lessons arising from this case. What remains vital is that all those who come into contact with children, young people and their families continue to regard safeguarding as the responsibility of everyone.

[…]

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk

What is actually important is that everyone put the facts into perspective. These cases are exceptionally rare. They in no way represent a significant statistic, and should in no way be used to justify or be used as a spur to create new and onerous legislation that will only impact the decent people.

Local councils should put all their efforts not into disturbing the good families of the UK, but in fact, they should be fixing the problems that they already have lost control over.

If they were serious people, this is what their priorities would be, not the creation of the thin end of the wedge of more societal re-engineering where children become the property of the state upon birth.

What I want to know is, who drafted these answers, and wether or not it was done with the help of anyone. All statements from public servants or departments must be by named authors so that we can address them directly. If we do not have their names, then its like punching fog; we cannot get to the root of the problem – the insane people who are making up this garbage.