Finally, the Tories have been pinned down and have made the correct announcement:

Tory plans to cut ‘surveillance’

The Conservatives have set out plans to reverse what they describe as “the rise of the surveillance state”.

They have pledged to scrap two new databases – the ID card register and ContactPoint – and strengthen powers of the Information Commissioner.

The Conservatives say they want to restore public trust in the use of personal data by the state.

Their proposals come after a series of security breaches and concern about the amount of information that is held.

The National Identity register – which underpins the ID card scheme – would be scrapped, as would the ContactPoint database, which holds details of 11m children and young people.

Other proposals include ensuring that government departments are routinely audited by the Information Commissioner, who would be required to report to Parliament.

The Tories are also planning to restrict the storage of DNA records of innocent people, after a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights.

The government has consulted on its own DNA reforms, and is due to publish the results shortly.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: “The cases of criminals like Kensley Larrier and Abdul Azad demonstrate that we need to retain information on the DNA database.”

Kensley Larrier is a rapist from the North of England who was convicted in 2005 on the strength of a DNA sample taken from him three years earlier when he was arrested for possession of an offensive weapon.

Abdul Azad was convicted of a rape committed in Stafford on the strength of DNA evidence taken from him a year earlier in Birmingham when he was arrested for violent disorder.

[…]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8258043.stm

Before we get to the meat in the sandwich, Alan Johnson, the brainless ex postman is a totally clueless moron. Keeping the DNA of rapists is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to keeping the DNA of people who HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME.

What a completely idiotic pea brained DORK.

Now that we have that nastiness out of the way…

NIR – SCRAPPED
ID CARDS – SCRAPPED
ContactPoint – SCRAPPED

This is good news. The Badman recommendations will not be implementable (or at least will be far more difficult to implement) without ContactPoint… that is if the Tories do not scrap them or reverse them should they become law.

The Tories had been making noises about scrapping ID Cards for some time, but never mentioned the NIR; now they have made the connection and have pledged to junk it.

It is pretty clear that they will need to also get rid of the ‘Anti Terror Laws’ that have been routinely used for everything BUT ‘terrorism’ (like spying on parents who want to get their children into good schools).

They will ABSOLUTELY need to scrap the ISA, which everyone has now woken up to and with which everyone is quite rightly sickened.

The Tories have an unprecedented opportunity to not only seize power but to unleash the British people so that the country that was the love of millions can be restored. It will mean making a heroic effort to undo all the evil of Bliar and his criminal cabal of murderous monsters. They have made a good start. All they need is a comprehensive shopping list of things that need to be undone – like the smoking legislation – which stick in the craw of every decent person.

In the meantime, it is vitally important that everyone EVERYWHERE refuse to register with the NIR, refuse to register with the ISA and essentially, refuse to enroll with or cooperate with ANY of the fascist apparatus that Neu Liebour have put in place. This will not only make it easier to dismantle in the short term, but it will also send a very strong signal that the era of Soviet Britain is at an end. This needs to be done just in case the Tories ‘lose their bottle’ and decide that all these juicy tools of totalitarianism are just too nifty to get rid of.

Hmmmm where to start?!

All ‘no smoking’ signs – DOWN

etc etc…

After a long dark night menaced by cannibal zombies, FINALLY a sliver of light on the horizon.

For many years, pro-lifers have expended vast time, energy, and money “marching on Washington” every January, to exactly zero effect. Worse, they hark back to pro-redistribution events. And always, as with the latest 9/12 extravaganza headed by red-state fascists, the marchers assemble on the “National Mall,” the government grass that extends from Lincoln’s Roman temple — where he sits enthroned like Jupiter, fasces and all — to George Washington’s obelisk, an Eqyptian monument to the god Amon Re. In the distance is the capitol, whose dome copies the Roman pantheon, temple to all the gods. In the top of the dome is a painting of Washington being assumed, like the divinized Julius Caesar, into Heaven upon his death. Even Jefferson is portrayed as a god in a Roman temple. Not far away is the the Greek temple where the nine supremes hand down the “law.” Then there is the vast executive apparatus, headed by a living god, and dedicated to killing, spying, taxing, redistributing, inflating, and controlling. Really, DC is one nasty place. So why would anyone concerned about the state and its power “march on Washington”? Such events only dissipate energy, and fool people into thinking that their time and money have accomplished something, as the regime laughs up its sleeve. Indeed, that is the purpose. So stay home. Read, write, work, organize, and avoid DC like the plague it is.

[…]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/35963.html

And of course, we have been saying this for years; demonstrations DO NOT WORK the people who call for them are either useful idiots or agents of the enemy or deeply misguided. It would have been far more effective if each of those demonstrators in their unprecedented numbers all stayed home and convinced ten other people that they would no longer cooperate with any dictate of the state, no matter what it was. That would be thirty million motivated people all detached from the system. And if each of those thirty million pledged to connect with and convince five more to disconnect, then that would be ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION PEOPLE.

It would mean the end of the state in a single week.

Take a look at this:

Now that the demonstration is over and millions of dollars have been spent venting, what will change? EXACTLY NOTHING. It would have been far better for each of these demonstrators to pool their money into an information campaign designed to get 150,000,000 people to decline to obey any Federal Law. Do the math yourself:

264+409 = $673 for each demonstrator on average.

Three million is the starting number (two million turned up with one million who could not make it but who were there in spirit)

that means

3,000,000*673 = $2,019,000,000

The math doesn't lie. That is two billion, nineteen million dollars.

That much money, could change america overnight. Instead, it was all wasted on a feel good fest that will achieve nothing.

The problem with these people is that they cannot comprehend the scale of the power they wield. The Federal Government, the US army, the police; none of those things are powerful enough to stop them from being free. All they have to do is understand this, and then ACT on this understanding, and by ACT I mean DO NOT ACT. Their illusory 'power' will blow away like cobwebs.

One thing is for sure, spending over a billion dollars on a demonstration is TOTAL INSANITY.

But you know this!

In which we generalise commentary on ‘that report on government spending’ and find that it sticks; courtesy of The Guardian.

There is not enough money for what has already been promised. We need a serious review – we’re not going to get it

The row refuses to lie down, however hard the government tries. Growing public unease is now compounded by the leaks from the report into procurement. In sum the author has pointed out that successive governments have been ordering programmes and operations they couldn’t or wouldn’t fund adequately.
This has been going on for years, as experienced insiders and senior staff have been telling me. And in fairness, they too have been telling me this for years. Here is just a sample; three salient lines that have been leaked so far from the report.

How can it be that it takes 20 years to procure a contract?
Why does it always seem to cost at least twice what was thought?
At the end of the wait, why does it never do what it supposed to do?

We have nowhere near the money in the allocated budget to pay for the equipment ordered; there are only funds today to pay for a fraction of what has been ordered for the next 20 years. This gap is so big according to some calculations that a 10-15% increase in tax revenues would not even cover it.
The seriousness of the situation has been underlined by two sobering pieces of comment this week. The first makes the point that it is the combination of lack of political will to replace defective or exhausted equipment, lack of realistic funding and internecine rivalry in the departments that has brought the present crisis, which is now probably the worst since 1945. The second observes that too much money has been spent on useless and very expensive kit in high profile projects and little elsewhere.
Because there is not enough money to pay for what has been ordered, the government, and the Treasury in particular, have indulged in a peculiar Through The Looking Glass mechanism of delay. This is hugely expensive, with extra fees for keeping the projects alive and managing them with large numbers of civil servants. Two multi-billion pound programmes have been put back five years – which means they could cost twice the original tender price. The delay mechanism means billions are being wasted each year.
One of the most spectacular delays was in the order over a decade ago at the market value. Additional software would have cost an extra 20%. The department decided instead to make its own software, which has never worked. The additional cost now of putting this order right is as much as the original cost. Investigating this story over the years, I have never been able to establish who took the decisions over the procurement. The civil servants blame front-line staff, and the politicians blame vague and unnamed committees.

SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE.

So what should give here in the UK? The civil service, roughly three times the number doing the same job in the second world war, needs to be cut.
A new agency should be set up on commercial lines to take charge of all contracts. They should look at all of the programmes and devolve as much as possible.
There should also be a reduction of scope and state funding every year. The last UK review was years ago, and the programme it laid down was never properly accounted for by the Treasury. Instead we have been promised a review after the next general election, and that it will be “policy and security driven” which sounds awfully like a cop-out from the painful decisions the author has made plain for all to see.
The civil servants, managers and politicians will have to face up to serious cuts in personnel and programmes – to say nothing of British policy claims and ambitions. To do otherwise is to court disaster, and real political defeat. But will it happen? I doubt it. For too many of those involved it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Mises Daily by Yuri N. Maltsev

The system had many decades to work, but widespread apathy and low quality of work paralyzed the healthcare system. In the depths of the socialist experiment, healthcare institutions in Russia were at least a hundred years behind the average US level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, drunken medical personnel, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration that paralyzed the system. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals.

Irresponsibility, expressed by the popular Russian saying “They pretend they are paying us and we pretend we are working,” resulted in appalling quality of service, widespread corruption, and extensive loss of life. My friend, a famous neurosurgeon in today’s Russia, received a monthly salary of 150 rubles — one third of the average bus driver’s salary.

In order to receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel, patients had to pay bribes. I even witnessed a case of a “nonpaying” patient who died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia was usually “not available” for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries. This was used as a means of extortion by unscrupulous medical bureaucrats.

To improve the statistics concerning the numbers of people dying within the system, patients were routinely shoved out the door before taking their last breath.

