Archive for the 'NIR' Category

Hypocritical and violent ‘information tsars’ attack Google

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Google ‘not interested’ in privacy, say information tsars

Google has repeatedly shown a disappointing disregard for safeguarding private information about its users, the privacy officials from 10 major countries have said.

Britain’s Information Commissioner Chris Graham and equivalent officials from Canada, France, Germany and Italy were among the signatories to a letter to the search giants chief executive, Eric Schmidt, which condemned the way the company has delivered both its Streetview mapping service and its Buzz product, which was conceived as a rival to social network Facebook.

The letter, organised by Canadas Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, calls on Google to lay out how it will meet concerns about its use of public data in the future, and says that it has violated the fundamental principle that individuals should be able to control the use of their personal information. The search giant has already acted to address a number of the points now raised in the letter, but said that it had no further statements to make on its privacy policies.

The launch of the Buzz network in February sparked an international wave of protests because it took information about email users most common correspondents and automatically built each individual a network of followers. This meant that links which people wished to keep private could immediately become public.

Google Streetview, which provides an eye-level picture of almost every street in dozens of cities around the world, continues to cause concern about the adequacy of the information [Google] provides before the images are captured, the commissioners said. The product has also been launched some countries without due consideration of privacy and data protection laws and cultural norms, they added.

In a statement Google said that it had quickly rectified the problems that caused Buzz users concern. We have discussed all these issues publicly many times before and have nothing to add to today’s letter, the search company said. Of course we do not get everything 100% right. We try very hard to be upfront about the data we collect, and how we use it, as well as to build meaningful controls into our products.

The commissioners, however, said that they remain extremely concerned about how a product with such significant privacy issues [as Buzz] was launched in the first place.


The hypocrisy of the state is a bottomless well full of the excrement of a thousand years of violence, theft, lies and bastardy. They remain extremely concerned about how a product with such significant privacy issues [as Buzz] was launched in the first place. What an extraordinary statement, especially coming from the people who issue mandatory Passports, ID Cards, forced enrolment in ContactPoint and all the other harmful things that these states have deployed, knowing full well in advance that they were harmful to the privacy of the people who would be forced into being violated by them.

Lets think about what Google DOES NOT DO, compared to what these states DO DO.

Google does not:

  • FORCE people into a National Identity Register, where your fingerprints are taken BY FORCE.
  • Operate a system of MANDATORY passports where if you want to exercise your right to travel, you need their permission in advance.
  • FORCE people to apply for and carry a driver’s license to drive their own cars
  • FORCE people to carry an ID Card when they leave their own houses
  • FORCE people to ‘register’ their children at birth
  • FORCE people’s children onto databases like ContactPoint
  • FORCE people to reveal their private banking transactions to facilitate theft
  • FORCE private companies to violate the privacy of their users
  • SPY on people’s telephone conversations
  • SPY on people’s emails
  • READ people’s snail mail to spy on them
  • FORCE people to be locked into their violations and predations with no opt out
  • FORCE people to _________ their own ________ so that they can __________

Google is a provider of VOLUNTARY SERVICES that exist on a PRIVATE NETWORK OF COMPUTERS that is the internets. In this respect, they are absolutely moral, clean and without blemish of any kind. You do not like their services? Go to Yahoo, Hotmail or the devil for all they care. Google will not hunt you down with guns and murder you for refusing their voluntary services, unlike the state.

All of these purely evil people, namely Jennifer Stoddart Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Alex Trk? Chairman, Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Liberts (France), Peter Schaar? Commissioner, Bundesbeauftragte fr den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit (Germany), Billy Hawkes ?Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland, Yoram Hacohen ?Head of the Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority, Francesco Pizzetti? Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy), Jacob Kohnstamm? Chairman, College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens (Netherlands)?Chairman Article 29 Working Party, Marie Shroff ?Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand, Artemi Rallo Lombarte? Director, Agencia Espaola de Proteccin de Datos (Spain), Christopher Graham? Information Commissioner and Chief Executive (United Kingdom)

Are ALL guilty of working for criminal and immoral organisations that routinely steal, murder and violate the property and privacy of hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis. There is no escaping this, and they have a huge amount of PURE GALL attacking Google in this way.

When these idiotic, violent, violating, computer illiterate agents of the state offer:

giving people simple procedures for deleting their accounts and honouring their requests in a timely way.

so that the state has none of the information they hold on citizens, THEN and ONLY THEN will they be in a position to say ANYTHING to Google. The state should not have a monopoly on privacy violation; this is what it has now, and that is unacceptable to any decent person with a properly formulated code of ethics.

While we are at it, we must make special mention of Germany and Canada, who outlaw speech that they find objectionable. Obviously (you read BLOGDIAL after all) you know that what anyone feels about a particular speaker is irrelevant. Freedom of speech is a non negotiable absolute. It is entirely illegitimate for the state to proscribe strings of words.

But I digress.

These people, these unproductive, unethical parasites, have a hell of a nerve writing a letter to a company that provides a useful and completely voluntary service to anyone who wants it.

People do not like being on streetview. This is understandable. If all the roads were private, then streetview would be impossible. The people who own the streets would have the right to exclude the streetview cars from travelling down their roads. Libertarians WIN again!

Of course, this would not stop people making drawings of what is on a street and publishing them; those would be just as useful as photographs and would not violate anyone’s privacy.

Thankfully, Google has some balls:

As we have written before, there are definitely questions to be asked over the privacy implications of StreetView and the so-called ‘joined-up’ online world Google is creating with phone, email. social networking, GPS mapping and, potentially, medical records all being held on the database of one large multinational company.

Well, it seems that Google took the accusations to heart and – in a wonderfully catty reaction – has today published a a tool that shows how often governments around the world have either asked it for data on users or asked that data be removed from Google search results.

This ‘Government requests tool’ (click here to view the fascinating table) reveals some very interesting results. As explained by tech site

Top of the list of user information requests is Brazil with 3,663 inquiries, reflecting the strength of Googles Orkut social networking system in that country. The US comes second with 3,580 requests and the UK third with 1,166, the highest in Europe by a considerable margin.

Brazil also tops the lists of information removal, with 291 requests. Germany comes second with 188 and India third with 142, edging out the US, which made 123 requests.

Congratulations should go out to Google for publishing this table and revealing the extent to which Governments around the world are prepared to lean on internet-based companies – and potentially control what we see on the web. Congratulations are also due to our Information Commissioner for recognising the privacy issues with StreetView etc.

It further proves that it is not just state databases we should be concerned about.


Actually, Big Brother Watch is wrong about the non state databases being something of concern; it is only the state’s mandatory access to private data that causes the problem, not the fact that company owned databases are used as a tool. If there were no state, there would be no threat from databases because it is the violence of the state that makes a database dangerous.

Google and more recently Talk Talk are demonstrating that they have some guts and are not willing to passively be the apparatus of the state.

At last, a ram amongst the sheep!

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Home Educators in the UK have a new tool to help them keep violent busybodies out of their lives.

It is called The Home Education Database, and all over the country, the violent aparatchicks in Local Authorities are mortified that they are going to be subjected to a class of tool that they themselves use to index and harass people.

Already, in the ‘Hall of Shame‘ we get a glimpse of what this will mean:

“Her name is Marion Solomon. She is the EHE officer for Caerphilly council Caerphilly council’s website explicitly states that they do not like the law- as there is little they can do if people ‘choose’ not to allow visits. I wont allow visits to my children because she is a member of “Inclusion serices” the department who also deal with SEN provision and they engaged in an antagonistic campaign which included threats of telling social services we were abusing the children in order to get me to drop a SENDIST tribunal.I did not- and we won.

However when we withdrew the two younger children from school we were ‘doorstepped’ by an officer sent by Marion Solomon, she insisted she be allowed entry, her boss said she had to come in and complete a form about the children. I asked her to show me the form and I would complete it/decide whether to allow it to be completed. She informed me that I would not be allowed sight of the form nor the information collected about the children. This is obviously a breach of the data protection act. There then folllowed a series of breaches, including correspondence routinely copied to the head of the primary school that the children had attended, who used to refer us to social services for spurious reasons and eventually was told by the social services to stop as they were not concerned about my children.

I also recieved a phone call from my GP demanding that I bring my daughter for a medical examination. She would not give me a medical reason for this but said she wished to discuss my daughters recent casualty admissions. I said I was more than willing to discuss these by phone and then when trying to discuss and obtain the reason for her enquiry she became evasive and started to question me about my family circumstances and included the words “can I ask why you are home educating when you have so much on your plate”. I can only assume that Marion Solomon referred the case to the GP. Social services had already stated they were not concerned and presumably they wanted the GP to check my child over for signs of abuse.

Caerphilly council also require two sets of visits be carried out, one by either Marion Solomon or one of her colleagues from the education welfare department and also one by ESIS who are their school inspectors and Inset providers. These people arrange 6 monthly visits to the home where the children are tested by their inspector and a report completed. It took repeated letters to both Marion Solomon and ESIS to get them to accept the evidence I wished to provide in writing.

From the start, the tone of their letters was aggressive and misleading in terms of the law. I was not offered any alternative to visits and had to refer to case law and Welsh Assembly guidance in repeated letters to both ESIS and Marion solomon reminding them of their responsibilities and powers before they finally conceded that there remit was education and that a report of provision would cover all their responsibilities and remit.”



Fred Mowbray – Surrey LA is a very dubious character. Some of my favourite things said by Fred are:

“The reason we need to see these (HE) children is because of the Fritzl case (Josef Fritzl) That could very easily happen to home educated children over here.” Say what?!

“Home educating one child when others are at school never works, in my experience” – And that would be what, Fred?

“In my experience, single parent families can’t home educate.” Bearing in mind that he’s been in the job for 3 years maximum and when he joined SCC he sparked an imposter scare as no one (including the call centre staff and main reception) had a clue who he was, his “experience” seems somewhat questionable.

He also takes along his slippers to home visits (ie your floors are too dirty for my socks) and lies effortlessly even when confronted cold hard evidence.

He doorsteps people on a regular basis and yet for all this, can’t understand why people don’t want him to visit?!

As a group we have tried on many different occasions to open lines of communication with Surrey EHE dept. At a meeting in 07 they made various promises as the line mgr at the time was very pro HE, however since then nothing has changed and the only reason we were “allowed” to see the draft policy was because someone FOI’d it. At one of the meetings we were told we weren’t allowed to see it until it had been passed by a committee despite the dept agreeing the year before to consult with local HE’er on it.

Although Surrey aren’t one of the worst LA’s out there, they are one of the most devious and deceitful.



How long do you think it will take before one of the LAs listed on this great tool hires a lawyer to take it down? No doubt the LA intruders and potential paedophiles will bristle with resentment at being put into a tool like this against their will. That is what it feels like to be violated in this way you scum, suck it up and enjoy it, and be thankful that it was not made private and secret with access only to Home Educators; after all, that is the way that ContactPoint works, everyone except the people who are catalogued on it have access. Absolutely disgusting!

If everyone contributes to this tool, there will not be a single person an LA can send out whose behaviour, tactics and demeanour will not have been well documented, rated and catalogued.

The responses of the submitters will be neatly collated so that contributors know what to do and what to expect.


Now all that is missing is an attack dog legal firm to put the fear of God into these vicious, ignorant and profoundly immoral people.

File under ‘don’t get mad, get even’.

Very VERY well done!

BBC liars at the Biometric trough again

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

The BBC has lied yet again about biometrics. Paul Murphy is a BBC propagandist first class; watch him in oily action:

The scheme does free young people from constant requests for proof of age

This is a LIE.

Every time you go into this vile off-license, you will be asked to EITHER show ID OR scan in. Putting your fingerprint in that database does not excuse you from any future request to identify yourself, it merely changes the way that you do it.

This reporter is either mentally retarded or is deliberately lying to make the violation inherent in this system more palatable to the sheeple that get their news from TV.

And did you see the ugly pageant of fat, disgusting, brainwashed pieces of flesh all saying that its a ‘good thing’?

This is the enemy that people who want to be free are up against; brain dead blubber bodies who swallow anything they are told and who are then willing and eager to contribute to violence against anyone that does not believe and act as they do.

its had an enthusiastic response from all the people who have joined

Indeed; what about the response from the people who have NOT joined?

Furthermore, there are ‘young people’ do not have concerns because SCUM LIKE YOU deliberately fail to provide them with the larger picture; you only ever tell them tall tales about convenience and compliance. You peddle propaganda, pure and simple.

Rob Parker should not need a license to sell alcohol, and there should be no age restrictions on who can and cannot buy it. It is no one’s business who he sells his property to PERIOD, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a brainwashed promoter of VIOLENCE.

but people watching say “we don’t want alcohol sold to underage (sic) they’ll actually welcome this; they will say its a positive move”

Some people say?

Now the presenter demonstrates powers of telepathy as well as prognostication.

‘WE’ don’t want? So you use VIOLENCE against people who are not forcing their wares on anyone, just because “WE” want? Who is this “WE” that these BBC subhuman trash monsters keep referring to? For the record, once again, there is no ‘ME’ in your ‘WE’:

These violent scum are the same ones that want to control what you eat, what sort of car you drive, what you can and cannot think, and how you heat your house. They are the same dangerous and repulsive animals that want to force you to send your children into their brainwashing schools so that they can end up fat, brain damaged and turned into cattle like the pitiful creatures in this video clip. They are the same people who have no problem with the state stealing on their behalf for their own benefit. Their way of thinking is the root cause of entire problem, and you can identify it by its smell.

but what is there to worry about? Its a voluntary scheme, nobody’s got to do it


This presenter, without a shadow of doubt, knows that HMG lost the data on millions of people, knows about how these systems are open to abuse now and in the future – he knows that is is presenting a fallacious ‘side to the argument’. We can see this because his questions are all the wrong ones and not the right ones.

He MUST know that this data could be subpoenaed by the police and then stored and abused by them. There is no way that they are not aware of all of this and how it can be used against you.