Being a People’s Deputy in the Moscow region from 1987 to 1989, I received many complaints about criminal negligence, bribes taken by medical apparatchiks, drunken ambulance crews, and food poisoning in hospitals and child-care facilities. I recall the case of a fourteen-year-old girl from my district who died of acute nephritis in a Moscow hospital. She died because a doctor decided that it was better to save “precious” X-ray film (imported by the Soviets for hard currency) instead of double-checking his diagnosis. These X-rays would have disproven his diagnosis of neuropathic pain.

Instead, the doctor treated the teenager with a heat compress, which killed her almost instantly. There was no legal remedy for the girl’s parents and grandparents. By definition, a single-payer system cannot allow any such remedy. The girl’s grandparents could not cope with this loss and they both died within six months. The doctor received no official reprimand.

Not surprisingly, government bureaucrats and Communist Party officials, as early as 1921 (three years after Lenin’s socialization of medicine), realized that the egalitarian system of healthcare was good only for their personal interest as providers, managers, and rationers — but not as private users of the system.

So, as in all countries with socialized medicine, a two-tier system was created: one for the “gray masses” and the other, with a completely different level of service, for the bureaucrats and their intellectual servants. In the USSR, it was often the case that while workers and peasants were dying in the state hospitals, the medicine and equipment that could save their lives was sitting unused in the nomenklatura system.

At the end of the socialist experiment, the official infant-mortality rate in Russia was more than 2.5 times as high as in the United States and more than five times that of Japan. The rate of 24.5 deaths per 1,000 live births was questioned recently by several deputies to the Russian Parliament, who claim that it is seven times higher than in the United States. This would make the Russian death rate 55 compared to the US rate of 8.1 per 1,000 live births.

Having said that, I should make it clear that the United States has one of the highest rates of the industrialized world only because it counts all dead infants, including premature babies, which is where most of the fatalities occur.

Most countries do not count premature-infant deaths. Some don’t count any deaths that occur in the first 72 hours. Some countries don’t even count any deaths from the first two weeks of life. In Cuba, which boasts a very low infant-mortality rate, infants are only registered when they are several months old, thereby leaving out of the official statistics all infant deaths that take place within the first several months of life.

In the rural regions of Karakalpakia, Sakha, Chechnya, Kalmykia, and Ingushetia, the infant mortality rate is close to 100 per 1,000 births, putting these regions in the same category as Angola, Chad, and Bangladesh. Tens of thousands of infants fall victim to influenza every year, and the proportion of children dying from pneumonia and tuberculosis is on the increase. Rickets, caused by a lack of vitamin D, and unknown in the rest of the modern world, is killing many young people.

Uterine damage is widespread, thanks to the 7.3 abortions the average Russian woman undergoes during childbearing years. Keeping in mind that many women avoid abortions altogether, the 7.3 average means that many women have a dozen or more abortions in their lifetime.

Even today, according to the State Statistics Committee, the average life expectancy for Russian men is less than 59 years — 58 years and 11 months — while that for Russian women is 72 years. The combined figure is 65 years and three months.[1] By comparison, the average life span for men in the United States is 73 years and for women 79 years. In the United States, life expectancy at birth for the total population has reached an all-time American high of 77.5 years, up from 49.2 years just a century ago. The Russian life expectancy at birth is 12 years lower.[2]

After seventy years of socialism, 57 percent of all Russian hospitals did not have running hot water, and 36 percent of hospitals located in rural areas of Russia did not have water or sewage at all. Isn’t it amazing that socialist government, while developing space exploration and sophisticated weapons, would completely ignore the basic human needs of its citizens?

The appalling quality of service is not simply characteristic of “barbarous” Russia and other Eastern European nations: it is a direct result of the government monopoly on healthcare and it can happen in any country. In “civilized” England, for example, the waiting list for surgeries is nearly 800,000 out of a population of 55 million. State-of-the-art equipment is nonexistent in most British hospitals. In England, only 10 percent of the healthcare spending is derived from private sources.

Britain pioneered in developing kidney-dialysis technology, and yet the country has one of the lowest dialysis rates in the world. The Brookings Institution (hardly a supporter of free markets) found that every year 7,000 Britons in need of hip replacements, between 4,000 and 20,000 in need of coronary bypass surgery, and some 10,000 to 15,000 in need of cancer chemotherapy are denied medical attention in Britain.

Age discrimination is particularly apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated systems of healthcare. In Russia, patients over 60 are considered worthless parasites and those over 70 are often denied even elementary forms of healthcare.

In the United Kingdom, in the treatment of chronic kidney failure, those who are 55 years old are refused treatment at 35 percent of dialysis centers. Forty-five percent of 65-year-old patients at the centers are denied treatment, while patients 75 or older rarely receive any medical attention at these centers.

In Canada, the population is divided into three age groups in terms of their access to healthcare: those below 45, those 45–65, and those over 65. Needless to say, the first group, who could be called the “active taxpayers,” enjoys priority treatment.

Advocates of socialized medicine in the United States use Soviet propaganda tactics to achieve their goals. Michael Moore is one of the most prominent and effective socialist propagandists in America. In his movie, Sicko, he unfairly and unfavorably compares health care for older patients in the United States with complex and incurable diseases to healthcare in France and Canada for young women having routine babies. Had he done the reverse — i.e., compared healthcare for young women in the United States having babies to older patients with complex and incurable diseases in socialized healthcare systems — the movie would have been the same, except that the US healthcare system would look ideal, and the UK, Canada, and France would look barbaric.

[…]

http://mises.org/story/3650

It looks like the Balls Badman effect is spreading to the USA. At least in America, the people are getting rowdy over it:

Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare
by Chuck Norris

Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.

While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.

Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government’s coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, “well-trained and competent staff,” would “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.”

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts’? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?

Are we to assume the state’s mediators would understand every parent’s social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?

One government rebuttal is that this program would be “voluntary.” Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, “I don’t think I’ll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I’ll go down to the local government offices”? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state “shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families.”

Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this “prioritized” training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?

Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?

Government needs less of a role in running our children’s lives and more of a role in supporting parents’ decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right — and government support — to parent them without the fed’s mandates, education or intervention in our homes.

[…]

Town Hall

Poor old Chuck; he almost gets it right in the end; government needs less of a role and no role at all in supporting parent’s decisions for their children not MORE of a role. More of a role means MORE GOVERNMENT.

In any case, this sounds very much like the home invasions outlined by Balls and Badman, “for your own good”, to make sure that you are teaching your children ‘correctly’. It’s all completely bogus of course, but what is interesting is that there seems to be a simultaneous move both here and in the USA to usurp the parent and replace the state in that sacred role.

Americans will not have it, and they will go to war over it. Thank heavens for real people.

Graham Badman’s scandalous, biased, immoral and utterly vile report on Home Education contains a submission from The Church of England. By selectively omitting parts of the entire submission, Graham Badman has engaged in what is called ‘a lie of omission’:

Lying by omission
One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. If a husband asks his wife if she’s at a bar, the wife may tell her husband she is at a store, which is true, but lie by omitting the fact that she also visited a bar.

[…]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

Lies of Omission:

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it’s a gross violation of another person’s right of self-determination.

[…]

http://www.choice101.com/19-lies.html#LiesOfOmission

It is one thing to give your opinion, and say that you believe that Home Education is not beneficial, or that Home Educated children are not safe, or more likely to suffer abuse (even if that is statistically not the case as this analysis of comparative abuse stats demonstrates), but it is quite another to deceptively misuse the authority of the voice The Church of England by selectively quoting from their submission, which comes to a conclusion that is the polar opposite of the conclusion you want to manipulate everyone reading the report to come to; that the laws governing Home Education need to be changed. Had this been a scientific paper, Graham Badman would now stand convicted of academic fraud, and his paper would be thrown out by peer reviewers, and his reputation permanently tarnished:

Wow, there’s yet more on the dodgy nature of the Badman report.

Well done those HEors who pursued this line; if they end up working for the investigative team on Private Eye, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised. You can bet they will go in search of the truth like dog after a bone and won’t be fobbed off with phoney stats, headlines and soundbites.

Reading Graham Badman’s report, you would have thought that the Church of England were fully in favour of clamping down heavily on home educators. Badman achieves this effect by quoting highly selectively from the C of E submission.

From the Badman Review of Home Education, Section 4.8:

…the Education Division of the Church of England states its concern:

“that children and young people not in formal education are missing the benefits and challenges of learning in community with their peers. Children who do not go to school may not experience the social and cultural diversity encountered there; they will not learn how to deal with the rough and tumble of everyday life; they may never meet people with different faith and value systems. All such encounters, even the difficult or painful ones are enriching. We are concerned not only with the five Every Child Matters outcomes, but also with the spiritual well-being of all children and young people.

[…]

Spiritual well-being arises not only from being cared for in a loving family and/or faith community, but also in encounters with people of different opinions and backgrounds; in learning to listen to a variety of opinions; to encounter diversity and the riches and life-enhancement it can bring. Spiritual well-being depends on living and taking a full part in community life. Children and young people in schools learn about and from the five major religions. This may be a difficult part of the curriculum for home educators to provide, yet it is vital for the Government’s community cohesion agenda that all children learn in a balanced way about the variety of religious values and practices, and to be encouraged to question their own beliefs and practices.”

Badman however somehow failed to mention that the Church of England actually concluded their consultation submission with the following:

“We have seen no evidence to show that the majority of home educated children do not achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes, and are therefore not convinced of the need to change the current system of monitoring the standard of home education. Where there are particular concerns about the children who are home-educating, this should be a matter for Children’s services.”

Home educators have subsequently received reassurances from the Church to the effect that the C of E does indeed stand by the conclusion above.

“We stand by our position as laid out in our original submission and hope that those with an interest in this subject will read our full position rather than relying on selected extracts. We understand that there are a range of deeply-held views on this subject and are grateful for your appreciation that the CofE’s position was more nuanced that was perhaps suggested in the Badman report.”

[…]

Dare to Know

The statement from the Church’s representative is a diplomatic way of saying that Graham Badman’s report misrepresented the Church of England’s position on Home Education.

Graham Badman has demonstrated a totally appalling lack of integrity. What a completely disgusting and insulting piece of trash. This report should not be the basis of new legislation; in fact it should be the basis of an investigation into the low standards of the people who generate reports like this, and that investigation should produce new rules and minimum standards that should apply to the writing of these reports so that they are at a minimum, peer reviewed in the same way that scientific papers are peer reviewed. If this was the standard, phrases like ‘I believe’ would invalidate a report like Graham Badman’s because personal belief is not a basis for scientific understanding of fact.

Every day, thanks to the hard work of Home Educators, this report is becoming more and more discredited. Soon it will be seen for what it really is; a worthless smear piece with no rigor, no peer review, chock full of hearsay, glaring omissions and baseless opinions.

This is from an article by Lew Rockwell.

If the environmental religion is not stopped in its tracks, you will see all of these steps replicated in the name of ‘saving the planet’.

[…]

Certainly Bush used 9-11 to consolidate his power and the neoconservative intellectuals who surrounded him adopted a deep cynicism concerning the manipulation of public opinion. Their governing style concerned the utility of public myth, which they found essential to wise rule. The main myth they promoted was that Bush was the Christian philosopher-king heading a new crusade against Islamic extremism. The very stupid among us believed it, and this served as a kind of ideological infrastructure of his tenure as president.

Then it collapsed when the economy went south and he was unable to sustain the absurd idea that he was protecting us from anyone. The result was disgrace, and the empowering of the political left and its socialistic ethos.

The talk of Hitler in the White House ended forthwith, as if the analogy extended only when nationalist ideology is ruling the day. What people don’t remember is that Hitlerism was about more than just militarism, nationalism, and consolidation of identity politics. It also involved a substantial shift in German domestic politics away from free enterprise, or what remained of it under Weimar, toward collectivist economic planning.

Nazism was not only nationalism run amok. It was also socialism of a particular variety.

Let’s turn to The Vampire Economy by Guenter Reimann (1939). He begins the story with the 1933 decree that all property must be subject to the collective will. It began with random audits and massive new bookkeeping regulations:

[…]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/headed-to-national-socialism123.html

Database to track vulnerable children scrapped by Government

A multimillion-pound Government computer system swamped in red tape is to be scrapped after experts said it was a danger to vulnerable children, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.

By Heidi Blake

Heidi, how could you…. FAIL like this?!

Local authorities have spent the past four years implementing the Government's £72m Integrated Children's System (ICS) amid threats that critical funding would be cut if they did not comply.

This is fascinating. How much autonomy do these Local Authorities have? If they refuse to implement something dangerous, like ICS, and actually work FOR the residents in the boroughs they run, they are permitted to DO THAT? If this is the case, Local Authorities could bill themselves as proper servants by listing the things they DO NOT DO, like use 'anti terror' laws to spy on the people they are serving, or not interfering with Home Educators, whom they also serve.

Hmmmmm!!!

But the system, described by staff as "an unworkable monster", generated stacks of paperwork 6ins thick for every child, had no way of tracking the siblings of abused children, and absorbed up to 80 per cent of social workers' time.

???!!

'No way of tracking siblings'… this sounds like something another database CAN do that Heidi has, quite inexplicably failed to mention in this article..

ContactPoint.

In response to a damning assessment of ICS by a group of Government-appointed experts, Baroness Morgan, the children's minister, has written to councils telling them they can abandon the controversial record-keeping system. She has left the responsibility for its replacement in their hands.

This is the dictionary definition of Disingenuous:

dis·in·gen·u·ous   (d?s’?n-j?n’y??-?s)   
adj.  

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who … exemplified … the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.

dis’in·gen’u·ous·ly adv., dis’in·gen’u·ous·ness n.
Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means “insincere” and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as “tough love.” This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning “playfully insincere, faux-naïf,” as in the example “I don’t have a clue about late Beethoven!” he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world’s foremost concert pianists.

Baroness Delyth Morgan KNOWS that ContactPoint is planned to be unleashed, and that the capabilities of ICS are a sub set of what ContactPoint will be able to deliver. To say, "you can do what you want" is simply absurd… its a sort of sideways lie. Absolutely disgusting.

Officials last night raised fears that vulnerable children were still at risk because it could take years to build a working alternative.

Heidi, are you COMPLETELY MAD? How can you write an article about this without at least Googling children database vulnerable UK many results about ContactPoint come up… for heaven's sake, BUY A CLUE.

Tim Loughton, shadow children's minister, said: "Ed Balls has finally had to admit what front line social workers have known all along – the Government's Integrated Children's System was at best a waste of money and at worst a danger to children.

And the same can be said of ContactPoint, only magnified to include EVERY CHILD in the UK.

"This system wasted more than £72 million of taxpayers' money, but the human cost to child protection and to the social work profession has been much higher."

ICS, which stores case records about children at risk of abuse, was introduced in the wake of the Laming report which revealed that information-sharing failures at Haringey Council led to the death of Victoria Climbie in 2000.

It is not information sharing failures that lead to the deaths of children. Databases cannot save children, or stop crime or prevent anything bad from happening. All they can do is put money in the pockets of contractors and take away the privacy of the people who are put in them.

Social services, when they have information about children at risk, should act on that information; sharing it with other people who also fail to act means that nothing is done. Its hot potato protection.

But the Social Work Task Force appointed this March to review child protection practices after the death of a second child in Haringey, Baby P, issued a damning verdict on the Government system.

In a letter to the Department for Children, Schools and Families this May, the Task Force called ICS a "burdensome process" which kept social workers "tied up in bureaucracy" and away from their duties on the front line.

And now, magnify that bureaucracy by the total number of people in the country who are going to be on ContactPoint, ELEVEN MILLION and you begin to get an idea of what a nightmare they are in for. ContactPoint is going to make people less safe, from the statistically insignificant number of people who are actually at risk to the vast, completely safe majority, who are now going to have their personal and sensitive data exposed to all and sundry, should ContactPoint go online.

An Ofsted report published last Friday found that Haringey council was still failing to protect vulnerable children and identified faults with ICS as part of the problem.

Blame the database? What did these people do BEFORE they had computers? Were people more safe before or after the implementation of databases? Are these tools actually getting in the way of people doing the real work that they are meant to be doing?

It stated: "The risks arising from these system dysfunctions are that data are unreliable, managers cannot easily track progress on cases and in some cases professionals… do not have access to critical child protection or safeguarding information."

And ContactPoint is going to magnify this exponentially. Also, the database tables for ContactPoint are going to need to be expanded dramatically in order to store all the information that is mentioned in that last blockquote and more. This means that ContactPoint as it is designed now, is just the skeleton of an even more intrusive monster system that is going to develop incrementally.

KILL IT WITH FIRE.

In her letter to councils, Baroness Morgan told councils she was "making it clear that local authorities will not be required to comply with the published specifications for ICS in order to receive capital funding".

Because ContactPoint is around the corner. Pure EVIL.

She added: "ICT systems which support children's care should be locally owned and implemented within a simplified national framework".

Called ContactPoint. There cannot be any social workers who do not know about ContactPoint. They must be scratching their heads at why she is not referring specifically to it in this communication. Perhaps she did. Heidi has not let us know. She failed to mention ContactPoint at all ini this article. Absolute unmitigated FAIL.

Local authorities had previously been forced to use Government-authorised computer systems, known collectively as the "Integrated Children's System", in order to qualify for crucial funding.

Blackmail.

But despite telling officials they could abandon the Government model, the children's minister denied that ICS was effectively being scrapped.

Illogical.

She said in a statement: "Part of developing a highly skilled and professional workforce is ensuring that the IT system social workers use is accessible, workable and secure.

Databases can never be secure. Highly skilled workforces existed before databases. This is nonsense on stilts.

"The Social Work Task Force agreed that ICS is the right system but made a number of recommendations. Today we are driving this change forward."

How can it be the right system, but be optional, and now abandoned? Oh yes, hot is cold, day is night, and 2+2=9.

Council officers said they would have to "junk" the Government's specifications and start again from scratch.

Whith whose money? And what this will do is put massive pressure on government to expand the capabilities of ContactPoint; why have lots of little unconnected databases when you can save money with economies of scale by rolling out ContactPoint 2 that has tables for everything everyone could possibly need?

This is the chess game that this dying bunck of Aparatchicks is playing. If they scrap ICS now, they believe it will be harder for the Tories to scrap ContactPoint since the Local Authorities up and down the country were told to destroy their bespoke systems. The Tories will also be forced to expand ContactPoint to save money as I described above.

Sadly for Mutterschwein of Drefelin ContactPoint is being scrapped because it is dangerous and immoral. No matter how much efficiency it provides or what its capabilities are, it should be scrapped because its existence is an affront and danger to all decent people in the UK.

No matter how difficult you make it with these pre death of Neu Liebour moves, nothing can change this. Your police state apparatus is going to be dismantled and you are already disgraced for overseeing and agreeing with its implementation.

Andrew Christie, Director of Children's Services at Hammersmith and Fulham, said: "The Government has left social workers and vulnerable children at the bottom of a black hole that it will take years to climb out of.

Actually, this is an opportunity for you to build something clean and decent that does what it needs to do without being immoral or dangerous.

"We have already spent a huge amount of time and money implementing this labyrinthine system and now we will have to spend more time and money unpicking it and retraining staff."

But you MUST do this to be a moral person, so GET ON WITH IT and don't complain.