And yet they continue to lie and lie and lie again.

All we need now is a Climate Gate style release of secrete documents to totally blow away the NIR/ID Cards biometric net / security scam once and for all. As for the funded by theft BBC, their days are numbered, and every lie they tell presses on the accelerator of the engine of their demise.

I can’t wait to see it!

ContactPoint: the BLOGDIAL predictions begin to come true

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Over the years, BLOGDIAL has made many predictions detailing precisely what would happen if ContactPoint was rolled out. We gave detailed reasons, explanations and descriptions of how these bad things would happen, and now they are all coming to pass as we predicted.

ContactPoint database suffers ‘serious’ security breaches during trial phase

The controversial database containing personal details of all 11 million children in England has suffered at least four security breaches even before its nationwide launch.


Over the past year, staff at Englands 150 main councils have been going through their records for vulnerable children such as the offspring of high-profile parents or those fleeing abuse whose details should be shielded for their safety.

we said:
On the first day that ContactPoint goes online, and all the 330,000 tokens have been distributed, a minimum of 330,000 children will have their records accessed. If these are printed out, they have escaped the database and are in the wild. Unless they are going to supply 330,000 secure shredders to all the ContactPoint users, you can guarantee that these printouts will be lost, sold and misused.


At least 51,100 people have also demanded to have their personal information hidden from users of ContactPoint amid persistent fears that it is unsafe.

we said:
Rich still able to opt out
This proves that ContactPoint is not and cannot ever be secure, and that its users are not trustworthy and can never be trusted. The rich and famous will be able to opt out of ContactPoint. If ContactPoint were secure, there would be no need for this opt out option for the rich.

In November the Government declared that a pilot phase involving 20 councils and charities had been a success, and that the project will be taken up nationally.

we said:
This is one of the most absurd statements ever. Just when you thought that they couldnt get more stupid, we have the imbecile Kevin Brennan saying they need more time to CHANGE THE VERY NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE and RE-DEFINE THE RULES OF MATHEMATICS before they roll out ContactPoint.

The fact is, you computer illiterate JACKASS, no matter how long you delay it, not matter what you do to re-design it, data will always be copyable, and if you put together ContactPoint in the way it has been planned, it will still be copyable. Read how this is going to be done, in evidence already submitted to you. Even if you make it difficult for insiders with root level DB access, wholesale copying WILL take place on a page by page basis. Remember, there are going to be 300,000 people with authorized access; it will be impossible to monitor them all, like that PHDs submission says.

No amount of security reviews will be able to stop people from printing off ContactPoint pages. Deloitte knows this. The alterations you are talking about will do nothing to reduce the risk you are putting all the children of the UK in.

These are the FACTS.


But there have been at least three security breaches so far, in London, Staffordshire, Peterborough and Surrey, according to details obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

One serious breach involved two staff at Westminster City Council, where many politicians and public figures live, losing details of children that had been originally stored in an envelope.

we said:
And of course, piecemeal copying of ContactPoint is just as bad; with one million people granted access to it, printing off pages, saving screen grabs and just writing down details with a pencil and a piece of paper, these sorts of criminal activities could happen without a wholesale data breach.


An official report admitted February’s incident had been a “serious breach of the duty to maintain confidential data securely”.

“Officers involved have taken all possible steps to locate the data and clearly understand the seriousness of this incident,” the report said.

we said:
No sanction will put the data back in the database, or repair the harm done to a child after the fact.


and we said:
Firing the administrator, hanging drawing and quartering him and then feeding the remains to pigs will not put humpty dumpty together again. No penalty, not matter how severe can erase all the illegal copies taken from a database. That sort of magic is just that, magic and not part of the real world.


Peterborough Council refused to release, under FOI laws, details of its report into its “minor” security breach, claiming it did not think releasing information was in “the public interest”.

“The incident in question was a minor disciplinary incident that was dealt with swiftly,” a spokesman said.

“Changes were made to remove the possibility of this happening again and at no time was any information released into the public domain or used inappropriately.”

That is what they say, but they cannot prove it can they?

we said:
Imagine a disgruntled employee makes a copy of the ContactPoint database and then does not make it public but sells it secretly to a criminal gang. No one would ever know that the copy had been made. Out of the 11 million children, hundreds would be cherry picked for kidnapping, and no one would be able to connect these kidnappings to the covert release of ContactPoint. That criminal gang could operate for years off of the ContactPoint data without anyone knowing.

That is a far more horrible scenario is it not? Do you feel queasy?


Two of the councils that acted as trailblazers for the information-sharing project in 2005 were forced to investigate after staff breached guidelines on data use.

East Sussex County Council said: There was one incidence of inappropriate behaviour in the early stages of the project, with one practitioner sharing access information with a colleague who had not yet received access information.

Both accounts were suspended until the issue was dealt with through the [councils] usual disciplinary procedures.

We said:
Tokens shared over phone in the one minute window
Depending on how it is set up, people will be able to share the random number on the token over the phone. When the session expires, the person selling access can sell a new random number to the scumbag who wants to get access to the data. In this way, the ContactPoint user can keep her token, limit access to her black market data clients and still remain in the system on a long term basis.


Sheffield City Council said: There have only been two incidents that have required formal investigation both were identified by the internal auditing built into the system.

That means they have only detected two; it is impossible to know how many breaches there have been:

we said:
Just how are they going to know if the data was not sold on again? They cannot know this, and if the data is partitioned into small stripped parcels, whoever bought a stripped parcel will have plausible deniability. There are many data brokers out there who sell data aggregated from many sources. All they have to do is strip out all the data that makes the stolen database identifiable as ContactPoint data (the unique numbers and everything else, leaving just the names and addresses) and then they can add this data to their current databases and claim that what they have is simply what they were using previously. Lets say you choose to buy only the subset of ContactPoint where the children are exactly seven years old. You would be able to send a mailout to these families without raising too much suspicion.


The two incidents referred to above were considered to be ‘inappropriate use’ of the system by authorised users as per our user guidelines.

Tim Loughton, the shadow Children’s Minister, said: “These incidents are just the tip of the iceberg.

“Once there are 400,000 users of ContactPoint there be scope for colossal abuse of the system. ContactPoint is not and cannot be secure.

“The Government should not be taking chances with the contact details of 11 million children particularly given their appalling track record of keeping public data safe.”

He added: “Ed Balls needs to pull the plug on this dangerous project before it is too late.”

we said:
Gordon Brown has already admitted that they can never keep ContactPoint data safe because it is being run by human beings.

That means that he understands that he is a paedophile facilitator by knowingly setting up this database with foreknowledge that the data will escape and end in the abuse of children.


Meanwhile, almost 44,000 requests to have childrens records shielded making only their name, date of birth, gender and ID number visible on the system have been received in the past year to more than 130 councils that are using the systems, according to figures provided to this newspaper. In total, officials have shielded more than 51,100 records.

Government guidance states that there are only “limited circumstances” where shielding should be allowed where children or adults would otherwise be put at risk of significant harm.

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


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


The majority of councils said they had not completed the process, meaning that even more children could be shielded next year.

Critics say the effectiveness of the system is undermined if many children have their details hidden.

These shocking security breaches reveal just how unsafe this database is,” said Annette Brooke, the Liberal Democrat’s Children’s spokeswoman.

The initial pilots of ContactPoint raised serious security concerns, but the Government insisted on ploughing ahead with it.

This intrusive database must now be scrapped. Parents have every right to demand that their childrens personal details are not put at risk.

Where is the legal challenge to this outrageous scandal? The fail ridden LibDems can promise whatever they like; they will never be able to deliver anything to anyone. Only the Tories can destroy this database; it should be the first thing that they do when they take power.

we said:
ContactPoint: Online Catalogue for Rapists

“A RUTHLESS rapist found victims by getting a job as a care worker and trawling a councils database for vulnerable young girls.


Simeon Kellman, 43, used computer records to identify teenagers who had just come out of the foster care system.”

A Department for Children, Schools and Families spokeswoman said further training and guidance had been issued to prevent further security problems.

The biggest bunch of lying, predatory, anti-family, subhuman garbage says, in essence, that they can secure ContactPoint. By what magic can they do this? The fact of the matter is that they cannot.

we said:
This is the danger we have been talking about for almost a decade; once the data is out, it can never be put back.

No matter what they say, no matter what assurances they give, they will never be able to secure data in databases. Period.


“Security is of paramount importance for ContactPoint and a significant set of measures and controls are in place. The use of ContactPoint is monitored and audited at both national and local level.

Someone clever said:
32. An audit system does not prevent all improper access. The Police National Computer, for example, has a substantial audit resource and yet the Independent Police Complaints Commission comments:

Every year sees complaints alleging the unauthorised disclosure of information from the Police National Computer. Forces have reviewed their methods of preventing unlawful entry but there will always be a few officers willing to risk their careers by obtaining data improperly.[34]

“In the small number of instances where unusual activity has been detected or suspected, the local authorities involved immediately investigated and took the correct course of action.


“None of these incidents led to data in ContactPoint being compromised, none involved any data being printed or downloaded from ContactPoint, and there is no evidence that any of these instances indicated malicious intent.”

She added: “This demonstrates that the stringent security processes we have in place are effective.”


The Telegraph

That is a bald faced LIE.

In this very article an incident is cited which,

“involved two staff at Westminster City Council, where many politicians and public figures live, losing details of children that had been originally stored in an envelope“.

That means that the information was on ContactPoint, had been PRINTED OUT onto PAPER and then stored in an envelope. If this incident did not involve ContactPoint, then why is it mentioned at all? And once again, all the assurances in the world cannot guarantee us that this has not already happened somewhere else, unbeknownst to this lying harpy at the DCSF.

As for this computer illiterate piece of trash’s use of the word ‘download’:

Every schoolboy knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to create a database system accessed by browsers that can prevent the users of the system from copying the entries. The fact that ContactPoint holds minimal (more on that later) details makes it easier to copy entries, since they can all fit in a small space in the browser and can be copied with a single click of the mouse. And remember, we are talking about COPYING entries; to use the word download is disingenuous. The point about the dangers of this database is that the entries can be copied, will always be copyable and there is nothing that anyone can do to stop copying, short of not having a database at all. It is very important that right now, some journalist puts up a bounty for a photograph of a ContactPoint entry to demonstrate that anyone can make a copy of a ContactPoint entry, and that those copies can be transmitted to anyone anywhere, and the idea that the entries are not downloadable is purely farcical.


These mental retards, child traffickers and monsters keep trotting out the same lie day after day, year after year without batting an eyelid; this is the measure of how venal, repulsive, corrupt, dangerous, dastardly, soulless, inhuman and filthy they are.

Anyone at any Local Authority or anywhere else who operates an account on ContactPoint is guilty of a very serious breach of ethics. There are no two ways about it. They are participating in a project that uses children to generate money:

we said:
The children of Britain sold to a French company that operates in 30 countries.
ContactPoint: The price of children

Like the title of this post says, the predictions are starting to come true. For all we know, a complete copy of the ContactPoint database might already be in the wild, circulating for hundreds of thousands of pounds per flash drive. And yes, the entire ContactPoint database could easily fit on a single key fob sized flash drive.

If a wholesale dump of the database has not yet been done, there is still time to erase everything and dismantle the system. This should be undertaken by the Tories as an emergency of war time urgency, because once the data is out, it is out forever and the genie can never be put back in the bottle.

In the meantime, ContactPoint must be rendered useless. That means you should reject any contact, service or approach of any kind that involves data sourced by ContactPoint. If you are in contact with ‘the system’ and you can find out what your child’s unique ContactPoint number is, you could start by making sure that anything you touch that comes from the LA does not have this number on it. I’m sure you can come up with your own ideas.

Sadly, we cannot rely on the morality of the people who are working with ContactPoint, who would not give up their jobs to save the lives of children they are abusing by touching that immoral system. As for the ‘Charities’ that have access to ContactPoint, I would suggest that no one give money to any charity that does not explicitly denounce ContactPoint and refuse any offer of access to it.

One way or another, either through the Tories or the economic collapse, ContactPoint is going to be destroyed as a working system. What is in question is wether or not a wholesale dump of its contents is going to be released to the public before that happens.

Kirlian Photograph

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

Originally, passengers had to remove their jackets when passing through airport security. Then it was belts, and soon shoes had to come off too. But those who feared that losing one’s trousers was the next logical step will find scant comfort in the news that an x-ray machine that produces “naked” images of passengers will be introduced at a British international airport today.

As well as enabling staff to instantly spot any hidden weapons or explosives, the full-body scanner being trialled at Manchester airport will leave little to the imagination of airport security staff. It will reveal a clear outline of passengers genitalia, as well as any false limbs, breast enlargements or body piercings.


It makes you wonder what evil the people at Manchester airport are supposed to have done to deserve this trial in addition to the requirement for staff to get biometric ID cards.

But of course an unfounded supposition of guilt would be no excuse for rolling out this sort of scheme and you know this.

You also know that it is part of the ‘security theatre’ to inure people to more intrusion into their lives. This was said at the time of removing belts and shoes and now we see the attempted introduction of this technology (for at least the second time). This incrementally increasing intrusion cannot be disputed, however it can and should be resisted.

The Guardian fails in questioning this (are the existing detection methods effective or already too onerous?) or alerting the general reader.

Travellers can refuse to undergo the virtual strip at Terminal 2 and choose a traditional “pat down” search instead, according to the airport, which admits that some travellers may feel uncomfortable about using the new technology.

This of course makes the system unable to enhance security. Another parroting fail too.

The scan’s black and white image will be seen by one officer in a remote location before it is deleted, said Sarah Barrett, head of customer experience at the airport.

The image will be transmitted across a computer network and (at least temporarily) stored in some form memory. The procedure will create of images of a very personal nature that are not under the control of the passenger and will be viewed by someone unknown.

Anyone being scanned is being asked to consent to someone else creating and owning the following property; an image of themselves unclothed to be viewed by an unknown third party in unknown circumstances. You know yourself whether this acceptable.
The transmission and ‘remote access’ of the images may be compromised, at the least the remote viewer may be able to take screenshots. The article does not mention a lower age limit.

Is the ‘head of customer experience’ the best person to ask about such technology? Guardian mega-fail.

“Most of our customers do not like the traditional ‘pat down’ search, they find it too intrusive, but they still want to be kept safe. This scanner completely takes away the hassle of needing to undress. The images are not erotic or pornographic and they cannot be stored or captured in any way,” she said.

What hassle of needing to undress? Why is an increased level of search required? Is it purely to remind passengers they are being ‘kept safe’ because they are now used to pat down procedures?

Pornography being a subjective matter of course.

Storage? See above.

As passengers will not have to remove their coats, shoes or belts, the scanner will in theory speed up the check-in process. Frequent flyers will not be at risk from the low-level radiation, which is 20,000 times less powerful than a dental x-ray, Barrett said.

“Passengers can go through this machine 5,000 times a year each without worrying, it is super safe and the amount of radiation transmitted is tiny,” she said.

Hmm presumably this will be marketed to frequent flyers as a way to jump queues. Nothing like eager volunteers to make a trial run smoothly.

The scanners, made by the firm RapiScan Systems at a cost of 80,000 each, were trialled at Heathrow airport in 2004. The Department for Transport will decide whether to install them permanently at the end of the trial, which is expected to last for a year.

A nice little earner for the vendor. Now, this technology has been on trial since 2004 and not implemented, in the intervening period the actual ‘enhanced security’ at airports has not been compromised, so why exactly is it necessary to trial it again other than the vendor wants another bite at the cookie.

Why will the Department of Transport take the decision to install these devices rather than the Home Office? Is it because they know less about border control issues?

Electromagnetic waves are beamed on to passengers while they stand in a booth, and a virtual three-dimensional “naked” image is created from the reflected energy. Security officials in the US have pioneered the use of the scanners at New York and Los Angeles airports and they are gradually being introduced at other airports in the country.

What the US does is its own business and irrelevent to the argument.

You thought Frances Stonor Saunders was OTT?

Saturday, October 3rd, 2009

Now you see that she was spot on yet again:

Drinkers’ Licences: A radical new way to curb drinking excess?

By John Cowan

Down in Brighton for Labour Party Conference one thing that was noticeable was the large amounts of alcohol consumed over the weekend – and not just by the conference delegates.

Most people are responsible users and are able to have a few drinks and enjoy themselves without causing damage to either others or the local environment.

However, not all drinkers and users of other substances are able to handle their use of booze in such a responsible manner. At weekends, most A&E departments house those suffering from alcohol poisoning, assaults and drink related accidents. It takes much needed resources from the NHS which could be used for other purposes.

Prohibition of alcohol, like any other drug, does not work. It was tried in the 1920s in the US and resulted in making the likes of Al Capone rich men.

One possible solution could be an entitlement card that people would carry and swipe when every time they buy Alcohol or Tobacco and record their usage. Is that too radical? I don’t think so. For a long time the Government have controlled motorists with a system of licences where people enjoy the right and freedom to drive – as long as they conform to certain rules.

With the card, people who got into trouble for, say, minor crimes or drunk and disorderly conduct in public would receive a fixed penalty notice and 3 points on their entitlement card with points disappearing over time for in the same way works on driving licences.

More serious offences would result in endorsements on the entitlement card and the cardholder would not be able to purchase alcohol, tobacco or other drugs available for sale through the entitlement card scheme.

The main benefits of the policy would be reduction in the health care and crime costs associated with use of substances hopefully leading for more better functioning society.


Thanks to Old Holborn for enduring the stench of that website to bring us these priceless examples of complete, edge to edge insanity.

Of course, Frances Stonor Saunders, author of the anonymous email warning Britain about ID Cards gave this example of extreme abuse should the ID Card come into being:

Every place that sells alcohol or cigarettes, every post office, every pharmacy, and every Bank will have an NIR Card Terminal, (very much like the Chip and Pin Readers that are everywhere now) into which your card can be ‘swiped’ to check your identity. Each time this happens, a record is made at the NIR of the time and place that the Card was presented. This means for example, that there will be a government record of every time you withdraw more than 99 at your branch of NatWest, who now demand ID for these transactions. Every time you have to prove that you are over 18, your card will be swiped, and a record made at the NIR. Restaurants and off licenses will demand that your card is swiped so that each receipt shows that they sold alcohol to someone over 18, and that this was proved by the access to the NIR, indemnifying them from prosecution.


It would be a very simple matter to add another field to your NIR record that records the number of ‘points’ for this imaginary and diabolical scheme.

The comments say it all:

This is hilarious, I haven’t laughed so much in years. You are truly, madly, deeply stark-staring bonkers. Are you all taking hallucinogenic drugs to come up with this utter ordure?

Can’t really add to the comments against this already made, but clearly this is a case of devising policy whilst off your trolley on booze, with your mates down the pub.

You just don’t learn do you? It is precisely this type of sticking your noses in to people’s lives that make you so detested.

Unfortunately, this article has earned you a 3 point endorsement on your idiocy licence.

We have had to introduce this system to counter the damage done by the myopic, arrogant and just plain mental ideas that are foisted upon the public daily.

This article has made us all collectively dumber.


Strike the BYOB if you are John Cowan!!

Tories IN NIR/ID Cards ContactPoint OUT!

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

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.


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…

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.

Lie lie lie and lie again

Monday, September 14th, 2009

The BBQ is at it again, uncritically repeating the state’s lies:

Paedophile checks scheme defended

This is not a system of ‘Paedophile checks’ this is a system that will cause MILLIONS of INNOCENT people to be put in a database for no good reason. To call this a ‘Paedophile Checks Scheme’ is simply not factual.

The head of a government scheme to vet adults who work with children has hit out at criticism of the initiative.

Sir Roger Singleton, chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), said people need to “calm down” and consider the issue “rationally”.

It is Roger Singleton who should have considered this rationally in the first place. Any rational, logical person can see instantly that this ISA is a foolish and illogical proposal. The recent clutch of paedophiles caught in nurseries, all of them CRB checked, demonstrates amply that any system of vetting is a flawed concept. All of the people who have recently been caught were CRB checked; what Roger Singleton is suggesting, which is completely irrational, is that a further system of checks on top of the CRB will be able to do what the CRB cannot. It is illogical on its face. Anyone who says otherwise is irrational, and I put it to you that Roger Singleton is irrational and illogical for being a willing part in it.

The ISA has come under fire after it emerged parents who regularly give children lifts to sports or social clubs will have to undergo checks.

People who ignore the new regulations face fines of up to 5,000.

This has nothing to do with protecting children; it is a scheme whereby millions of people, should they succeed, will be forced to enter the NIR and ID Card scheme. That is its true purpose, since it is clear that the ISA cannot protect a single child.

The Home Office’s Vetting and Barring Scheme, which is designed to protect children from paedophiles, covers adults who are in regular contact with young people.

If this system was designed to protect children from paedophiles, then the design is a complete failure. Also, Roger Singleton needs to say PRECISELY HOW this system will protect children. Of course, he cannot say how because it CANNOT, just as CRB checks cannot protect anyone. CRB checks and ISA checks cannot predict the future behavior of anyone; that is why they will always fail to do what they say it should do. This is well known to both the Home Office and anyone with a single working brain cell. The true purpose of this, once again, is to act as midwife to the NIR and ID Card.

‘Public outcry’

Anyone taking part in activities involving “frequent” or “intensive” contact with children or vulnerable adults three times in a month, every month, or once overnight, must register with the ISA.

Even if the ISA could predict the behavior of people, these arbitrary rules mean that anyone having contact with children less than the requirements above will not have to be vetted. It is nonsense on stilts.

The first people who are going to run to be included in this database are people who have no criminal record of any kind and who are paedophiles. By registering with this sinister scheme, they will have the stamp of safety and certification by the state. They will then be given license to attack children at will, and since everyone has lost all common sense, they will be immediately trusted simply because the government says they are trustworthy. This is the same modus operandi that we can assume the paedophile nursery workers operate under; get CRB certified and then you can work with children unfettered. In the case of these nursery children, their victims could not even speak to say that something wrong was happening. This ISA and CRB / ‘the state knows all’ insanity is putting children at risk by creating a system whereby dangerous animals can be put with children and given trust that they have not earned.

All school governors, doctors, nurses, teachers, dentists and prison officers must also sign up.

OR they can all refuse en masse. Dentists have no need to sign up for this at all – they can simply refuse to treat children! All of the other people on that list, especially in education, already have to have CRB checks, so what is the purpose of this extra layer of false security for? It is to put them all in the NIR.

People must go through a series of checks and have their names put on a list of approved individuals. Those seeking employment would have to pay 64 for the checks – but the charge would be waived for volunteers.

Its not about the money STUPID.

Informal arrangements between parents will not be covered.

And of course, most abuse happens between people who know each other, not stranger abuse.

It is about ensuring that those people who have already been dismissed by their employers for inappropriate behaviour with children do not simply up sticks and move elsewhere
Sir Roger Singleton Independent Safeguarding Authority

This is a total lie. If someone has been dismissed for inappropriate behavior with children there should have been a prosecution, otherwise there would be no grounds for dismissal. If the person is convicted, then they are put in the criminal database and that is the end of their career when it comes to children.

If no prosecution happens, then the person is INNOCENT FULL STOP.

What this ISA does is rely on hearsay to destroy people’s reputations. It is a repugnant and highly immoral system, and the people behind it and who are promoting it share its worst aspects; they are REPUGNANT and HIGHLY IMMORAL.

Sir Roger, whose agency will run the vetting scheme, said: “We need to calm down and consider carefully and rationally what this scheme is and is not about.

It is with a completely calm and rational mind (and logical mind) that the criticisms to this have been forged. It is Roger Singleton who has reacted hysterically and irrationally to the statistically insignificant cases of abuse. To put EVERYONE in a database because of the actions of a few criminals is an irrational knee-jerk reaction, born out of hysteria and unwarranted fear.

“It is not about interfering with the sensible arrangements which parents make with each other to take their children to schools and clubs.

It is not that now, but it will be in the future, when the database is open to search by anyone over the internet for a small fee.

“It is not about subjecting a quarter of the population to intensive scrutiny of their personal lives and it is not about creating mistrust between adults and children or discouraging volunteering.”

This is a lie. The ISA will use hearsay and rumor to determine wether or not someone should be listed in their database. Even harsh words are enough to get you on their list of bad people:

The Safeguarding Authority are looking for events with ‘relevant conduct’ – awful jargon – which means they’re looking for reports of ‘abusive’ behaviour (and one can argue quite convincingly ‘politically incorrect’ behaviour), irrespective of whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. Been on the Jeremy Kyle show? Had an unfavourable story printed about you in the Metro? Someone written about you on the internet? Ever pissed off a social worker? Importantly, has anyone made any complaints about you to the police or the council, whether or not you went to trial?

In stage one, they’re not interested in whether or not the event happened. They simply check whether or not the reported behaviour meets the criteria they’re looking for.

So let’s see what this includes (even the list listed is listed as ‘non exhaustive’ by the way)

Any remark or comment by others that causes distress

Whoa. Any remark? Explain further, please:

Demeaning, disrespectful, humiliating, racist, sexist….

I think I see where they’re going with this…

… or sarcastic comments.

Whoa. Sarcasm? Really?

Excessive or unwanted familiarity, shouting, swearing, name-calling.

Okay, so I’ve gone through their list of ‘relevant conduct’ and picked out the bit we’re all guilty of at one time or another. We all have our bad days, our weak moments… but sarcasm? Being disrespectful? Shouting? If you haven’t, then congratulations. For the rest of us, we need to hope the Safeguarding Authority haven’t heard about our ‘abusive’ behavior.

Charlotte Gore

None of that has anything to do with ‘Paedophile Checks’ does it?

The people behind this are LYING when they say that it is not there to get into the details of your life; if they are taking records to the level of detail that is described above, it means that someone is putting on your ISA record the fact that you said any of the things above. It means that there is a file on you containing the words that you have uttered, wether in public or in private.

That counts, to any rational and sensible person, as intensive scrutiny of the personal lives of millions of people.

He added: “It is about ensuring that those people who have already been dismissed by their employers for inappropriate behaviour with children do not simply up sticks and move elsewhere in the country to continue their abuse.

Utter rubbish, as their own documents demonstrate. If someone has been dismissed because they are a paedophile, they should be prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated, not put on a database and left at large to continue to rape. Is that what this idiot is suggesting? Because that is the result of what he is saying.

“And it is about bringing an end to the need for repeated CRB checks which so many people have found irritating. ISA registration is a one-off process for a single fee.”

And this is the truly irrational part. Is Roger Singleton really saying that people who go into this ISA system will only have to be checked once? Is he REALLY THAT INSANE? Think about this scenario; your son joins a soccer club, and then joins a cricket club. The head of the soccer club will have to check you against the ISA database, and then the cricket club organizer will have to ALSO check you against the ISA database. How is the ISA in ANY WAY DIFFERENT in this respect? Will the ISA telepathically transmit the details of your good character to every organization in the country? Of course not; Roger Singleton is demonstrating the great facility to not tell the truth that New Labour are expert at. And once again, the BBC fails to pull him up on this whopper – how EXACTLY is the ISA going to end the need for repeated CRB checks? How is a SINGLE CHECK going to transfer information to different people who need to know if a person is not barred?



The scheme will run in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from next month, and a separate but aligned scheme is being set up in Scotland, to be introduced next year.

Separate but equal… ‘Scotland the brave’… HAHAHAHA!!!

But critics claim it is threatening civil liberties and may deter volunteers.

When you get this degree of public outcry, there is generally a good reason for it
Wes Cuell , NSPCC

Translation, “People are stupid but they are not THAT stupid”

The NSPCC’s children’s services director Wes Cuell told the Sunday Telegraph the move could stop people doing things that were “perfectly safe and normal”.