Staff at Kensington and Chelsea council, which had its funding cut for refusing to implement ICS in 2005, said they were being "inundated" with requests from other councils wanting to buy the alternative system they have built.

I wonder how it works?

RBK&C is also the council that publicly voiced skepticism about ContactPoint and offered shielding to whoever wanted it:

The Council has reservations about the scheme. These include concerns about the lack of publicity surrounding it and about security and confidentiality issues.

There are 33,000 children in Kensington and Chelsea. The Government expects their details to be included on ContactPoint and has made the Council responsible for the upkeep of that information.

The Government wanted the first 17 councils that are introducing ContactPoint to be using it from April 2009, with other councils – including Kensington and Chelsea – following in due course.

Although glitches in the system may delay the start date, the personal information of children living in the borough will be available to those first 17 councils as soon as they ‘go live’. Information on ContactPoint will include name, address, gender, a unique identification number and name and contact details of the child’s parent or carer. It will also show the child’s GP practice, health visitor, school and school nurse but not the detailed information that a GP or school would have.

Access
The Government currently estimates that around 390,000 people who work with children will be able to access the database nationally. They will be fully trained and follow strict confidentiality guidelines.

Safeguards and confidentiality
Although the Government maintains that the security of ContactPoint is of paramount importance and that it has been rigorously tested, Kensington and Chelsea Council is concerned about security issues and the ability of the database to keep information about children who are adopted confidential.

At the time of writing representatives from the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) were still trying to remedy security issues that had been identified in the system.

Shielding
The Government has proposed something called ‘shielding’ as an extra measure to protect children and families from harm. Shielding means hiding details of the child’s, young person’s or family member’s whereabouts and reflects the fact that the Government accepts that a small number of children, young people and their parent(s) may be put at significant risk if their whereabouts become known. If a child is shielded, only their name, date of birth, gender and unique number will be visible.

The Royal Borough is encouraging parents and carers to consider shielding for their child or children. The Council will deal with each request for shielding individually and according to its shielding policy. Parents or carers who want the Council to exercise its discretion regarding their data should get in touch as soon as possible. Children and young people themselves can also apply for shielding.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is determined to support the best interests of its children and to address the understandable anxieties of parents/carers. Any request to ‘shield’ a record should include the reason why ‘shielding’ would safeguard the child. The Council will need to verify the applicant’s relationship to the child.

To enquire about shielding contact the CAF and Integrated Working Team on 020 7598 4694 or email: contactpoint@rbkc.gov.uk

What do you think?

[…]

http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/RBKCDirect/rdcouncilpriorities/cp0904_contactpoint.asp#shielding

I think you should not be implementing it at all. I think you are morally obligated to refuse it. I think ContactPoint is going to be scrapped.

In a move backed by children’s charities today, Baroness Delyth Morgan has announced routine mandatory checks on the genitals of all female children in England and Wales for signs of circumcision. The yearly examinations are to take place in the homes of every British family with a female child.

An amazing, impossible headline and story you would say yes? The fact of the matter is however, that this is exactly what is being asked for by Baroness Delyth Morgan, with her absurd and insulting assertion that Home Education is a cover for arranged marriage, and that all Home Educators need to be registered and then examined regularly to make sure that arranged marriage is not taking place.

A blogger we admire, Renegade Parent, has actually been called a racist for questioning the logic of this. She is right to say that this is insane, and her logic in this matter is flawless.

Arranged marriage does not occur in the families of the ‘ethnic British‘, who are the majority in this country. To force EVERYONE to be regularly examined for ‘signs of arranged marriage’ by compelling them to register with their Local Authority and then to submit to arbitrary inspection in their own homes is therefore, totally insane.

Only those people who come from cultures that do arranged marriages (which by the way, is their absolute right) should be targeted, if anyone is going to be targeted at all. Of course, if you target one type of person based on their ‘race’, the politically correct lunatics will accuse the government of being racist and of using racial profiling, both of which would be true in this instance.

There is no reason whatsoever to check ethnically British families (or the families of Trinidadians, Jamaicans, Americans, Canadians, Russians etc etc) to see if arranged marriage is taking place. The fact of the matter is people with a different culture, one in which arranged marriages are normal, are now entrenched here. You have to accept them for what they are, since they have no intention of changing their ancient and completely legitimate ways. It’s either that, or destroy your own culture and ways in a vain attempt to try and force them to adapt, i.e. erasing the rights of parents, destroying civil liberties, dismantling the family, making the state a third parent just as New Labour are doing right now.

None of this has anything to do with racism. It is common sense.

This attack on Home Education is completely baseless, evil and fraudulent. The people behind it are weak minded, paranoid, delusional, ignorant, tunnel visioned family wreckers, who if they had one brain-cell and shred of decency between them would have researched Home Education and seen that it is taking off in the USA and world-wide reaching over 1.5 MILLION children in the USA alone and that it is something to be encouraged, not banned, like their spiritual leader had it banned. US State legislatures are now routinely removing the artificial and immoral barriers to Home Education whilst Backward Britain™ created by Neu Liebour is moving in precisely the opposite direction, turning Britain from one of the best places to Home Educate into one of the worst places.

How. Stupid.

Back to the subject at hand. Let’s look at it another way for the lulz (courtesy of Mimi Majick); imagine this statement from Baroness Delyth Morgan:

All girls in the UK are to be screened for testicular cancer. We are doing this so that we do not appear to be sexist in our quest to eliminate this terrible disease.

These examinations would obviously coincide with the proposed mandatory checks for female circumcision.

You think that is insane of course, and that nothing remotely like it could ever happen… and you are WRONG.

The deadly anti cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil has been proposed for BOYS as well as girls. If I remember correctly, only the female of the species has a cervix. Home Educated people of course, are up on their anatomy, unlike their state schooled counterparts.

These people are completely mad, and when the little boy (in this case Renegade Parent) stands up and says, “the empress has no clothes” the morons come out of the woodwork and start calling names. Well, I have some news for you morons; 2+2 always equals 4. It will always equal 4, until the end of time. You are WRONG.

Baroness Delyth Morgan, Graham Badman, Ed Balls and all the other creatures of the night are wrong in what they think, what they do, what they propose and the conclusions they come to. They are the wreckers of civilization, the enemies of common sense and liberty and their time has come to an end, even if they do not yet know it.

Finally, to Renegade Parent directly, you are a voice of pure common sense, a true voice for liberty and the rights of man. People like you are what made this country great. We support you, we know that you are correct, and join with you in denouncing these pig ignorant brainwashed monsters that are trying to kill everything that is good.

Even if you were to say something that we do not agree with, we defend your right to publish it. I have said it before; this is what distinguishes us from the rabble, the sheeple, the sleeple and the eloi; our philosophy does not require anyone to obey us, whereas their philosophy requires everyone to obey them.

We are the best.

And that means YOU.

EDM 1794 HOME EDUCATION 01.07.2009

James, Utterson

That this House recognises that an estimated 45,000 to 150,000 children are educated at home; believes that the mammalian mating structure is centered around the family, and that what a family is should not be defined by or interfered with by this House, and that parents should have the right to home educate without any interference from this House; notes with concern and disdain the proposals put forward in the recent Badman Review; expresses particular disgust at the lack of consultation involved in conducting the review; considers it unacceptable that local authorities are to be given unprecedented powers to enter the homes of citizens; rejects the need for a system of support to ensure that home educated children receive a good quality of education and rejects the creation of an excessive and damaging extension of bureaucracy; and calls on the Government to enshrine the rights of parents to give their children the widest possible educational opportunities and thereby ensure that all children receive a well-rounded education.

First, take a look at this:

Then read this.

In the past, the facts and subsequent analysis about an event like this would have taken months to propagate. Accurate analysis would never come to the attention of the wider public at all. Now both are happening in a matter of hours, thanks to teh internetz. The very systems that are being used to destabilize countries are self healing and nullifying the ill effects of dastardly plots like ‘Operation AJAX 2.0’:

We know that the US funds terrorist organizations inside Iran that are responsible for bombings and other violent acts. It is likely that these terrorist organizations are responsible for the burning buses and other acts of violence that have occurred during the demonstrations in Tehran.

A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election.

He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th. “IranElection” is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: @StopAhmadi @IranRiggedElect @Change_For_Iran. He researched further and found that on June 14 the Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new Twitter. He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.

[…]

http://vdare.com/roberts/090621_iran.htm

which has been underway in Iran as the ‘Green Revolution’, the occurrence of which was known about before it actually started to happen:

Neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman let the cat out of the bag that there was an orchestrated “color revolution” in the works.

Before the election, Timmerman wrote: “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” Why would protests be organized prior to a vote and announcement of the outcome? Organized protests waiting in the wings are not spontaneous responses to a stolen election.

Timmerman’s organization, Foundation for Democracy, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for the explicit purpose of promoting democracy in Iran. According to Timmerman, NED money was funneled to “pro-Mousavi groups who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.”

The US media has studiously ignored all of these highly suggestive facts. The media is not reporting or providing objective analysis. It is engaged in a propagandistic onslaught against the Iranian government.

[…]

http://vdare.com/roberts/090621_iran.htm

Read that entire article by Paul Craig Roberts.

Now we have even the pro intervention, pro regime change Guardian printing an article that hits the nail on the head:

Democracy, made in Iran

By reviving memories of an ousted leader, Iran’s protesters are signalling they want to win reform without US intervention

Stephen Kinzer

Protesters displaying pictures of former prime minister Muhammad Mossadeq alongside presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi during demonstrations in Iran last week. Photograph: Anonymous (courtesy of Stephen Kinzer)

Despite efforts by Iran’s leaders to keep photographers off the streets during post-election protests this month, many vivid images have emerged. The one posted here, above, is the one I found most chilling, poignant and evocative.