There is nothing normal about this, and the people who created it and who promote it. They are subhuman monsters, criminally minded paedophile enablers, fear-mongers, cretins and communists. They are The Cancer that is Killing Britain. Their every instinct is perverted, their solutions are bankrupt both morally and financially. They are against the family, against nature and against God. Finally the British people are waking up and saying NO; this far and NO FARTHER.

“The warning signs are now out there that this scheme will stop people doing things that are perfectly safe and normal: things that they shouldn’t be prevented from doing.

“I think we are getting a bit too close to crossing the line about what is acceptable in the court of public opinion.

That line was crossed long ago, with the idea of the NIR and the ID Card. This scheme is a direct offshoot of that corrupted and immoral thinking, and it is only now that they are trying to put it together that everyone is beginning to see what it really means.

“We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

Who is this ‘WE’ that these morons keep talking about?!

Mr Cuell stressed that while it was important to strengthen rules to protect children from potential sex offenders, overzealous interpretation of the regulations could threaten civil liberties.

The only thing that needs to be strengthened is the length of prison term given to those who commit and are convicted of these crimes. They should all be put away for life. Or even executed. Once the small number of them are all incarcerated, the problem will disappear.

Children’s authors, including Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo, have complained the requirement is “insulting” and say they will stop visiting schools.

Earlier this week children’s minister Delyth Morgan said safeguarding children was the government’s priority and it was about ensuring people in a position of trust who work with children are safe to do so.

She says alot of things, and once again, if it is about safeguarding children, she needs to say, in detail, how the ISA is going to do that. Of course she cannot do this, because the ISA cannot protect anyone, and neither can a CRB. These checks can only tell you what a person has been previously convicted of, and that does nothing to protect you if the criminal has never been caught.

The scheme was recommended by the Bichard report into the Soham murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman by college caretaker Ian Huntley.


And of course, the BBC fails to mention that Huntley was a known criminal who passed CRB checks. Because he passed the checks he was trusted immediately by the people who employed him. This is the fundamental error of the idea that a computer can bestow trustworthiness onto a human being.

Since roughly a third of sexual crimes are committed by people without a previous conviction, it is inevitable that some people with apparently excellent credentials but sinister intentions are going to get jobs working with children or vulnerable adults. And we will only know when it is too late.


And this, my friends is the truth.

Putting eleven million people into a database CANNOT protect children. Roger Singleton knows this, and so does Delyth ‘Mutterschwein’ Morgan. This is about getting the maximum number of people onto the NIR. This is about humiliating and conditioning the British public to accept machine mediated trust. This is about dehumanizing people, destroying the natural instincts of the British, substituting distrust and fear for every natural impulse that people normally have. This is about putting the state in the middle of every single thing that you do, no matter what it is or where it happens. This is about building a dossier on every person, where if you hold opinions that the state does not like, you are BARRED.

Kill it all with fire say I.


Mimi Majick points out the following, “What if a parent is accused of some politically incorrect infraction of the kind the ISA say they are taking into consideration. Does this then mean that they are not fit to be in charge of their own children?“. The number of people who are politically incorrect runs to the millions. Jonathan Ross for example, has said things that fall into the ‘Demeaning, disrespectful, humiliating’ category; are his children going to be put on the at risk database because of his sense of humor? What about all the people who hold political views that are not liked by the prejudiced apparatchiks at the ISA, for example, BNP members, who whilst no one likes them, have the absolute right to believe whatever they like.

Finally, because this ISA is being mislabeled as a ‘paedophile checklist’ anyone who finds themselves on it will be mislabeled as a paedophile when in fact someone just doesn’t like the things that they say or write.


Britain’s lost files

Sunday, September 6th, 2009

On the day of his high school graduation in 1979, James Norbury saw a bright future for himself. Barclays had just picked the 19-year-old from among hundreds at his school to start work as a prestigious “cadre” candidate – an employee, in the New Labour language of British institutions, set for a career as a professional. “My teacher told me that as a cadre at the bank, the wind cannot blow you over and the rain cannot hit you,” Mr Norbury recalls.

He was wrong. Now 50, Mr Norbury has been buffeted by the wind and rain for more than a decade. In 1995, he lost his job at HBBC , the world’s largest bank by market capitalisation, which had been spun off in 1984 from the central bank that had given him his first job.

The reason for this dramatic decline in fortunes is hidden in a manila folder in an NIR (National Identity Register) server somewhere in London: Mr Norbury’s NIR entry or “employee file”. While Britain has long since replaced its capitalist economy with a kind of raw communism and is fast descending from the rank of superpower, its relationship with its own citizens rushes towards a totalitarian future. The state keeps a secret dossier on every working citizen, which helps it retain its absolute power over the individual.

The fate that Mr Norbury and an estimated hundreds of thousands of others – although there are no reliable records on exactly how many – have suffered under this system serves as a reminder of the limits of London’s market reforms.

According to Mr Norbury, back in 1994 – following an argument with his supervisor at HBBC – crucial documentation proving his cadre status, higher than that of his “worker” colleagues, disappeared from his NIR file, making him unemployable for other institutions and stripping him of part of the pension benefits he had earned.

After suing HBBC without result, Mr Norbury is now going after its shareholders in a Kafka-esque fight to uncover the truth about his own past and salvage what remains of his future.

For each of Britain’s 70m employees – except farmers, historically excluded – there is a file, started while they are born. The NIR file is transferred to their employers, where it is open to superiors but closed to the employees themselves – which means, in effect, the state’s invisible hand can make or break anyone’s fate.

“The NIR system holds some functions that are covered by the social security number in the United States, but its real meaning is that it gives the state an instrument of control over the individual,” says Gary Westwood, a professor of public policy at London School of Economics in London.

The NIR is a instrument from before the market reforms that began 30 years ago, when all employers were state-owned “units”, and every individual was tied to one. The unit was in charge of every area of its employees’ lives – including cradle-to-grave care, political thinking and even marriages and births. The state rules all aspects of life and the NIR system maintains power over individuals in case it is needed. That also leaves the door open to abuse.

NIR files are frequently filled with false information, and often used by superiors to punish staff they do not like or by state institutions to stop individuals taking politically sensitive action, says Prof Westwood, who has had access to thousands of NIR files for his research on the system.

David Ashcroft, a lawyer from Birmingham, faced such abuse. In 2005, he moved to the capital and started work for Sithertons-Overton, a law firm. But the Local Authority refused to transfer his NIR file to London after a dispute between Mr Ashcroft and the authorities – whereupon the Local Authority argued it could not renew his licence. Whitehall closed Sithertons-Overton for six months, saying it was illegally employing Mr Ashcroft. Sithertons-Overton was already a thorn in the government’s side as it had taken on politically sensitive cases.

Mr Ashcroft turned to courts in both Birmingham and London, but neither solved his problem. In Birmingham, where he sued the local justice department, judges told him the file transfer was a problem with the London justice department and refused to become involved. In London, where he tried to drag both departments into court, his complaint was rejected. “All that is only possible because the NIR system exists,” complains Mr Ashcroft. “It makes us hostages, it restricts us as if we were slaves chained to the land.”

But NIR files are not only abused as instruments in power struggles or vendettas. They can also become a commercial good, highlighting the problems of a society where everything can be for sale. Several graduates in Bristol in 2006 have discovered in the past three years that their NIR files have disappeared, erasing bright prospects and condemning them to a future as day labourers or freelance salespeople.

The vanished files all belonged to students with exceptional grades, raising suspicions of identity theft. Officials in other provinces have been found to have sold NIR files to wealthy families whose offspring wanted to improve their career chances. The common feature in such cases is that the victim is usually the last to find out there is a problem and frequently fails to discover what happened.

For Mr Norbury, everything went fine for the first 15 years at Barclays. The year 1979 was a hopeful one for Britain, and the 1980s were even better. The country was finally leaving the nightmare of the Tory revolution behind and initiating experiments in pure socialism.

Mr Norbury rose rapidly through the ranks. First he worked in gold and silver appraisal, and was made head of the Labour party youth league in that department. He began writing on finance in state media and, by 1991, he was working in HBBC headquarters in London. In the course of this ascent, he says, he found himself in trouble with more than one supervisor over his ambitions. Following clashes with a boss whose authority he challenged, he says, he was told in 1994 seek a new employer. After two years of fighting to stay, he began writing for a state magazine. Five years in, he was fired from this position too.

His search for a new post took him to QinetiQ, a state-owned human defense company. This is where the skies fell down on him. “They told me that even the documentation of how I entered the bank in 1979 wasn’t there [in my NIR record],” says Mr Norbury. “I felt like my brain was imploding. Forget about the cadre status – without the proper documents, I was nothing, not even a worker. I would have no social security, my past 22-year working life would be erased.”

Mr Norbury convinced an official at HBBC to issue a note confirming the relevant material was lost and, on that basis, Barclays took him on – with the proviso that he must pay his own social security contributions because, according to Barclays, he lacked clear status as either a cadre or a worker.

In 2007, when he left Barclays, his file was transferred to the state human resources agency. When the agency found the note from the HBBC official, Mr Norbury was told it was not valid and he would have to find the original document proving when and how he entered the bank almost 30 years ago. He found a copy at the local archives office but it carried a stamp marking him as a “worker” – entitling him to lower social security benefits and making him ineligible for jobs he would want. Forms recording his cadre status, which he recalled filling in, were missing as well.

Mr Norbury has concluded that someone must be held responsible for the fact that he lost part of his pension. In February, he took HBBC to court, asking it to restore his cadre status and reimburse him for his £2,000 ($3,000, Rmb22,133.61, €2,300) in social security contributions. He lost, appealed and lost again. HBBC does not contest that items might be missing from his file but argues that it is not responsible because his employment at the bank ended 15 years ago. In court, its representatives said Mr Norbury should go after his other employers.

Next he petitioned all state departments that could possibly be responsible, all the way up to the state council’s legal department – to no avail. “Now all that’s left to do is go after HBBC’s shareholders,” he says. Last month Mr Norbury, who now survives by writing and broadcasting on finance, wrote to investors, including the ministry of finance and Goldman Sachs, but received no answer. The legal system, he believes, offers one more avenue: arbitration. His quest has made him a nervous wreck and this final step is unlikely to yield success.

Without full access to his own NIR file, he still cannot prove what exactly brought his life crashing down around him, let alone where and when – which shows why the system, the NIR, needs to be abolished, experts say. “The main problem is the secrecy,” says Prof Westwood. But he is not optimistic that Whitehall will allow more transparency any time soon. “There is just too much vested interest involved and there is the sense that the state must not cede this key instrument of control over its people.”

Financial Times

ID cards to be linked to police records for millions

Thursday, August 27th, 2009

A new press release from NO2ID. Once again, the precient Frances Stonor Saunders was right, and just recently, BLOGDIAL predicted that they would merge the databases and link them all off of the ID card ‘to save money’. Looks like it may happen NOW rather than later:

Millions of people working in education in health or as volunteers could come under pressure to be fingerprinted and obtain a national ID card, it was revealed today.

Research by online IT magazine The Register [1] has uncovered proposals to use ID cards and the national database behind them to support Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks which are due to be extended to many more categories of people.

From October this year people working in all sort of roles will be compelled to be registered with a new vetting body the Independent Safeguarding Authority, which may eventually keep tabs on around 11 million workers and volunteers at any one time. Enhanced CRB checks mean not just criminal records, but police intelligence files containing suspicions, opinions and unsubstantiated allegations, may be used for the purpose.[2]

To make this massive administrative task a manageable one, officials are aiming to use the Home Offices ID database, which is going ahead. ID records and police intelligence records would end up connected for millions. One of the most frightening predictions of campaigners against ID cards that the ID *scheme* will be an easy reference to all official files and a key to the most private information about every one of us could be coming true before a single ID card has been issued.

Phil Booth, National Coordinator of NO2ID [3] said: This is entirely consistent with the various forms of coercion strategy theyve been working on to create so-called volunteers for ID cards. Biometrics are part of the search for clean, unique identifiers. But its patently ridiculous given another part of the plan has people registering fingerprints in high street shops. Guy Herbert, General Secretary of NO2ID said:

Ministers are always quick to point out the ID database itself will not contain criminal records. The covert programme unearthed by The Register shows what a fatuous piece of misdirection that is. If the CRB gets its way, then for millions of people their ID card would be directly LINKED to a detailed police record and a scoring system designed to evaluate their suitability for various jobs.


Of course the problem with all of this is that the Tories have pledged to scrap the ID Card and Contact Point. Once they do that, the whole lynch pin of the totalitarian biometric net will fall to pieces.

Then when you add on top that millions of people are going to refuse to register for this ID Card and you can see that this whole shabby, sordid, misguided, evil, disgusting, unneeded, filthy, abominable and tawdry episode of British history is soon going to come to a messy, expensive and embarrassing end.

That Neu Liebour are pressing ahead with this, with almost the entire country against them is indicative of their total contempt for the people of Britain. Any laws they introduce from now on are even more illegitimate than the laws introduced under Bliar… as impossible as that may seem.

What a debacle!

Mass violations around the corner: Nine people charged with NIR Breach

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

Now we see what the response will be to future escapes of data should the NIR go online:

Nine sacked over National Identity Scheme breaches

Nine staff have been sacked from their local authority jobs for snooping on personal records of celebrities and personal acquaintances held on the core database of the government's National Identity Scheme.

They are among 34 council workers who illegally accessed the Customer Information System (CIS) database, which holds the biographical data of the population that will underpin the government's multi-billion-pound ID card programme.

List of security breaches in full >>

The disclosures, obtained by Computer Weekly using the Freedom of Information Act, will add to calls for the government to come clean over the security of the National Identity Scheme.

The CIS database, run by the Department for Work and Pensions, stores up to 9,800 items of information on 92 million people, including sensitive data, such as ethnicity, relationship history, whether someone is being investigated for fraud and whether they have special needs.

Freedom of information requests by Computer Weekly, have uncovered a string of breaches by council workers:

  • Cardiff and Glasgow councils sacked staff after they looked up celebrities' personal records
  • Tonbridge and Bromley councils sacked workers for looking up their friends
  • Brent sacked someone who looked at their girlfriend's details
  • A worker at Torfaen was sacked for looking at his own details

But this may just be the tip of the iceberg. Many of the breaches were discovered after sample checks, raising concerns that other breaches may gone undetected.

Over 200,000 government officials have access to the database, including staff at 480 local authorities, and numerous government departments, including the Department of Work and Pensions, HM Revenue & Customs, and the Courts Service. The Child Support Agency uses the CIS to trace missing parents,
Gus Hosein, a management systems academic with the London School of Economics, said that breaches were inevitable.

"Human nature and the propensity of governments to abuse privacy means that the only real safeguard is to not collect this information in the first place," he said. "Create a central store and you will get abuse".

A DWP spokesman said, "The small number of incidents shows that the CIS security system is working and is protected by several different audit and monitoring controls, which actively manage and report attempts at unauthorised or inappropriate access."

In other breaches discovered by Computer Weekly, Exeter sacked someone for being unable to justify an access to the database. Hertsmere and Penwith (now part of Cornwall) councils sacked people for looking at records they shouldn't, but couldn't say what the records were.

Carmarthenshire Council disciplined a person who illegally used the CIS to look at the records in July 2008 of someone "known personally" to them, but refused to give details. Solihull took disciplinary action after a CIS breach in February 2008.

Peter Sommer, visiting professor at the London School of Economics Information Systems Integrity Group, said, "Any system in which you have a large number of users can never be secure. Instead of giving generalised assurances, the government should say explicitly what level of security failures they consider to be acceptable. Politically, that is a very awkward thing to say."

The government plans to extend use of the CIS, beyond its present community of DWP government partners and customers. Its next phase of development, called CISx (CIS cross-government), will give access to departments such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

Computer Weekly

This is not just the 'tip of the iceberg'. It is the beginning of the mass violations.

Imagine if this sort of thing was being done by every worker in the public sector. If it was discovered, would they sack literally hundreds of thousands of people who would be effectively irreplaceable?

The fact of the matter is that they would not sack them, but would instead, discipline them. And of course, such disciplinary action would not put the data back in the database.

How do the people who ordered the sacking of these workers know that copies of the data were not made? For all they know, screen-grabs of the entries were made and passed around at the pub for fun.

This is the danger we have been talking about for almost a decade; once the data is out, it can never be put back.

No matter what they say, no matter what assurances they give, they will never be able to secure data in databases. Period.

And here we go again:

ContactPoint database could put 11 million children at risk
Every child in England could be at risk because of security failings in the Government’s controversial children’s database, experts have claimed.

ContactPoint is designed to help protect England’s 11 million children by giving officials a single register of their names, ages and addresses as well as details of their schools, parents and GPs.

But the database is riddled with security failings so serious that “even a child” could steal sensitive information from it, according to Overtis Systems, the data safety specialists.

The £224m system has already been delayed three times over security fears, but 800 pilot workers are currently using it and 390,000 teachers, social workers and other professionals will have access by the end of the year.

Ongoing faults mean the system is vulnerable to viruses and spyware, and users could have their sessions “hijacked” while away from their computers, Overtis Systems said.

The size of the database makes it difficult to monitor suspicious activity and it remains so easy to copy the data that a child would be capable of doing it, the data security specialists also claimed.

“Why the government has created this security headache in the first place, particularly when their track record on data handling raises serious questions, is something of a mystery,” said Richard Walters, Product Director at Overtis Systems.

He also called on the Government to drop the details of millions of children from the system, leaving only information about those who have received social care services, and said biometric finger-vein devices should be used to verify the identity of authorised users.

ContactPoint was proposed in the wake of Victoria Climbié’s murder in 2000 as a way to help social care professionals safeguard children, and has become a central plank of Labour’s policy.

But critics claim the system places children at greater risk, with the Conservatives promising to scrap it if they come to power.

Tim Loughton, the shadow children’s minister, said: “It’s becoming horribly clear that ContactPoint will be about as secure as a paper bag.

“We have to pull the plug on this expensive and dangerous project before it places millions of vulnerable children in harm’s way.”

A spokesman for the Department of Children, Schools and Families accused Overtis Systems of a “PR stunt” and dismissed their concerns.

“ContactPoint has numerous security controls in place which include procedural user controls and the effective management of those controls,” she said.



The only problem with this article is the title. ContactPoint WILL put 11 million children at risk, and that is a FACT.

In the end, should all of these databases they are proposing go live, some dunderhead will have a eureka moment and say, “Why don’t we put all of this data into one system? it is insane to have replication across so many different databases…think of the savings we could make! The NIR should be sole database holding absolutely everything….make it so!”.

The great exodus

Sunday, August 2nd, 2009

It seems like the great and the good are finding that Britain has lost all of its appeal:

Cory Doctorow has written an article that sums up what is wrong with this country, and his piece chimes with what I have been writing.

Although he is a Candian native, Cory’s family came from the Soviet Union: he asked his grandmother why she didn’t stay there.

I asked her why she didn’t stay, and she shook her head like I’d asked the stupidest possible question. “It was the Soviet Union”, she said. She waved her hand, groped for the answer. “Papers,” she said, finally. “We had to carry papers. The police could stop you at any time and make you turn over your papers.” The floodgates opened. They spied on you. They made you spy on each other. Your grandfather wouldn’t have been allowed to stay he was Polish, they wouldn’t let him stay with the family in Russia, he’d have to go back to Poland.

There are many people who are simply not going to put up with what is happening in the UK and are either planning to leave or have already left. Many more will fight till the bitter end. This is not just ‘foreigners’, but British citizens also.

Only a total fool, having full knowledge of recent history, would wait around to be ‘Kristallnacht’d’; and of course, if that does not happen, there are an infinite gradation of bad things that can happen beneath that, like the state saying you cannot remove ‘your’ money or your property when you leave. There was a time in the very recent past where the maximum you could take out of the UK was 100. Anyone that does not think this can happen again is insane, especially with the economic chaos that is about to unfold before our eyes. The US has already passed laws that are aimed at stopping americans from leaving – the ‘Hotel California’ laws – what makes anyone think that Britain will not follow them? They follow them everywhere else, so why not there?

Cory then moved to Britain, where he foundas Bella hasthat his status here is at the whim of the disgusting, petty, spiteful little cunts in government, responding to the BNP dog-whistle morons who populate this green and increasingly unpleasant land.

Britain is run by disgusting, petty, spiteful little cunts; it is not populated by disgusting, petty, spiteful little cunts. The same Britain that we all remember and loved is still there, as are most of the people who inhabited it; its just hidden under a layer of grime that needs to be jetwashed off.

Britain can be great again. This next election is clearly its last chance; the things that have been done since the Bliar regime are so contrary to everything that is right, if the Tories do not move to undo them, Britain will be lost. I know many people who are going to leave this beleaguered island if the Tories do not clean house. There are only so many chances that people are willing to give a place, and if it does not improve, it is pointless to stay and suffer the indignities of a police state when you can simply get on a train and LEAVE.

People from all over the world have given up on Britain. They do not come here for medical treatment anymore (for example) instead, they fly to Dubai, where they get a high standard of treatment, equivalent or better than what you get in Britain, without having to be treated like a criminal. In the end, when this country starts to wither, as it becomes culturally isolated, they will either have to change their ways or end up being just like a Soviet satellite state; grey, grim, paranoid, devoid of innovation on all fronts, purged of individuals and individuality, freedom-less and inert… like soot, the chemically spent remains of combustion.

A few years later, I was living with my partner, and had fathered a British daughter (when I mentioned this to a UK immigration official at Heathrow, he sneeringly called her “half a British citizen”). We were planning a giant family wedding in Toronto when the news came down: the Home Secretary had unilaterally, on 24 hours’ notice, changed the rules for highly skilled migrants to require a university degree. My immigration lawyers confirmed it: people who’d established residence in the UK for years and years, who’d built businesses and employed Britons here, who owned homes and given birth to British children, were being thrown out of the country, taking their tax-payments, jobs and families with them.

My partner and I scrambled. We got married. We applied for a spousal visa. A few weeks later, I presented myself in Croydon at the Home Office immigration centre to turn over my biometrics and have a visa glued into my Canadian passport. I got two years’ breathing room. My family could stay in Britain.

Then came last week’s announcement: effective immediately, spousal visa holders (and foreign students) would be issued mandatory, biometric radio-frequency ID papers that we will have to carry at all times. And I started to look over my shoulder.

You must do what you think is right of course.

We have spoken about this before; about changing the rules half way through the game:


Many people came to the UK because the rules were favorable. Now, after settling down, doing good work, bringing prosperity and creativity to the UK, the government wants to change the rules halfway through the game. That is not cricket.


The financial crowd understands this better than anyone, “… if the rules can change in this way, arbitrarily, unfairly, insanely, then its best to get out NOW before some other, even worse, more insane rules come down the pipeline, locking us in here”. That is why so many financiers have already left and have vowed never to return.

When someone asks you to ‘hand over your biometrics’, which actually means GETTING FINGERPRINTED LIKE A CRIMINAL, it means that a fundamental line has been crossed. With the NIR, once you hand over your fingerprints, YOU ARE IN THE SYSTEM. It doesn’t matter if they issue an ID Card or not, the mobile fingerprint scanners they are going to deploy mean that your fingerprints ARE THE ID CARD.

Its pointless to now, after having submitted to violation, leave the UK because they are discriminating against foreigners by compelling them to carry ID Cards. You are already in their system to the exact same degree that you would be had you been made to get an ID Card right now.

Biometric (violating) VISAS are vendor driven garbage. They do not improve border security or stop illegal immigration. There are better ways to issue VISAS that do not threaten the recipient.

Canadians can get six month entry when they come to the UK at any port. It is a mistake to get a VISA if you are a Canadian, IMHO. Everyone has their limits, their pain threshold…

Yes, that’s right. And why should immigrants have to do this? They are easy targets, of course. I am now caught up in a similar situation: I am in a relationshipand have been for some timeand the continuance of that relationship is at the whim of bureaucrats and filthy, disgusting, morally bankrupt politicians and the filthy, disgusting, morally bankrupt morons who elect them.

This is a problem that is similar to stock traders and market timing; when is it the optimum moment to exit the market and cash out? If you leave too early, you might miss out on some market movements. If you leave too late, you might not get out at all.

I have seen, at first hand, the second-rate status accorded to those who want to live and work here, and the callousness with which their situation is dealt with. I have seen the way in which this country deals with immigrants, and I dislike it intensely.

The horror stories from Lunar House are legend.

Every one of these measures was beta-tested on less-advantaged groups before it was rolled out to the general public.

It is, quite simply, a divide et impera tactic and it is one that I, as a positive libertarian who believes that we are all human, find morally repugnant.

Libertarians know all about this. There are a growing number of Libertarians in the west. Sales of seminal individualist works are skyrocketing. If enough people get the message, and the coming collapse will make this more likely, then it is possible that we might get the sort of countries that we desire. By the way, if you have not seen it, see this.

I have constantly pointed out that all of these measures tested on minority “undesirables” will be applied to us sooner or laterand probably sooner.

CCTVs used the be the exclusive territory of bank vaults and prisons. Network wiretapping and censorship began in schools, “to protect children”.

Now, we immigrants are to be the beta testers for Britain’s sleepwalk into the surveillance society. We will have to carry internal passports and the press will say, “If you don’t like it, you don’t have to live here it’s unseemly for a guest to complain about the terms of the hospitality.” But this beta test is not intended to stop with immigrants. Government freely admits that immigrants are only the first stage of a universal rollout of mandatory biometric RFID identity cards. What happens to us now will happen to you, next.

Even if it were not the case hat what happens to immigrants now will happen to the natives next (Kristallnacht) it is wrong, and you should not put up with it.

Everyone, when they study Germany, wonders, “what would I have done if I was living in Germany then?”. Now is your chance to find out. As we have seen, some people run to legitimize themselves with the state, getting into a marriage at a time other than their choosing, and them to ‘turn over their biometrics’ for the sake of immigration status. Others opt to disappear, or leave or game the system. The ones with nothing to lose burn their fingerprints off and go hard core. There are many different responses to threats.

Of course, everyone with half a brain cell knows that no one would desire to come to Britain as a ‘sponger’ if there was no welfare state. Libertarians abhor the welfare / warfare state because it is founded on stealing. A Libertarian society would be able to accommodate ‘foreigners’ since the state would not be stealing from anyone to pay for the ‘scroungers’. All resentment of immigration would virtually disappear; the only people harboring ill feeling being the racists who have ethnic identity issues.

ID Cards are going to be justified as a way to control the scroungers, and set the world to rights. They are an unintended consequence of the welfare state; something started with good intentions but which has ended up almost destroying Britain.

No, we aren’t seeing people wandering around with yellow stars on their clothingbut we are seeing them forced to get ID cards that we would never wish to carry ourselves. And what do we do?


The conclusion is simple: had the Nazis risen here, we would have not put up any more protestas our neighbours were taken to the ghettos and then to the death campsthan the Germans did. In fact, we would probably complain less.

As the repulsive general population continue to make shitty jokes about “not mentioning the war”, they are blind to the fact thathad it happened herethey would have been happy to hassle those Jews onto the cattle trucks.

Because, as our own pogrom happens, I hear not a fucking spark from the “great British public”. They are too busy devouring Coronation Street to care.