By now, many outsiders can identify the man whose picture is on the right-hand side of this protest sign. He is Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reported loser in this month’s presidential election. The elderly gentleman in the other picture is unfamiliar to most non-Iranians. He and his fate, however, lie at the historical root of the protests now shaking Iran.

The picture shows a pensive, sad-looking man with what one of his contemporaries called “droopy basset-hound eyes and high patrician forehead”. He does not look like a man whose fate would continue to influence the world decades after his death. But this was Muhammad Mossadeq, the most fervent advocate of democracy ever to emerge in his ancient land.

Above the twinned pictures of Mossadeq and Mousavi on this protest poster are the words “We won’t let history repeat itself.” Centuries of intervention, humiliation and subjugation at the hand of foreign powers have decisively shaped Iran’s collective psyche. The most famous victim of this intervention – and also the most vivid symbol of Iran’s long struggle for democracy – is Mossadeq. Whenever Iranians assert their desire to shape their own fate, his image appears.

Iranians began their painful and bloody march toward democracy with the constitutional revolution of 1906. Only after the second world war did they finally manage to consolidate a freely elected government. Mossadeq was prime minister, and became hugely popular for taking up the great cause of the day, nationalisation of Iran’s oil industry. That outraged the British, who had “bought” the exclusive right to exploit Iranian oil from a corrupt Shah, and the Americans, who feared that allowing nationalization in Iran would encourage leftists around the world.

In the summer of 1953 the CIA sent the intrepid agent Kermit Roosevelt – grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, who believed Americans should “walk softly and carry a big stick” – to Tehran with orders to overthrow Mossadeq. He accomplished it in just three weeks. It was a vivid example of how easy it is for a rich and powerful country to throw a poor and weak one into chaos.

With this covert operation, the world’s proudest democracy put an end to democratic rule in Iran. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi returned to the Peacock Throne and ruled with increasing repression for a quarter-century. His repression produced the explosion of 1979 that brought reactionary mullahs to power. Theirs is the regime that rules Iran today.

Carrying a picture of Mossadeq today means two things: “We want democracy” and “No foreign intervention”. These demands fit together in the minds of most Iranians. Desperate as they are for the political freedom their parents and grandparents enjoyed in the early 1950s, they have no illusion that foreigners can bring it to them. In fact, foreign intervention has brought them nothing but misery.

The US sowed the seeds of repression in Iran by deposing Mossadeq in 1953, and then helped bathe Iran in blood by giving Saddam Hussein generous military aid during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Militants in Washington who now want the US to intervene on behalf of Iranian protesters either are unaware of this history or delude themselves into thinking that Iranians have forgotten it. Some of them, in fact, are the same people who were demanding just last year that the US bomb Iran – an act which would have killed many of the brave young protesters they now hold up as heroes.

America’s moral authority in Iran is all but non-existent. To the idea that the US should jump into the Tehran fray and help bring democracy to Iran, many Iranians would roll their eyes and say: “We had a democracy here until you came in and crushed it!”

President Barack Obama seems to grasp this reality. During his recent speech in Cairo, without mentioning Mossadeq by name, he conceded that “in the middle of the cold war, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” Then, after the current electoral protests broke out, he avoided the hypocrisy of righteous indignation and confined himself to saying that “ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide.”

Anyone doubting the wisdom of those words should pay attention to the sprouting of Mossadeq pictures during protests in Iran. They mean: “Americans, your interventions have brought us tyranny and death. Stay home, keep your hands off and leave our country to us for a change.”

[…]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/19/iran-protests-mousavi-mossadeq

The fact of the matter is that it is no longer possible to mount 20^th century Psy Ops in countries like Iran; cellular networks are like mass vaccination – they immunize the populations that have them from being infected by the vile propaganda of the colonialists. Centralized radio and television cannot counter AJAX style operations. Why? Because the TV is not a ‘trusted introducer’ to any idea, whereas a text message from your social network IS a trusted introducer.

Those Rock & Roll loving Iranians had better watch out; they are doing the work of the lord when they hold up signs IN ENGLISH, riot, cause mayhem and destabilize THEIR OWN COUNTRY. They have only to look to their former enemies to see what US ‘liberation’ looks like. What they are actually asking for is the complete DEATH of Iran and their culture.

Thankfully, the small deluded minority causing all this trouble will not get it.

Now let me be clear. The problem with all of this has nothing to do with the ‘right and wrong’ of how Iran runs its own affairs, and wether or not you personally agree with it. What this is about it the pursuit of global domination by monsters, who are hell bent, literally, on wiping out any culture or system that is different to theirs, or which is not under their direct and absolute control.

Tehran is the largest city in the Middle East and is the second most populated. If the Iranians should ever discover the true nature of money they could become an unstoppable economic force in the region. Right now, they are being run by Keynsian witch-doctors (John Maynard Keynes is to Economics as a Witch-Doctor is to Medicine), who are printing money like drunk sailors on the rampage at the ripperbahn.

Did you know that Tehran has an ‘Underground’?

These people are dangerous; dangerous because they are so successful, so organized and so peaceful. They are the most threatening nation to the ‘New World Order’. They are showing, through results and not rhetoric, that you can have huge prosperity without interfacing with the globalists.

That is why they must be destroyed.

In 1939 1,800,000 children were moved out of London to escape the bombing of that great city.

How it all happened is relevant to us today, in the light of New Labour, and its infinitely repulsive, shocking and sickening disregard for what Britain is and was, and what it is meant to be.

London was being bombarded nightly. Londoners spent their nights in shelters or deep in the Underground on the platforms as the bombs hammered away.

It was decided that children living in the areas that were being Blitzed were to be evacuated to safe parts of Britain. The first evacuations began on Friday 1 September 1939, and was code named 'Operation Pied Piper'.

The evacuated children were put on trains in London, had tags pinned on their clothes stating their names, and were then despatched to different parts of the countryside.

When they arrived at the various train stations and evacuation centres, adults who were to take in the evacuees were waiting. The children were selected on the spot, by a point of the finger and words like, "I'll take the one with red hair just there", and taken away to their new homes; those who were not wanted, judged solely on the look of the child were simply left behind:

[…]

The whole school (Sellincourt Road Infants) marched through streets to Tooting Junction station. I was carrying a small rucksack for my luggage. I remember the cornfields en route and that we changed trains at Exeter. We stopped at several villages and at each stop we got off and lined up in the road so the villagers could take who they wanted. Those of us that remained then re-boarded and went onto the next village. Those of us not selected were then deposited at a commandeered camp belonging to NALGO (trade union).

[…]

BBC

[…]

“We were walked to the rail station at Clapham Junction and from there we caught the train to Waterloo, from Waterloo we travelled all the way to north Cornwall.

“After a short period of time, I was evacuated to a farmer and his wife who had no children, and I became part of the family.”
Children at the time would wait at temporary evacuee centres were they could be selected by a family who liked them. He felt he was one of the lucky ones who got a good home.

[…]

BBC

[…]

I suppose there was about 20 of us from class seven of Christ Church. The children from other classes went elsewhere to nearby villages. I remember standing in a line next to Kenneth, my friend, feeling hot, tired and somewhat unsettled. The long journey, just undertaken, left me slightly bewildered. Was it all a dream?

Standing opposite us in the hall was quite a large group of villagers. These people had agreed to take us into their homes and become our foster parents. They had, previously, signed the necessary forms and stated their preference for boys or girls. Soon a rather awkward process of selection began, and after, watching, waiting and wondering. My friend Kenneth and I found ourselves being paired up and being led along by a tall, kindly-looking gentleman, Mr Ware, the village postman. At that moment, to use the official term, he had become our foster father. Waiting outside, no doubt very interested to see what we looked like, were two of Mr Ware's daughters, Maureen and Barbara.

[…]

BBC

And so on and so on. What an incredible story!

Now, fast forward to 2009.

We have a government that wants to force everyone to carry an ID Card that is linked to a giant database of fingerprints and faces that can identify you in a fraction of a second from one of millions of CCTV cameras that are everywhere. A country where if you change your address and do not tell the government, you can be fined £1000, where you will not be able to buy wine or withdraw money from your bank account without presenting this card. Where you cannot even buy a teaspoon without showing ID. We have a government that believes that all parents are child abuse suspects, and as such, must be put into a database.

Just what the HELL has happened to Great Britain?

How has it come to pass that in a country where people were trusted and trusting by default, to such an extent that children could be given away to total strangers without any doubt whatsoever that strangers will have nothing but absolute concern and care for the welfare of their wards, in close to two million instances… that this trust is all but completely destroyed?

How is it that the people of this fair island have become so ground down, so inured to slavery and tyranny that when over 100,000 parents are accused in a most vicious and dastardly way, without a shred of evidence, of being potential child abusers, that almost nothing is said, and that there are even parents who AGREE with the totalitarian government responsible for the perverted claims and insane recommendations?

How is it that two men, named 'Balls' and 'Badman' can get away with such a thing, and no one thinks this combination of names is in any way odd, or unusual, or freakish, monstrous, sinister or nightmarish? Are we living as characters on the pages of an edition of 200AD?

What the HELL is wrong with everybody?!

Even if you accept that it is the role of government to organize education and protect children (which I do not), any reasonable person would require that there is evidence of a real problem before you legislate; in this case, the author of the review, the singularly unqualified Badman, admits that there is no evidence that Home Educated children are at risk and that Home Education is not being used as a 'cover'. Even by those standards the conclusions and recommendations of this scabrous review are completely illogical in that light.