If this is true, it means that you will have to do what the Doctorowictz family did. Leave, and never come back. This is the choice that you face; you either stay and fight risking everything, or preserve yourself and your wealth and leave. If the British really have degenerated to the degree that you describe, then they are beyond saving. Many people who felt that they owed a debt to this great country, and who fought to help it keep some semblance of sanity, like Doctorow, who in writing that article is contributing to a place that has been his home and which gave him his wife and daughter, are going to have to decide when the time is right to get out before it is too late. If they decide to flee.

Nothing lasts forever. And that really is literally true. The Britain that we all loved may well be gone forever… and we were lucky to have tasted it at all. From what I can tell, there are many people who are still The Real British™ they think like the British used to think, they act like the British used to think, and, most encouragingly, some of them are young.

Very encouraging.

On the other hand, we have, The Cancer That Is Killing Britain, the physical embodiment of which can be seen in the shapes of the presenters and talking heads in this clip:

This is, essentially, a battle against Cancer, a biological struggle. Either the body will survive, or the cancer will kill it.

We are encouraged to spy on our neighbours and report their suspicious activity. We can be stopped and searched with no particularised suspicion, and during these searches, police officers can and do examine such things as the books we’re reading and the personal notes we’ve made.

This is all true, and all horrible.

What we have to do is look to history, recent history, to see how it can all end. It is important to say not only the truth about how things are bad, but what can happen to turn it all around.

East Germany is my favorite example:

If the British are anything like the Germans, the ID Card alone will not be enough to force a massive change in Britain. They might be made of stronger stuff… who knows? One thing is for sure; the ID Card, if it is not scrapped entirely, along with the NIR, is just the beginning; the aparatchicks have many new monstrosities planned that will be hinged on the NIR/ID Card. When they roll them out, and they begin to bite, THEN we will see a Poll Tax style revolt in the UK.

The question is, once again, are you going to wait around for everyone to wake up, are you going to cut your loses and get out, or what?

It might take seventy years for Britain and its people to grow a backbone; if you are over thirty, you are not going to see it, that is for sure, and even if you do, the only pleasure you will get is seeing the evil apparatus destroyed on TV while you are on your deathbead.

This country is dead as a free nationwhen an article about a fundamentally unimportant subject such as computer OSes can get more comments than anything about civil liberties, it is an indication of the intellectual paucity of our citizensyes, even the bien pensant of the blogosphere.

OSes are actually VERY important. A free OS keeps you and your information private. In a country where omnipresent surveillance of computers and communications is on the horizon, the free OS is the modern equivalent of an unlicensed photocopier in the Soviet Union. It is a computer under YOUR control doing YOUR bidding, that cannot be hacked into by default under secret arrangements with the manufacturers.

But I digress…

Cory has said thatif nothing changeshe will leave this shithole we call Britain. I don’t know if I can do the samewhere is there to go?but for the very first time, I am seriously considering it.

Even if there is ‘nowhere to go’, which is not the case, wherever you go, if it is the same as Britain police state wise, at least the weather will be better.

I am ashamed and afraid: I thought that I lived in one of the world’s great and tolerant civilisations: over the last few years, I have come to realise that is it simply a gilded cage.

There is nothing to be ashamed of. If you did not make it this way, you are not to blame. You actually did live in one of the world’s greatest and tolerant countries; in many ways, it still is. Britain has just lost its way, and it is not too late for it to change course and restore its former greatness. There are still enough people to make it happen, and believe it or not, you are one of them.

It is why this end to V For Vendetta, desirable though it may be, will never happen.

I wouldn’t be so sure.

There is a reason why that film has struck such a chord with everyone who watches it.

Nor will the people of Britain walk the streets in masks. Our “respresentative democracy” is just a sympton of the greater malaisethe shits in Parliament simply reflect the shits who elected them.

Libertarians know what representative democracies really are, so lets not go there.

For every one person who thinks, and evaluates and tries to be just, there are ten thousand ignorant bigotsrepulsive in their stupidity and prejudicewhose voice carries far more weight (ten thousand times the weight, in fact) than that of those who can think. It is why this country is such a fucking shitholebecause the filth who live in it vastly outnumber those who are decent.

Cough! cough!:


And this, I fear, is the problem. This genial idiot is the sort of person who will be the interface between you and the NIR. They will accept anything that is put in front of them; they have no idea of literally any concept of morality or the reality of the other. They are the people who when told that pressing a button someone will recieve an electric shock, press the button without any hesitation. They are without imagination, human drones, Eloi, animals, sub human, and the worst thing about them is that they have the vote, which means that they have control by proxy over how the world evolves. This is unnaceptable to anyone with even half a brain cell.



Look out for the yellow stars: the concentration camps will not be far behind. And as their friends and neighbours are carted off to the gulags, then the British people take to the streets.

But it will not be in protest, it will not be to condemnno, it will be to cheer.


You can thank your lucky stars that you will not be (t)here to see and hear it.

Social workers need to be reigned in

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Another article from the radical social worker has trickled down the internets. Here we go…

The reform of child protection by so-called ‘experts’ has failed disastrously. Very urgent action is required to re-assert the fundamentals of good practice and restore public confidence in the social work profession.

At the root of the problem is a government that has undermined child protection work by introducing the Common Assessment Framework which requires social workers to gather masses of information on children not at risk of harm. Social workers find it difficult to focus on those at greatest risk because they are overwhelmed with paperwork and computer-based work. It is obvious that the public wants child protection services to be improved – as shown by the outrage over child abuse scandals – and expects social workers to rescue children suffering appalling treatment at the hands of their parents. A stronger focus on child protection would not only be popular but would also make services more responsive to the local community.

Serious weaknesses in child protection have lead to shocking failures to spot abuse or dangers in high-risk cases. Reform is urgently needed to improve social work practice in the following areas:

Formal Investigations into Abuse and Neglect

Social workers have a legal duty to investigate where there are suspicions, or allegations, of abuse or neglect. This does not mean they carry out a criminal investigation but they do have a lead role in gathering evidence which may later be used in care proceedings. Unfortunately, an over-emphasis on early intervention and prevention has diverted attention away from this work.

Child abuse is a crime. If a crime has been committed, then the criminal process must be initiated. What is unacceptable is that there is a parallel legal system, where the normal standards of evidence are not applied to something that is a crime.

Social workers operate as a law unto themselves, as we have seen in the case of the man who had his children kidnapped because he believed they were at risk. If social workers are to be able to do their jobs properly, they need to follow the rules of evidence and be subject to the same controls and procedures as the police are. It is completely wrong that they can invade a home and remove children from their parents or initiate investigations on the basis of anonymous phone calls or rumors in ways that the police are not able to do.

It is well known that the competence with which the investigation is handled will crucially influence the effectiveness of subsequent work. Usually, the focus is on a single incident and some critics have complained that this is unfair and causes unnecessary stress on families. However, a speedy investigation of the incident may provide the oppportunity to obtain medical evidence of abuse which could be useful in legal proceedings.

Once again, if there is evidence of a crime, then a criminal case should be opened, full stop.

The social work investigation involves more than looking for physical injuries (important though this is) and gathering facts about the reported incident or concerns. Judgements also have to be made about the quality of family relationships, verbal and non-verbal communication from the child, and any other possible risk factors that might become apparent.

My emphasis. This is where the problem starts. It is not the proper role of government to say what is or is not ‘a quality family life’. No one but a parent can determine this, and no one has the right to come into your house and make a judgement on you and your family and how you conduct yourself in private. This is how, in the United States, children have been kidnapped from their families when social workers find piles of dirty plates in the sink, and then scream ‘HEALTH HAZARD’.

Therefore, it is essential that all authorities should have a centralised investigation team that is fully staffed and has good management back-up so that all child protection (section 47) referrals are thoroughly and promptly dealt with. Social workers in this team need to consider the dilemma of how to intervene both minimally and as early as possible and should not take crucial decisions without managerial involvement. They need different skills and style of working from social workers who provide family support. Ideally, initial investigations should be carried out by experienced workers working in pairs, as this ensures greater objectivity.

Social workers should only be engaged when a crime is committed. Anything else is not social work, but is instead, social engineering.

Some cases where child maltreatment is suspected may be dealt with by the district team if it is felt the initial assessment should be carried out over a longer period of time. However, there are advantages in a specialised team carrying out initial investigations because the focus of work is more likely to be kept firmly on the concerns reported and on gathering evidence. In some cases it is good practice to arrange a joint interview with the Police to avoid the need for the child to repeat their story twice.

If the police have been called, then it should be a police investigation into a crime. Social workers should not be able to make up law as they desire, based on their personal standards and prejudices.

It is anticipated that referrals will increase as new guidance to agencies on spotting early signs of abuse takes effect. Early identification of children suffering abuse and neglect should lead to better-informed decisions and more effective interventions. Children’s social work services have a lead role and carry greater responsibilities than other agencies and therefore a more pro-active approach may sometimes be necessary.

No. This will lead to more false positives, more harassment and an eventual curtailing of the powers of social workers. One day soon, these people will mess with the wrong family and find themselves at the receiving end of a multi million pound lawsuit that will be successful. The entire culture of social work will be fixed soon after that.

Every Child Matters

The Every Child Matters programme has been driven by a government more interested in social engineering and surveillence than good social work practice.

This doesn’t make any sense. Those who read BLOGDIAL know about the story of a fat child who was kidnapped from his parents because he was fat.

Someone went into that family’s house and made a judgement that a child was ‘too fat’, and then kidnapped that child, “for its own good”. This is social engineering; where a social worker, who is actually in this case acting as a social engineer, decides that a child does not fit in with ‘societal norms’, and should therefore be ‘adjusted’ so that it becomes ‘normal’.

Social workers with principles need to decide wether or not they are social engineers or not. They need to decide wether or not their role is to look after those children who have no one else to care for them, or wether they are the third parent to all families.

As for surveillance, social workers are colluding in the most Orwellian surveillance systems ever seen on this earth. More on that below.

It is over-ambitious, unrealistic and unworkable.

And it is IMMORAL. It is not the proper role of government to set the goals that families should strive for when it comes to their children.

The Government’s aim is for every child, whatever their background or their circumstances, to have the support they need to ‘be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution and achieve economic well-being’.

And this is total nonsense. Not everyone can be a rock star, or more appropriately for these days, the winner of Big Brother. This is the same flawed thinking that has resulted in examinations becoming less than worthless; everyone, no matter what their ability is, ‘deserves to pass an exam’ for the sake of inclusiveness. There have been many writers that have explained why this is complete madness, and I will not delve into it here. Suffice to say that Neu Liebour is totally insane in its social engineering agenda, and crazed and insatiable in its need to make everyone equal. It does not work, it cannot work, and it can and has wreaked havoc everywhere it has been applied.

It involves agencies sharing information and working together, to protect children from harm and help them achieve what they want in life.


When a child is identified as vulnerable professionals are to assess the needs of the child and share personal information about the family with other professionals.

What does ‘vulnerable’ mean? In the case of this child, it means merely being fat.

The computerised Integrated Children’s System for recording this information has been a bureaucratic nightmare for social workers resulting in masses of meaningless data. It should therefore be scrapped.

And yet, the only reason why it is full of a mass of meaningless data is because social workers put it there, without question, without analysis, without introspection or an application of any principles whatsoever.

ContactPoint will would have been just as bad, and the fake charities are all lining up to say how good it is. Social workers must reject, on principle, ContactPoint or anything like it that may be proposed in the future. They need to do this not only so they can be moral people, but so they can do the real work of being a social worker.

Problems have arisen because this programme has been driven by top-down policies that have distorted the social work role and produced an enormous amount of confusion throughout children’s services. It has given social workers a free rein to behave coercively because of unthinking assumptions about the protection of children.

No programme can cause a person to be immoral. The people who kidnapped that fat child acted immorally because they are immoral, as were the people who ambushed a father outside of his school. The new tools at the disposal of these wicked people are nothing more than an ‘Amazon for kidnappers’ where they can see, ‘other cases like this in your area’ and every other database driven way of connecting entries. Absolutely despicable.

Also, government is encouraging social workers to ‘nanny’ families where ‘concerns’ are identified in order to prevent children from becoming a problem for society.

There is nothing in this world that can make a social worker violate the rights of any person. They willingly and gladly do it, for wages. The role of a social worker, like the proper role of government, should be extremely limited. They should not be measuring the waists of children, monitoring how they are dressed, ‘running CAFs‘ on them or any of the completely insane, immoral, intrusive and ridiculous things that they are called upon to do.

It is not easy to differentiate between good social work practice and harassment by the ‘nanny state’ – but it is an important distinction.

On the contrary, it is EXTREMELY easy to differentiate between good social work practice and harassment. Lets see if we can come up with a short list on the fly:

  • Social workers calling on Home Educators because they have received an anonymous phone call that someone is Home Educating: HARASSMENT
  • Social workers kidnapping a child for being fat: HARASSMENT
  • Social workers ambushing a father for asking a head teacher if he can pick up his children inside the school because they might be at risk: HARASSMENT
  • Social workers judging a mother to bee ‘too stupid’ to look after her own child: HARASSMENT
  • Social workers kidnapping children because the kitchen sink is ‘dirty’: HARASSMENT
  • Social workers kidnapping children because the mother has quintuplets: HARASSMENT
  • Social workers kidnapping an infant because the mother has questions about breast-feeding: HARASSMENT
  • Social workers taking a child into care when its parents are killed in a car accident and there are no relatives: NOT HARASSMENT

See? Not that difficult. The principle here is that social workers are not parents, and when they act as if they are parents, then they are doing wrong. When they take children from their parents and no crime has been committed by the parent against he child, then this is doing wrong.

Good practice requires social workers to have a clear understanding of their statutory powers and to be as open and honest as possible about their concerns.

No. Social workers must have their duties outlined very clearly. They must not have ‘powers’ in the same way that the police have powers. They should be there to provide a service to the public only, and they should not have the power to control any intact family, i.e. a family where there is at least one living parent or close relative available to act as a parent.

An appropriate balance between care and control must be negotiated with the family.

This is absolutely and totally wrong. And once again, we hear another stock totalitarian phrase; you know the ones I mean, “You are who you say you are”, “we must strike a balance between…”, “justice must be seen to be done”, “paying their fair share” etc etc. Care and control are the remit of the family, and are not the business of the state. Social workers, when they are acting properly, are a temporary safety net in cases where there are no parents or relatives. They have no business telling people what to eat, how much they should eat, how children should be educated or disciplined or anything else. This is the fundamental philosophical failing of social workers; they believe they have the right to control other people, making those people into property – their property. That is wrong in every way that something can be wrong.

Let me help those who are having trouble understanding this. If we were talking about a slave who did not want to be a slave, the master’s slave manager would opine, “we must strike a balance between the needs of the slave and the needs of the household”. Not very palatable for the slave is it? But that is exactly what social workers are advocating; that people are property, and that they are the managers of that property on behalf of the property owner, THE STATE.

The role of the social worker is like that of a good parent.

NO it is not. And this is the fundamental failure of principle that is the core of the problem.

Very often the social worker provides support and encouragement to families struggling to cope but occasionally a more controlling approach is necessary, signalling that certain behaviour is unacceptable.

This is absolutely wrong. The state and its aparatchicks do not have the right to tell people what behavior is right and wrong. If someone is committing a crime, then the state comes into play. Anything else is up to the individual and the family, and the state has no say in it. This is the gray area that social workers inhabit, where they can, through the dirty lenses of their own prejudices, say what is and is not appropriate behavior. It is unacceptable, totalitarian, unprincipled and completely WRONG. Social workers are making up bespoke law when they determine that a child is too fat, or that a relationship in a family is ‘unacceptable’… unacceptable to WHO?

However, the social worker who tends to ‘nanny’ people, or harass them, is less respected and can appear weak and ineffectual. In the same way, parents who nag a child, or make threats that they do not carry out, teach the child not to respect parental authority.

This is pretty sickening stuff.

The social worker who tends to ‘nanny’ people should have no power to do that in the first place. They do not deserve respect because they have no principles and are nanny state aparatchicks. They deserve only contempt. It is not in any way ‘the same way’ when a parent ‘nags’ a child. First of all, who is to say what nagging is or is not, and secondly, a parent is not in any way equatable with a social worker. Social workers ARE NOT PARENTS. Thirdly, how can a child come to respect parental authority when social workers can trump parental decisions at any time? This is not only immoral thinking, it is illogical thinking.

Another insidious development is the increasing use of the rhetoric of social exclusion to imply that people who are different and who do not share the dominant values should be made to conform because they are ‘at risk’ or ‘socially excluded’.

But this is exactly what using the phrase ‘unacceptable behavior’ does. By saying, arbitrarily, that some behavior is unacceptable, there is a presumption in the mind of the social worker that their perception of reality and decency is ‘the norm’ and that their victims are ‘abnormal’ or ‘unacceptable’. This is exactly the same as saying that people who are different and who do not share the dominant values should be made to conform; only in the mind of the social worker, the dominant values are not ‘dominant values’ they are acceptable. This is double thinking; it is the same double thinking that makes social workers think that Home Educated children are likely to suffer ‘social exclusion’, when in fact nothing like that is true.

These people really need to take a step back and think about what their principles are and what their core ideas are. They seem to be holding contradictory thoughts; in the case of this person, who appears to be very thoughtful and sensitive, if she is the better kind of social worker, heaven help us; what are the BAD one’s thinking like?

Recent government proposals to introduce greater regulation of home education is a good example of its efforts to extend the ‘nanny state’. Social workers must take a stand against this authoritarian trend which puts the profession in a very bad light.

You see? A sensitive and thinking person! But sadly, some of the principles she outlines above, if applied to home educators (social workers nannying people, the rhetoric of social exclusion, ‘the role of social workers is like that of a parent’, ‘a controlling approach is needed’, ‘certain behavior is unacceptable’, ‘An appropriate balance between care and control must be negotiated with the family’, It is hard to differentiate between help and harassment, etc etc) would put prejudiced and ignorant social workers at odds with Home Educators. You cannot have it both ways; either social workers are there to set the norms and if Home Education is not the norm according to a social worker then control is warranted OR social workers are not parents and should not be nannying families and should, quite rightly, not be interfering with or investigating Home Educators. Which one is it?

Back to Basics

Grandiose ideas about ‘safeguarding children’ through all-embracing professional intervention need to be ditched and replaced with more realistic thinking.

They need to be ditched, and then real thinking needs to be done, not just realistic thinking. The principles of social work need to be outlined and their special powers (that even the police do not have) removed entirely. Their role must be reduced to caring for the truly needy only (even so, what ‘needy’ means needs to be carefully defined), so that all social engineering is removed from their jobs. That means no more kidnapping fat children, ambushing fathers who want to collect their children inside the school gates and no more abuses period. The safeguarding of children is the duty of parents, not social workers.

Social work urgently needs to break free of government control.

No. Social work needs to be strictly defined by government and stripped of all its power. Social work free of control means an unlimited license to nanny, harass, kidnap and abuse.

Child protection social workers should be allowed to concentrate on the core task of identifying parenting which definitely puts a child at risk, using their legal powers correctly and working to protect and support children.

No. Social workers are not parents; it is not their role to ‘support children’. They should be there to help when the family disappears from a child’s life and there are no living relatives to pick up the slack. It is not their role to interfere in the lives of people, to surveil them with databases (as the phrase ‘identifying’ implies) and to impose their prejudices on perfectly ordinary and free people.

Too many children are being brought into the child protection system and are stretching social work resources to breaking point.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot on the one hand, desire to act as a parent to all the children in a country ‘supporting’ them, and then complain that you have too much work. Stop kidnapping fat children and interfering with people who have a different world view to you and then your caseloads will start to look more doable.

Increasingly, social work is collapsing under the weight of unrealistic expectations and is unable to do the very thing it was set up to do.

Those expectations are not only unrealistic, but more importantly they are immoral. You do not have the right to tell people how to live. The sooner you accept this, the easier your job will become and the more meaningful and rewarding your work will be.

To summarise, the organisation of child protection work needs to undergo radical change. Good social work practice will only happen if there is a clear focus on child protection.

Wrong. Child protection is a fad. The vast majority of children in the UK are perfectly safe. In fact, they are so safe, that social workers have to create bogus pretexts to interfere with their development, like obesity.

Social workers need to be told what their role is; they cannot be left to determine what it is themselves. They are not a law unto themselves, they are not a separate branch of government, though they seem to act like it at times. They need to be reigned in severely and have their role written down in a form that explains and delineates what they can do; everything not on that list they should be forbidden from doing.

Also, the complexity of long-term work child protection work needs to be better understood so that appropriate management support and training can be provided.


Finally, local authorities should have a career structure for social workers that encourages them to stay on the front-line and a style of management which promotes stable, committed and supportive teams.


And there you have it. “Give us more money”.

Once again, this is one of the ‘GOOD’ ones!!!!

The Cancer that is killing B (Britain)

Friday, July 17th, 2009

Today, we read three blog posts that describe perfectly 'the problem with Britain'. There are people in this country who can only be described as a disease; they are the cancer that is killing Britain.

The first example of this human cancer is the utterly loathsome Beatrix Campbell:

Vetting: it should happen to an author

Philip Pullman and fellow writers are up in arms about a new child protection scheme for school visitors. What's their problem?

Philip Pullman is fizzing… dark antibodies are fighting his freedom of speech. He is one of a clutch of esteemed children's writers and illustrators protesting against a vetting scheme that would extend to writers what already applies to anyone working with children in schools: a vetting scheme.

They protest that they're never "alone with children", so why should they be vetted. They've been going into schools for years, they say, so why now? Pullman, in particular, feels that vetting is "demeaning and insulting", another index of "corrosive and poisonous" state intervention.

What on earth is their problem?

Any writer-in-residence working with young people in schools, prisons and care facilities is vetted – I have been, several times – whether or not they work with crowds, groups or individuals.

We should be glad to do it if it confirms childrens' rights to safe access to adults. The gesture – so slight, after all – should signal to young people that their school thinks their bodily integrity matters; and that it matters more than a minor interruption of adults' privacy.

This institutional promise should exact no less commitment from us than our routine surrenders to scrutiny in the name of public safety. Why are these writers threatening to withdraw from schools and children when, presumably, they submit to the plethora of surveillance systems that are proliferating across public space?

Whether we agree with passports, identity cards, frontiers or road safety, we generally assent to their impact on our individuals freedoms. Liberty, the civil liberties and human rights guardian, was taken by surprise when it conducted a survey of public attitudes to CCTV in the streets – most people approved.

We give ourselves up to body checks when we travel by Eurostar and when we take a plane. Do these same authors refuse to travel other than by their own bicycles or cars on the grounds that such searches of our property and our persons imply a "demeaning" suspicion that we're all terrorists?

Custom officers now check your eyes when you cross our national frontiers. Do the writers boycott foreign travel?


This caricature of a human woman… oh dear me.

We have been over this for almost a decade, so there is no need to refute her ignorant garbage line for line. If you read BLOGDIAL, you will be as ready to puke over your keyboard as any person with a single working brain cell is.

I will say this however… this monsters argument is completely destroyed by recent examples in the news about nursery perverts who were ALL CRB CHECKED. That jackass, Beatrix Campbell, couldn't think her way our of a wet paper bag.

Now for the second example. It is from a blogger whose piece was dropped in by a lurker:

False Positives and the Database State
There is, in the UK (as elsewhere) a prevailing climate of paranoia about adults interacting with children.

In an attempt to be seen to Do Something, in the wake of a particularly gruesome multiple murder, the British government established a new agency, the Independent Safeguarding Authority, "to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults." Working with the Criminal Records Bureau, the ISA "will assess every person who wants to work or volunteer with vulnerable people. Potential employees and volunteers will need to apply to register with the ISA." For a fee of £64 you apply to the ISA for a background check. They then certify that you're not an evil paedophile and a threat to society, and issue you with a piece of paper that says you're allowed to interact with children in a specific role. Want multiple roles — driving kids to school in your taxi, and teaching them karate in the evening? — get multiple certificates.

Authors need to get a certificate before they can visit schools to deliver readings. MPs need a background check, it seems, before they can visit schools. (Usually the employer is responsible for getting the certificate; hilarity ensues when it transpires that MPs aren't actually employed by Parliament …)

As you can imagine, the authors are upset. As Philip Pullman puts it, "It seems to be fuelled by the same combination of prurience, sexual fear and cold political calculation," the author of the bestselling His Dark Materials trilogy said today. "When you go into a school as an author or an illustrator you talk to a class at a time or else to the whole school. How on earth — how on earth — how in the world is anybody going to rape or assault a child in those circumstances? It's preposterous."

He's completely right, in my opinion. But the situation is worse than he imagines. I'm not going to apply for a CRB check — ever. And not because I'm a criminal. (My sum total of negative interaction with the law over the past 44 years has amounted to two speeding tickets, most recently six years ago.)

Nor am I outraged at the privacy thing. (I'm used to the idea that we live in a panopticon.)

What I'm worried about is the problem of false positives.

Even the simplest of databases have been found to contain error rates of 10%. (The HMRC database in this study contains merely first, second and surname, title, sex, data of birth, address and National Insurance number — nevertheless 10% of the records contain errors.) Other agencies are even more prone to mistakes. For example: my wife recently discovered that our GP's medical records showed her as having been born outside the UK rather than in an NHS hospital in Manchester. We don't know why that error's in the system, and we've got the birth certificate and witnesses to prove that it is an error, but imagine the fun that might ensue if the control freaks in Whitehall decided to enforce record sharing between the NHS and the Immigration Agency …! (Hopefully they're not that stupid, but who can tell?)

The point is, if 10% of government database records contain an error, than the probability of a sweep of databases coming up with an error rises as you consult more sources. And there are a whole bundle of wonderful ways for errors to show up. If your name and date of birth are the same as someone with heavy criminal record, a CRB check could label you as a bad guy. If your social security number is one digit transposition away from $BAD_GUY, see above. If the previous owner of your house was a child abuser, see above. If your street address is one letter/digit away from a street address occupied by a criminal and some bored clerk mis-typed it, you can end up being conflated with somebody else. And the more sources the CRB checks, the higher the probability of a false positive result — that is, of them obtaining a positive result (subject is a criminal) when in fact the subject is a negative.


Did you catch that?

“Nor am I outraged at the privacy thing. (I'm used to the idea that we live in a panopticon.)”

Finally, for the examples, (and this one can be compared to a melanoma spot on an otherwise healthy body, whereas Beatrix 'The Beast' Campbell is final stage Leukemia and Charlie is a testicular lump) here is a final specimen:


This guy is only a melanoma spot (treatable with simple excision) because he is calling himself a Libertarian and seems to have a little sense, even though he has not worked it all out yet… still he has been touched by THE CANCER THAT IS KILLING BRITAIN.

My friends, this is the cancer, this is the creeping disease, the battery chicken, inured to slavery attitude that is literally KILLING Britain.

These diseased people and their 'thinking' are the problem.

It would be better for us all if they did not exist; in fact, they are far more dangerous than the statistically insignificant number of perverts out there or the even more rare serial killer.

The harm that these cancer spreaders do affects millions of people; and they spread the disease merely by existing. They literally can kill an entire country and way of life by just being. They are the physical embodiment of, and the vector of and the multiplier of cancer, of the debilitating, destroying and horrible disease that before our very eyes, has turned Britain into a dystopia.

Thankfully, there is a fool proof form of radiotherapy. Did I say, 'fool proof'? I'm sorry, it's not fool proof… there are too many fools following too many rules… and they are The Cancer That is Killing Britain®

No, this radiotherapy is fail proof.

Philip Johnston gets a whiff of Java

Monday, July 13th, 2009

Philip Johnson writes in the Telegraph about ‘the database state’ and how evil it is. It feels like he has had a whiff of coffee and is waking up. What he REALLY needs are some smelling salts:

Beware Labour’s quest for a database state

There’s no reason why the Government should know so much about us, argues Philip Johnston.