The fact of the matter is, quite apart from the natural rights aspect of this, parents are the most trustworthy people when it comes to the care of their children. The vast majority of people are also completely trustworthy, as the example of the evacuees demonstrates. The only people who cannot be trusted are, CRB Checked, ‘trusted’ agents of the government; the social workers, local authority workers etc etc, who are a self selected group of control freaks whose only desire is to exert their will upon others. They never refuse new powers, are keen to enter into and interfere with the private business of every family, down to the food that is eaten in the home.

The men and women of the 1930s adn 40s would never have accepted a government like New Labour; in fact, they were willing to die fighting against a government just like it; a government that explicitly banned (and continues to ban) home schooling.

They did not need to check every adult against a database before they did the evacuation. Even if they had time and the means to do it, they would not have done it, just as in the 70’s ID Cards were rejected as ‘un-British’ when the IRA was attacking England and the attackers were visually indistinguishable from the attacked by virtue of both groups being ‘European’ in appearance.

The men of that era would never accept a government like New Labour:

Clarence Henry Willcock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clarence Henry Willcock, (23 January 1896 – 12 December 1952) a member of the Liberal Party, was the last person in the UK to be prosecuted for refusing to produce an Identity Card.

On 7 December 1950, Harry Willcock, 54 year old dry-cleaning manager was stopped while driving in Finchley, London by police constable Harold Muckle who demanded that he present his identity card at a police station within 48 hours. He refused, reputedly saying "I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing". He was prosecuted under the National Registration Act 1939, convicted and fined 10 shillings.

Willcock appealed, in the case Willcock vs Muckle. Although he lost the appeal, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Goddard, spoke out against the continued use of compulsory Identity Cards and commented that they "tend to make people resentful of the acts of the police".

As a result of the court case, Willcock became well-known and he founded the Freedom Defence Association to campaign against ID cards. In a publicity event he tore up his own identity card in front of the National Liberal Club, inspiring a later similar action for the press outside Parliament by the British Housewives' League. When the Conservative government elected at the 1951 general election decided to abolish identity cards in 1952, Willcock received hundreds of redundant cards through the post to auction for charity.

Willcock was the Liberal candidate in Barking in 1945 and in 1950. He came third in both contests, losing his deposit in 1950. He had been a councillor and magistrate in Horsforth, Leeds.

Willcock was born in Alverthorpe, Wakefield, Yorkshire and died, while debating at a meeting of the Eighty Club at the National Liberal Club.
Goddard's comments are thought to have influenced Winston Churchill's decision to scrap compulsory national Identity Cards in 1952.

[…]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Henry_Willcock

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

It is now your turn to defend your rights; the rights that people died to protect and give to you. If you give them up as if they were nothing, if you compromise one inch, go half way for a little peace, go along to get along, or sign up so that you can continue to get ‘free’ rail cards and other ‘benefits’…. then you are not fit to breath the air of this great country. You deserve whatever they put upon you. You lose your right to complain, to make a fuss or to whine about 'civil liberties'. You are already dead.

You are at the same time, very lucky. In this case, all that is required of you is that you refuse to comply. Refuse to register. Refuse to take the ID card. Refuse to engage in any way with anything that comes from ContactPoint. Never use or agree with weasel words of compromise and, 'seeing the other point of view'. Do not bow and scrape to anyone, and thank your oppressors for 'being on your side'.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have to put up with the incessant abuses, violations, invasions, smears and the totalitarian apparatus that this government, New Labour, is pouring out on the land.

Enough is enough. Just as this venal and murderous government stubbornly refuses to submit to the will of the public, as it should, since it has no legitimacy (so the textbooks say) without the consent of the governed, so too can anyone also refuse to obey any illegitimate law or regulation.

Those of you who believe that you have a sacred duty to protect your family from evil are already on this page.

Those of you who have doubts, who are frightened about the consequences of 'going silent' or who are swayed by the soothing weasel words of men with an air of authority, or who are actually dumb enough to believe that what is planned is in any part a good thing; be warned – the reason why we are at this abysmal point is because the weak people between the days of the evacuees and today, allowed small concessions to their liberties year on year that mounted up to become the totalitarian state that now looms over you, and which is about to tip over and crush you, splitting open to unleash a torrent of aparatchick ants that will swarm over you and your family and bite you to death.

The only way to stop this is to draw a line in the sand and say, "this far, and no further" The power of the totalitarian state is derived directly from the cooperation of the people who are its victims. The aparatchicks who use ContactPoint (for example) will be sitting in offices on the phone, compiling lists and contacting people, trying to arrange interviews etc etc. If no one speaks to them or answers their letters, they will be completely stymied. If no one registers, they will have an intractable task on their hands of tracking everyone down, writing to them, chasing them up on foot… They will never be able to pull this off. And remember; all of this is going to happen whilst they are taking care of all their other duties, with which they are already overwhelmed. This is why it is important to make it absolutely clear; this report is rejected. We will not comply with any of it, should it become the law. You are wasting your time, and we will not waste any more of ours responding to you now, or in the future.

WE ARE DONE.

BLOGDIAL readers know that we are for a general and permanent boycott of everything related to the police state and its apparatus (ID Cards, ContactPoint NIR, CCTV etc). In this General Boycott Everything that touches them is ‘tainted’, so if someone contacts you because they got your details from ContactPoint, those communications are tainted, and so should be ignored. Any request to show ID for purchases should likewise result in ‘NO SALE’.

Academics are taking exactly this stance within their own field:

Academics boycott visa ‘snooping’
University academics say they will boycott new visa rules for overseas students that would make them into “immigration snoopers”.

Delegates at the University and College Union’s annual conference said they did not want to become a branch of the UK Border Agency.

This is absolutely excellent. We have said many times that the state cannot run the police state by itself; they do not have the resources. They need business and the people themselvs to run it. This is why all professionals should pledge not to become proxy aparatchicks; everyone must reject the Zero Trust Society if we are to avoid the creation of a hideous STASI style state where everyone is spying and tattling on everyone else.

Under the new rules universities are expected to monitor whether overseas students really attend their courses.

The Home Office said such things were part of their normal duty of care.

Once again, this is a BBC News article by an unnamed author, quoting unnamed spokespersons; you cant make stuff like this up. Voices from nowhere, unaccountable and untraceable, issue commands from secret offices that everyone is expected to read and obey without question. Yet another example of the BBC News website acting as a propaganda repeater. Absolutely disgusting and transparent.

And Neu Labour cannot understand why they are about to be flushed down the toilet in the upcoming EU and local authority polls.

More on the ‘part of their normal duty of care’ below.

Institutions must also report concerns that a student could be involved in terrorism.

This is not the job of teachers.

In a debate at the conference, in Bournemouth, delegates argued that the rules would place a strain on the relationship between staff and students from outside the European Union.

‘Pernicious’

General secretary Sally Hunt said: “UCU members are educators not border guards.”

She said later: “Politically, UCU is absolutely opposed to this legislation and we know that many members have strong and principled moral objections as members of society and as professional educators.

At last, people are beginning to stand up and simply say ‘NO’. That is all it takes, believe it or not.

“One of the more pernicious effects of this new system will be to turn our members into an extra arm of the police force, placing monitoring and reporting responsibilities onto academic and support staff.”

Precisely. They are trying to turn everyone into a spy, eliminating the normal bonds of trust that should exist between human beings and delivering everyone into a horrible, inhuman state where trust is mediated by machines and a secret police state. And as it implies above, anyone from the EU will not be subject to this; that means in reality, profiling. This indefensible, immoral and thankfully, will not be done, because someone had the guts to stand up and say ‘NO’.

One of the resolutions tabled for discussion said the new system “makes educators into immigration snoopers which could damage UK education irreparably”.

Once the word gets out that people are being mistreated by the very institutions that they are PAYING to learn in, there will be an exodus of students to other centres. No one will trust the Universities in the UK; and why should they? If these academics did not stand up and do what they are doing, it would be stupid to come here and be mistreated when you can go to other countries and just get on with learning.

When they say that UK education could be damaged irreparably, they are talking about people not coming back here for generations. They are talking about becoming a pariah system that students avoid reflexively. They are talking about a stain that will be very hard to remove.

It deplored “this pandering to anti-immigration racism” and committed the union to “non-compliance with all such policing and surveillance duties”.

This is the key; non compliance. What is the state going to do in response?

• Close the universities?
• Deport the non EU students en masse?
• Arrest all the academics?

Imagine any of those three happening. Imagine the other, equally absurd things the state could try and do to coerce the academics into betraying their students. None of it will wash.

But a Home Office spokesman said: “Educational institutions have a duty of care to all their students and checking that they are attending and making progress in their studies is part of that responsibility.

“The records we expect education providers to keep are those which most will keep for their own purposes anyway.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8074515.stm

Now this is the most sickening part.

Is is possible that this anonymous person is so retarded that she cannot see that information that is PRIVATE and collected as a part of running a college is perfectly natural, and the sending of that information to the state is a gross violation?

There are two possibilities:

(1) Either these people think we are so stupid they can say something like this and get away with it

or

(2) These people are so stupid they can say something like this and believe it doesn’t matter.

Whatever the reason this has been proposed and put into law, it is clear that this spokesperson and the other people who are behind this are not ‘fit for purpose’. They are of the same school that believes everyone is guilty until proven innocent, that parents have no rights, that all children belong to the state, and all data belongs to the state. Except theirs of course, which is why they constantly speak anonymously.

Whatever happens next, all of this is going to end up being destroyed. The nanny state is finished. We will soon see the end of ‘legislation by grieving parent” and all the other vile garbage that has turned the UK into what it has very sadly become – a place where the lunatics are running the asylum:

Spotted today:

A female PCSO (Police Community Support Officer, or Pretend Police Officer) stopping a father (naturally, what do they know?) who was pushing his baby daughter along the road in a pushchair. She demanded to know why his baby looked so hot – I suspect it was due to the HOT WEATHER, but perhaps she’s still working on her investigative skills. The PCSO was so doubtful of this man’s ability to parent, she even checked the child’s pulse – without asking – and took a few notes. At this point the man declined to give his details and simply walked off, shaking his head.

Scary, huh?

I had two PCSO’s tell my daughter who was about 11 at the time that she shouldn’t eat the blackberries that she was picking, because they might be poisonous. I interjected and told them they were perfectly fine and popped one in my mouth (a blackberry..not the PCSO). They both nearly fainted. I then informed them that Sainsburys sell blackberries and they said, “Oh do they? but they must be safe because they come from the supermarket”. (They hadn’t even heard of blackberries!)

I then thought of showing them my trick of picking nettles with my bare hands, but thought they had suffered enough excitement for one day!

If nothing concrete happens to fix it in the very short term, people everywhere are going to fix it themselves. This is now absolutely inevitable. Reading any of the comments in the newspaper’s websites, you will see Jultra style invective forming the majority of responses to anything to do with government.

That is what we call ‘GAME OVER’; and there is no way to re-boot this particular game. The only way to go forward is to dismantle the hardware, and switch operating systems (to use a computer analogy). This is not switching from Windows 95 to Windows XP (actually, what they are proposing is to keep the same old hardware and switch from Windows XP to Windows VISTA!), no, this is switching from Windows XP to Ubuntu Linux. This is switching to stability, real security, real choice and real freedom.

This piece was forwarded to BLOGDIAL by a lurker. Its contents are simply shocking:

I raised the alarm about family 15 years ago. I still want answers

Eileen Fairweather

Every time I have seen Lord Laming, the Government's favourite child protection “expert”, wheeled out since Baby Peter's death I have gritted my teeth.

Never once has he admitted he knew the truth about this poor child's family.

Fifteen years ago, I warned Lord Laming in writing that a young relative of Baby Peter was central to a vicious London paedophile ring.

This followed one of the most disturbing and revealing inquiries ever mounted by the Evening Standard.

But Lord Laming — then chief inspector of social services — did nothing effective to rescue this terrified boy.

Since then, Lord Laming has presided over the destruction of tried and tested child protection systems, so more children than ever are at risk. He has also helped create today's surveillance society, which allows government apparatchiks and paedophiles alike to spy on innocent families.

In the early Nineties, Baby Peter's mother and a relative were under Islington council's care. Shockingly, all of its 12 children's homes then contained pimps, paedophiles and pornographers, who openly abused children. Decent staff who protested were threatened or sacked. In desperation, some bravely contacted this newspaper.

Baby Peter's relative, we were repeatedly told, was under particular pressure to introduce children to outside pimps. But the authorities thought it more important to protect politicians.

The then-council leader Margaret Hodge labelled the newspaper's meticulously-sourced investigation as “sensationalist gutter journalism”.

Laming, who later worked for Hodge, responded by letting Islington investigate itself. Inevitably, its inquiries were a whitewash.

So I and a Standard colleague met Lord Laming and revealed that management had “lost” incriminating files requested by police investigating three separate child sex rings. Islington's assistant director resigned a few days later “for personal reasons”.

But still no real inquiry ensued.

Hence the Standard's decision to compile a 112-page dossier of further evidence. I submitted it with real if naïve hope and Laming, to his credit, ordered a secret inquiry into Baby Peter's relative. It confirmed in August 1994 that Islington knew for two years that he was at the heart of grave concerns about pimps preying on children's homes. The council and local police had done nothing save call meetings about meetings.

A broader independent inquiry in 1995 demanded that 26 former Islington staff, given glowing references following serious allegations of rape, kidnap and pimping, be barred from social work. Still no paedophiles were raided or charged, and no children interviewed or rescued.

Social services is the lead agency in child protection inquiries, so Laming had the power to call for police action.

None followed. Thus Hodge was able to boast that no one was convicted as a result of the scandal, and no evidence was found of a ring. The ring dispersed but continued hurting children.

Three protected Islington children's home heads moved to Thailand's notorious Pattaya child sex resort. Thai police charged Nick Rabet there in 2006 with abusing 30 local children, as young as six.

The Islington cover-up had, Thai police estimated, allowed him to hurt hundreds more children. Everyone who failed the children of London rose spectacularly higher.

Sue Akers, the detective inspector then in charge of Islington's Child Protection Team, is now a Deputy Assistant Commissioner.

Hodge, infamously, became Britain's first children's minister.

Herbert Laming was awarded ermine and undertook the inquiry into Victoria Climbie's murder, whose 2003 recommendations allowed Hodge to treat all parents as potential abusers.

Her subsequent Every Child Matters (ECM) “reform” of social services abolished the Child Protection Register, and replaced it with the controversial ContactPoint database on all Britain's 11 million children.

The few children at grave risk are now almost invisible, while social workers drown under a tidal wave of paperwork about ordinary families. ECM also effectively removed police from investigating child abuse — Laming suggested in his Climbie report that the police only investigate actual crime, not a child's feared risk of harm.

The police responded by closing most child protection teams.

Baby Peter's mother was once a victim too, and became an abuser in turn, through the well-documented “cycle of abuse”.

So why did no one in power ever do anything effective to stop the evil ring which ultimately destroyed her and Baby Peter?

I asked Lord Laming recently but he would not comment.

Eileen Fairweather is a former Standard reporter involved in an award-winning investigation into Islington care homes

[…]

Evening Standard

This confirms many of the things we have been saying about ContactPoint:

• The people who organized it are dangerously incompetent.
• It will hurt children, and not help them.
• If you want to keep a register of children, you only list those at risk, and not every child.
• ContactPoint is a dream come true for paedophiles.
• ContactPoint will make ordinary people into suspects.

It is clear, in the light of this information, that ContactPoint should never have been developed, and that Lord Lamming, Margaret Hodge and everyone involved in this scandal should have been permanently barred from having anything to do with the welfare of children.

I wonder if this evidence, had it been presented during the consultations on ContactPoint, would have made a difference. I expect not. What is more clear than ever is that ContactPoint is flawed, not only in the technical sense, which is irremediable, but in its inception. The people who were behind its creation were scandal ridden molestation enablers. That people of that background should be able to commission and create a system like ContactPoint (and Every Child Matters) is a prime example of what is wrong with Britain. Monsters, literally, are in charge and enabling the worst sort of criminals to carry out their crimes.

If you were not scared by ContactPoint, this should be enough to utterly terrify you. If you are not scared by it, you are INSANE. The children listed in ContactPoint are going to be viewable by over ONE MILLION PEOPLE. It cannot ever be secured. Anyone using the system can take a screenshot from the database, and then send it anywhere they like. Once the data is out, it is out forever, and since there are over a million people using the system at once, this means that all it will take for the entire database to be copied is for every user of contact point to make 11 screenshots each (11 million children being divided by one million users). The shortest time this could happen in is less than a day. It will happen. Even if ‘only’ half of the children’s records are copied, or one 100th of them are copied, the crime is still the same. It is totally immoral, socially corrosive and evil to create a system like this; there is no excuse for it, and that it comes from the minds of monsters like Lord Lamming and Margaret Hodge is no surprise whatsoever.

Campaigners demand Labour stop entertaining preferred bidders

Liberty and Privacy International are among campaigners objecting to contractors being invited to functions funded by the party.

Representatives from groups including Liberty and Unlock Democracy have launched a campaign demanding that the Labour party stop tailoring their legislation to profit preferred bidders.

Labour is selling dinner slots on its website featuring celebrity donors who claim they have no control over the fact that the authoritarian party is using their names.

Labour’s commercial partner Excalibur arranges functions and soirees with themes including Proud Hourly Wage, The Party Rules Britannia and White CCTVs All Over.

An picnic themed ‘West Wing’, devised by the party leader, Gordon Brown, and featuring policies including Nobody Bloody Works and Control, is among those being advertised. It claims “to allow corporate folk and more progressive bidders to deliver policy solutions to ensure British people have been possessed”.

Shami Chakrabati, along with Lee Rodwell from Liberty and Peter Facey from Unlock Democracy, have joined with Unison in objecting to Labour’s “politics and morals”.

“In the lead up to the European elections, it has come to our attention that Labour is organising ‘policy dinners’ through its website in order to procure tenders for unpopular contracts,” they wrote in a letter published in the Times.

“Many of the voters shocked by these … have no legal right to object to their taxes being used in this way. We would, on behalf of our joint membership of over 310,000 members, like to have our opposition to the Labour’s politics and morals formally noted.”

Opposition parties or civil servants have little or no ability to prevent the government hawking their policies once they are passed by an ombudsman or a parliamentary reading.

Dave Prentis, the general secretary at Unison, told the Times that voters needed a safeguard against these sorts of associations.

“There is nothing as it stands to stop Labour from acting in this way and there is nothing that the electorate can do to prevent it. If a moral right came in you would then be able to test how far you could stretch it,” he said.

“Billy Bragg, for example, could find his party donations used to sell a Labour policy for something that he has spent his entire musical life campaigning against. We would like to think that there should be a framework in this country sufficient to prevent something like that happening.”

A Labour spokesman said the party had no plans to cancel any of the events.

Guardian

Nick Clegg chimes in on the Guardian with a well crafted piece demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of what the real problem is. I was going to entitle this post ‘Foxes call for chicken coop redesign’. But thought better of it.

Nick Clegg: Bar the gates. No summer holiday before the overhaul
Warm words and rhetoric are easy. We must seize the mood and enact a radical programme of reform within 100 days

Why the rush nick? The British Form of Government^®, whatever your opinion of it, took ONE THOUSAND YEARS to get to this state. Do you really think that you have not only the right, but the capability to redesign it in ONE HUNDRED DAYS. That is the very definition of conceit. You people are so full of FAIL, so terrible, so spineless, murderous, rudderless and worthless that you could not be trusted to design a new milk bottle, let alone a form of government that is ancient.