By Philip Johnston

Here is a good idea. Instead of handing over personal information to the state, why don’t we keep it and control it ourselves?

Indeed. That is a really good idea. I have another one. Why not, instead of handing over all your money to the state, why dont you keep it and control it yourself Philip? If you do that, then they would not have the means to build the database state that you are so rightly frightened of.

Simple, eh? For a start, it means the state would not be able to get its hands on these data, which most of us would consider a good thing, not least when they get lost. It would also be significantly cheaper than the industrial quarrying of private information to be held on vast central government databases, which is estimated to cost a mind-boggling 16.5 billion a year, a lot of it spent on repairing IT projects that have failed to work properly.

Exactly. And the cost of keeping this data would be spread to each and every person. They would keep what they want, store it how they want (on hardware or on paper or in the ‘white meat’ between their ears), and share it with whom they like on whatever terms they care to agree with.

Anyone who has the temerity to suggest that the database society may have a flaw or two is often accused of neo-Luddism, usually by those who have a vested interest in its expansion. No one is suggesting that we should not exploit the extraordinary benefits of storing data.

I have to say, in the eight years of BLOGDIAL I have NEVER heard people who are against ID Cards or invasive databases being called ‘luddites’. And once again, who is the ‘we’ in this section? Who is it that decides what is or is not a benefit? This is central to the problem; what is the proper role of government.

But there is a similarity here with those who raged against the machines in early 19th-century Yorkshire a feeling of powerlessness, an inability to control something that can have an enormous influence on our lives.

No, its is not that at all.

The luddites did not understand how business and innovation work. They (and you) would have been well advised to read ‘That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen‘.

This is one of the great subjects of our times because it is the same one that has exercised the minds of political philosophers since Plato: to what extent should the state be able to control the individual?

Ummm, you mean should there be a state at all? Its like asking, “should people be robbed every other day of the week starting Mondays or Tuesdays?”

Doesn’t work does it?

In this age-old battle, one thing is clear information is power, and the state is now in a better position than at any time in history to possess it and access it easily. It does so, it says, for our own good.

Information is not power. Cooperation transferees the illusion of power. Information by itself is not enough to compel obedience. The fall of East Germany and the Soviet Unions are proof of that. Those were two societies with deeply invasive and all pervasive surveillance systems that could not withstand the pressures that caused them to collapse.

Under Labour, a programme, known as Transformational Government, was established a few years ago to develop the database society and to obtain what the policy papers call “a single source of truth” about the citizen, based on their behaviour, experiences, beliefs, needs and rights. Why should the state want to have “a single source of truth” about us?

Links or it didn’t happen.

In a lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies, in London this Wednesday, Damian Green, the Tory frontbencher, will tackle this question head on; and it is heartening to see that the Tories, in opposition at least, have understood the dangers here. Government, says Mr Green, can do harm even when it is trying to do good,

Some people say that government can only do harm.

though I am by no means convinced that it really is seeking “to do good”. All states collect information on their citizens.

‘Their’ is used here in the form that suggests that people are the property of the state. This reflexive use of language to describe people as the property of government is everywhere. It is a testament to the effectiveness of brainwashing over decades. Free people are not the property of anyone. Free countries do not have citizens; in a free country, the citizens have a free country, the citizens own the government… etc etc.

However, the amount they are able to collect depends upon the technology, which is clearly available nowadays, and the constraints placed upon its capture by the legislature. Such constraints are remarkably few in the UK compared to other democracies. How have we gone so quickly from being the country you would most expect to resist these tendencies to the one that adopted them so meekly?

It is simple. The abuse of language. Fascism is renamed ‘Transformational Government’. Journalists talk of ‘a country’s citizens’ as if people are the property of the state. They talk of ‘the social contract’ which is a fantasy. They refuse to address the true nature of anything, especially money, self ownership, ownership of property. To sum up, they absolutely refuse to be serious and question the core assumptions of their lives and ideas.

Mr Green has identified 28 state databases on which personal information is kept, from the obviously necessary, such as the PAYE collection system

And here is a perficio exempoator of what I just described above. Philip Johnston says it is ‘obviously necessary’ that the PAYE system collection should exist.

to some that are impossible to justify, like ContactPoint, which will hold the details of everyone under the age of 18 in England.

And again. This description of ContactPoint is very poor. ContactPoint is the compulsory database of all eleven million children in the UK, that will be accessible by over one million government workers from council workers on up. You see? by describing ContactPoint as something that ‘will hold the details of everyone under the age of 18’ you deny access to the true nature of the beast, thus preventing people from the vital starting point that will allow them to come to the correct conclusion; that ContactPoint is one of the most evil things ever created by a British Government.

The Conservatives have promised to scrap or modify many of these if they win power; but they might find in office that the temptation to hang on to the data is too tempting.

True. Nevertheless, whatever government is in place, none of these databases mean anything in the absence of cooperation. This is what Johnston misses entirely. He means well though…

What is needed is a complete reversal of the assumption that our personal data is the state’s to possess.


Why should it?

It should not. And it should not do many of the other things that it does that you do not yet accept that it should not do.

This is the question that should be answered by the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” brigade. It is not as if letting the Government handle all of this information is secure, cheap or efficient. More importantly, it is inimical to any notion of individual freedom that a central bureaucracy should possess so much personal information about us; and, no, giving private data to the state, which has the power to misuse it to our considerable disadvantage, is not the same as having a Tesco Clubcard.

The smell of coffee… finally.

Mr Green puts forward a number of proposals for reform, including US-style security-freeze laws, which allow people to lock access to their data;

The only word that should be applied here is DELETE. No one should have data about them stored without their permission. PERIOD. Just as you should not be compelled to be a party to a contract without your consent, you should not have data stored about you that you do not consent to have stored, or even worse, shared.

an “open source” system which does not dictate the technology adopted by users from the centre;

Nice try, but open source is not the problem here. To collect and store or not to collect and store is what we are discussing. The operating systems and file formats can be discussed later.

and a right to see who has accessed personal information, the so-called audit trails.

Once again, having the ‘right’ (another misuse of English by the way) to see who has violated you and when is not the issue; that you should not be subjected to violation at all is the entire point.

Health records, for instance, would be better kept by GPs and by us as individuals.

True. And despite what Stephen Glover says about Google storing your health records, they would in fact, be a perfect solution.

Google could store your health records, uploaded by you under a pseudonym known only to you and your doctor. Google would know that your pseudonym was a diabetic for example. They would display ads for diabetic related goods and services right in your account, without knowing who you are. You get highly efficient, completely private, secure hosting of your medical records, that you can ‘take with you’ wherever you go, advertisers get highly targeted adverts to precisely the people who need to hear from them… and you have to pay NOTHING for the service.

Sadly, journalists are for the most part computer illiterates. And Stephen Glover really is like the Luddites Philip Johnston describes above in this particular instance; Glover cannot see how Google storing his health records could possibly be a good thing, because he does not understand how Google works, how anonymity works, how the internets work, and he cannot imagine several steps down the line in a hypothetical scenario thanks to this missing information.

Oh yes, and I forgot; with Google, you would be able to delete your medical records with the press of a button and would be able to control with absolute precision, who can and cannot access your medical records.

There are personalised electronic card systems available which can hold our medical details without them being available to government agencies, yet which are accessible by hospitals when we need them to be. This would eliminate the need for the NHS database and be practically cost-free. Instead, we are spending upwards of 12 billion on a centralised data system that hardly anyone wants.

There you go again with the ‘we’.

And BLOGDIAL has been talking about there being no need for centralized databases for some time now.

There is now an assumption that the state should know everything about us and be able easily to access that information.

And this assumption, like all the others, needs to be countered actively. You go second.

This is justified as being good for us because it facilitates the provision of services that may be to our advantage,

It is not good for ‘us’ it is only good for THEM, and it is only to THEIR advantage.

and on the grounds that anyone who is unhappy with the prospect must be concealing something nefarious. It is time we took back control over our own lives.



True. Next time, watch the pronouns.

Frances Stonor Saunders vindicated again

Friday, July 10th, 2009

More lies, deception and this time, maybe a slip up from the liars at totalitarian central known as Neu Liebour:

A Big Brother row erupted last night after the minister in charge of ID cards expressed a desire to load them with sensitive personal information such as medical records.

The Home Office insists the microchip contained on the controversial cards will store only basic details such as name, date of birth, a facial scan and fingerprints.

But Home Office Minister Alan Campbell has told MPs that a ‘future Government’ may want ‘to bring forward proposals to add to the amount of data held on a card’.

In a late-night Commons debate on Monday night he added: ‘Some people, including me, would quite like additional data on an identity card.

‘I am personally persuaded that if there were an ID card and it had scope for further information-some of that information, for my personal circumstances, would be a good thing.’

Opposition MPs accused the minister of inadvertently revealing the Government’s true agenda to store medical and even criminal records on the chip.

LibDem home affairs spokesman Tom Brake said: ‘As soon as this unnecessary scheme is rolled out, the Government will seek to store more and more information on it in the dubious name of security and personal benefit. This illiberal, unworkable and unforgivably expensive scheme must be scrapped immediately.’

Last month Home Secretary Alan Johnson announced the 5billion ID cards scheme would no longer be compulsory.

A plan to force airport workers to carry them was dumped, along with a long-term commitment to legislate to make the cards universal once 80 per cent of the population has one.

But anybody applying for a passport will still have to sign up to the National Identity Register and could be fined up to 1,000 if they do not keep their records up to date.

Ministers insist people will be keen to carry the cards as they will make life more convenient and make it easier to open bank accounts.

Last night the Home Office denied Mr Campbell had revealed a secret agenda.

A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said: ‘When we issue ID cards later this year there will be no spare capacity to hold information beyond that already laid out in legislation.’


Imagine a world where, as is the case with your drivers license in the UK, you can get points on your license to exist: your ID Card.

The police put points on your card because you dropped litter accidentally… actually, it will be a CCTV camera connected to a computer that will scan your face and then put points on your ID Card automagically.

This is what the future is going to be like if ID Cards and the NIR are not utterly and completely abandoned.

Once again, Frances Stonor Saunders is prescient on this:


There will be spaces on this database for your religion, residence status, and many other private and personal facts about you. There is unlimited space for every other details of your life on the NIR database, which can be expanded by the Government with or without further Acts of Parliament.


That is from famous ‘Anonymous Email’ that we love to quote at BLOGDIAL, and that fascist Andy Burnham said was ‘ridiculous’.

Not so ridiculous now is it?

Of course, what the Anonymous Email says about this insanely evil scheme is true; there is literally unlimited space for extra details to be stored, and when the vicious totalitarian lie machine Alan Campbell says, “there will be no spare capacity to hold information beyond that already laid out in legislation” he knows he is lying. Even if the card had no electronics in it at all, the NIR has the potential to have all the space they need to hold everything about your life from the day you are born to the day you die.

When they swipe your card, your records will come up, including all your medical records, your ‘criminal’ convictions, your bank transactions, the names of your spouse and children, your travel records… EVERYTHING you have EVER done, EVERYWHERE you have ever been, EVERYTHING you have ever bought, and if you use email, write on a blog etc, EVERYTHING you have ever written.

And that is ALL BOMB BAD.

Child safety checks are like Section 28, says Pullman

Friday, July 10th, 2009

Legislation that will require all authors who visit schools to be registered on a national database has been branded "Labour's Section 28" by bestselling author Philip Pullman. Section 28, or clause 28, a controversial piece of Conservative legislation, aimed at preventing the promotion of homosexuality in schools, was scrapped in 2003.

From November 2010, professional and voluntary staff working regularly with children in sectors including education will need to be registered on the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) database.

Pullman said: "This is Labour's Section 28—the implication being that no adult could possibly choose to spend time with children unless they wanted to abuse them. What will it say to children? It'll say that every adult is a potential rapist or murderer, and that they should never trust anyone."

The His Dark Materials author added: "Naturally I shall have nothing to do with any such 'clearance', and in consequence, I suppose, 
I shall never be allowed into a school again. I shall regret that very much, but I refuse to be complicit in any measure that assumes my guilt before I've done anything wrong. The proposal deserves nothing but contempt."

Trollogy author Steve Barlow branded the legislation "undemocratic", "ineffective" and "in violation of one of the cornerstones of English law—the presumption of innocence until proved otherwise".

Authors will need to register with the ISA through an umbrella organisation and pay a one-off £64 fee. A spokeswoman for the Vetting and Barring Scheme at the Home Office confirmed that specialist children's librarians, and those librarians and authors visiting schools, would need to be registered. Currently, checks are at the discretion of local authorities. Foreign authors visiting UK schools would also have to register, as will booksellers going into schools once a month or more.
Chair of the Children's Writers' and Illustrators' Group of the Society of Authors Celia Rees said: "We have a number of reservations because it is not clear how people will be affected by this, and what the costs and process of application will be. I am sure that, as more people become aware of it, there will be a groundswell of opinion against it."

However, author Gillian Cross backed the new checks. She said: "I understand entirely why people are enraged about the whole child abuse suspicion frenzy, which is particularly hard on men. It is nevertheless true that many children are abused. Theirs is the real suffering, and if checking can help to prevent that, I'm not opposed to it. Though I would be interested to know how often CRB [Criminal Records Bureau] checks have actually prevented known abusers from working with children."

Cross said that the scheme that replaces the current Criminal Records Bureau checks could be better as it is automatically updated rather than being repeated annually.


The Bookseller

This madness, like all other madness, will one day just go away. People will scratch their heads, and wonder how it was that people went so completely mad.

Thankfully there are people out there who will simply not comply.

If everyone refused to comply, all the schools in the country that rely upon and who enjoy visits would cry out for the system to be abolished.

Of course, Home Educators can group together and invite whomever they want into their homes, without having to consult with or receive permission from anyone.

But you know this!