Furthermore, if everything is to be torn up, why should YOUR voice be louder than anyone else’s? Just who the hell do you think you are?

Finally the dam has broken, and everyone is talking about changing Britain’s political system. For decades reformers have been thwarted by Westminster inertia. But the MPs’ expenses scandal has overturned old certainties and made change possible.

As bad as it may seem this ‘crisis’ is not enough of a reason to destroy something that is 1000 years old, wether you agree with it or not, and certainly the insane people who sit there should not be the ones who ‘reimagine’ it.

This moment must be seized by all who want a different kind of politics. Warm words, rhetoric and consideration are not enough; indeed, they are a guarantee that little will happen. So let us bar the gates of Westminster and stop MPs leaving for their summer holidays until this crisis has been sorted out, and every nook and cranny of our political system has been reformed.

This is so ridiculous that I laughed out loud.

You want to reform Parliament, while all of the electorate in the country are away on THEIR holidays, sunning themselves in Dubai, while you make everything WORSE without anyone watching…..ROTFL!

Today I’m setting out a plan of action to get all the changes we need delivered in just 100 days

What’s the rush? The evil that has been emanating from that house has been going on for years; why the need to act quickly? If you want to do something quickly, why not remove all laws from the statute books that are the cause of everyones anger? The expenses scandal is merely the pin that has popped the boil. It is the final straw. How is it that you cannot see this?!

– making it possible for MPs to be sacked by constituents,

Irrelevant; if your MP sits and votes your rights away, and then you sack her, what does that do to the legislation she voted for? NOTHING. Nick Clegg and his party of FAIL are sour grape class warriors, interested in punishing everyone and not in the real things that matter

abolishing the House of Lords,

See what I mean? 70’s style class war that is the hallmark of the sour graper. No one cares that there is an unelected upper house; in fact, they have been useful in resisting the excesses of the lower house. This obsession with abolishing the lords is like journalists interviewing journalists about journalism. The only thing that matters in this, the real crisis, is the killing of the British people by the incredible burden of laws and the police state. A house of lords in a country where everyone’s rights are respected is completely tolerable; after all, someone has to organize the street sweepers. As long as that is all they are doing, who cares how they got there?

getting corrupt money out of politics and changing the electoral system to give everyone a voice.

Proportional representation; this will benefit only Nick Clegg’s party. It is a non issue when put against the core problem; power itself. A proportionally represented parliament that votes for illegal wars, ID Cards and ContactPoint is just as bad as one that is elected the old way.

People will say it isn’t possible – parliament can’t act that quickly.

‘Some people say‘? Actually, we say that it doesn’t matter wether or not it is possible. But you read that.

I say the innate conservatism that marks out our political establishment is part of the problem. Let’s stop all this self-congratulatory hype about the mother of parliaments and get on with improving it.

No one cares. Dismantle the police state and the 3000+ police state laws of Tony Bliar and everything else, using the old system, before you start tearing down parliament and replacing it with Parliament 2.0.

Momentum will ebb away unless we act quickly.

Its always best to act after careful thought and never in haste. This demonstrates that you are not fit to lead a donkey.

Delay would be a victory for those who want to confine change to the bare minimum – the two establishment parties who will talk up reform long enough for the storm to pass, then kick it into the long grass for good.

The whole thing is over…. that is what you DO NOT UNDERSTAND Mr FAIL!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/nick-clegg-a-new-politics

Who is the ‘We’ in this? In this case, it means the foxes who want to design a streamlined chicken coop with racing lines on the outside.

No thanks Nick Clegg… 100% FAIL.

Cameron has just delivered his speech in Milton Keynes, and the Daily Mail has an article on it.

Let’s see shall we?

An end to ‘top-down authoritarianism’

authoritarianism that is bottom up instead of top down is still authoritarianism. FAIL.

Education:
Take power out of councils’ hands and give it to parents
End state monopoly of state education
Any suitable organisation can set up a new school
Parents can send child to different school if unhappy
new extra payment for children from poorest families

And ‘enshrine the rights of Home Educators’ is missing from that list. As is enshrining the rights of parents. Also, the scrapping of ContactPoint is not anywhere mentioned here is it? How can you return power to parents if you COMPEL them to be listed on an Orwellian Database that is made to work against them, violating the sanctity of the family, privacy and everything else bad that ContactPoint does? FAIL.

Housing:
local community to decide size and shape of their area
new local housing trusts giving neighborhoods power to build houses they want
planning permission granted if agreement on local level

Once again, the local community, a collective, cannot have the power to say what you can and cannot do on your own land. If Britain is to be a free country, then what you do on your property is your business, as long as it does not interfere with anyone else’s life or property. FAIL.

Local government:
cut back on central regulation and targets
end central ring-fencing of local budgets
publication of spending over £25,000 online
local referendum on any excessive tax increases
keep proceeds on any activity that boost local economic growth
new general power of competence to act without government’s permission
directly elected mayors
policing under local democratic control

Local referendum on tax increases? So the collective can decide to steal more as long as the majority vote for it? FAIL.

“Policing under local democratic control”. Does this mean that if the local community wants smoking in pubs, speed limits on roads, an end to ‘drug’ prohibition etc etc, that they can have a police force that will only enforce the laws that the local community agrees on?!! WIN!

Europe and Justice
redistribute power from EU to Britain and judges to the people
referendum on Lisbon Treaty
law to require referendum on any further transfer of power to Brussels
negotiate return of powers and greater scrutiny of European legislation
British bill of rights to strengthen liberties
proper democratic accountability over creation of new rights.

British bill of rights to strengthen liberties WIN. Although how this line is worded should give everyone pause. Rights are absolute, not conditional. A bill of rights that lists conditional rights like the German Constitution is going to be complete FAIL. The right to privacy, the right to property, freedom to travel and all the other rights that are well understood and which have been enshrined in the constitutions of other countries should be in any bill of rights that Britain adopts. I fear that it is not likely that anyone in Britain today who is currently in a position to make it happen, has the spiritual and intellectual purity to write such a document. In any case, I mark it as ‘WIN’ because it is the right noise.

As for the rest of it, Britain should not be in the EU, so everything else on that list is in that block FAIL.

So, it looks like Cameron is full of FAIL. No surprise there.

The Daily Mail article title is:

Cameron promises fixed-term Parliaments under Tories as he unveils ‘manifesto’ to tackle ‘Orwellian state’

There is no mention in this article about anything to do with the Orwellian state; i.e. the NIR, ID Cards, ContactPoint and the insane number of networked CCTV cameras in the UK.

Like I said before:

Shifting the the responsibility for running the nanny state from the centre and distributing this vile power to the regions does not solve the actual problem, which is that people are tired of being interfered with by power itself.

[…]

http://irdial.com/blogdial/?p=1781

Can you think of anything worse than being under the thumb of non cosmopolitan people with the power of the Orwellian State to back them up? We know what it looks like, thanks to New Labour; witness the recent outrages of Councils using Anti Terrorism laws to spy on the people they are ‘serving’:

• Poole council spies on family over school claim
• March of the dustbin Stasi: Half of councils use anti-terror laws to watch people putting rubbish out on the wrong day
• Spy law ‘used in dog fouling war’
• Nine in ten of 10,000 spied on by councils using anti-terrorism powers are innocent
• Anti-terrorism laws used to spy on noisy children
• Council uses terror laws to spy on underage smokers
• Council uses terror law to spy on shirker in shower

And there you have it; just a smattering of the insanity we can expect to be amplified by the amount of power devolved to the local level.

Now take a look at this:

State recruits an army of snoopers with police-style powers

A growing army of private security guards and town hall snoopers with sweeping police-style powers is being quietly established, the Daily Mail can reveal.

Under a Home Office-run scheme, people such as park wardens, dog wardens, car park attendants and shopping centre guards receive the powers if they undergo training, and pay a small fee to their local police force.

Their powers include issuing £60 fines for truancy and dropping litter, and being able to demand a person’s name and address on the street.

Under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, the number of civilians wearing a special badge, and a uniform approved by the local chief constable, has rocketed by almost 30 per cent in a year and there are now 1,406.

Critics claim Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is quietly seeking to create a third-tier within the ‘policing family’, with even less training and accountability than the controversial Police Community Support Officers.

The civilians are known as Accredited Persons, but they have been nicknamed ‘Jacqui Smith’s Irregulars’. The only significant difference between them and PCSOs is that they do not have the power to detain a suspect. Instead, they have to summon police.

Councils and other public sector organisations must pay between £300 and £315 to be accredited to the scheme, and between £35 to £90 per employee.

[…]

Phil Booth, of the NO2ID privacy campaign, said: ‘This sharp increase in Jacqui Smith’s Irregulars makes you wonder what her policing ambitions are.’

[…]

Daily Mail

My emphasis.

Think about that; park wardens, dog wardens, car park attendants and shopping centre guards are going to be able to give you an on the spot fine for TRUANCY. How are they going to know wether or not you and your child are truant? Why, they will consult ContactPoint in real-time, phone the school your child is attending and ask if you have the school’s permission (in itself, utterly absurd) to be away from school. That is why they have given access to ContactPoint to so many people; in the context of this, it all makes sense.

This is what Cameron has utterly failed to address.

Unless the apparatus of the Orwellian State is removed in its entirety, the reins of authoritarianism will simply be handed over to other, even more brainless people.

The first group of people in the right place to stand up and say this will collect the light of the incandescent rage that is coming off of the British public, and that light will turn them into a shining beacon around which everyone on this island will rally.