“This amazing interview was done back in 1985 with a former KGB agent who was trained in subversion techniques. He explains the 4 basic steps to socially engineering entire generations into thinking and behaving the way those in power want them to. It’s shocking because our nation has been transformed in the exact same way, and followed the exact same steps.”
Sound familiar?
South Carolina, it seems, is finally beginning to see sense. When the police start talking like this, its clear that we are post tipping point on this subject, and that the age of, or should I say, the second age of prohibition is nearing its end:
Dillon – State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) agents, flanked by police chiefs from the state’s largest cities joined 16 elected sheriffs today at South of the Border to announce their support for legalizing and taxing marijuana.
“Weed is good. Weed is right. Weed works,” said Dorchester County Sheriff B.D. Squire, spokesman for the group.
The event marks a turnaround for the state’s law enforcement officers who have counted on weed-related fines and confiscated drug money to fund their militaristic uniforms and ‘SWAT’ like attitude towards the state’s marijuana users and sellers. The officials would like to see South Carolina enact legislation to legalize and tax weed and corner the southeastern market in a way similar to the way Georgia’s lottery siphoned valuable revenue from the state’s coffers and in a way similar that our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax brings customers all the way from the northeast.Democratic and Republican leaders from the general assembly are intrigued by the idea.
“This is perhaps one of the no-brainers in terms of bringing us back to fiscal health,” said Hugh Leatherman, the senate finance chairman.
“There was a half-million dollar bust a couple weeks ago in Berkely County,” said state Agriculture Secretary Hugh Weathers, “if that pot was taxed at anything near the rate of tobacco… well that would be about $500 million straight into the state coffers. Can you imagine what kind of income we’d pull in if it was planted on proper farms and not just in little patches in the woods? We wouldn’t be having a ’stimulus’ debate because we wouldn’t need the money.”“The effects of this would be enormous,” said University of South Carolina Economics Professor Lester Nestman. “Obviously tax revenue would be huge, but we’d likely also see a surge in tourism all over the state, you’d have all manner of stores springing up at every border crossing, and I can’t even imagine how popular farmers’ markets would become. On a related note, just the mention of this possibility has caused an overnight jump of 38% in undergraduate applications to the university.”
Reactions in the business community were mixed. Cigarette executives were outwardly dismissive of the idea, but a source at RJ Reynolds speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the company was actively looking for land to build a Marijuana packaging facility outside of Latta, near the North Carolina border.
Gregg Propps, a Charleston-area distributor for Little Debbies brand snacks was less reserved in his response.
“Are you kidding me? Holy crap, this is awesome. This is going to put my kids through college… but maybe I’ll send them to school in another state.”
Now that really is astonishing news. After all that wasted money, all the people put in gaol for no reason, people killed, lives ruined, the police say, “we are bored with playing SWAT, lets make some money!”.
We call it ‘Idiocracy‘.
ID cards will not be compulsory, says Alan Johnson
Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has announced the death of compulsory ID cards in a significant Government climbdown over the controversial scheme.
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Alan Johnson said ID cards should not have been portrayed as ‘a panacea for terrorism”.
He said the cards will now only be issued to Britons on a voluntary basis meaning no one will ever be forced to have one, effectively paving the way for the scheme to be scrapped altogether.
A pilot scheme for airside workers, which marked the first attempt at making the £4.9 billion programme compulsory for British nationals has been abandoned.
Mr Johnson even admitted the suggestion the cards would help combat terrorism was exaggerated as he accepted the Government should never have allowed “the perception to go around that they were a panacea for terrorism”.
Instead, the Home Office is now concentrating on the cards being useful for youngsters to prove their age when going in to pubs.
It will remain compulsory for foreign nationals staying the UK long term to have an ID cards but Britons will only have one now if they request it.
Chris Grayling, the shadow Home Secretary, said: “This decision is symbolic of a Government in chaos. They have spent millions on the scheme so far – the Home Secretary thinks it has been a waste and wants to scrap it, but the Prime Minister won’t let him. So we end up with an absurd fudge instead. This is no way to run the country.”
[…]
This is in no way good enough.
First of all, if you do not give ID Cards to everyone, then people who are stopped and asked to identify themselves will be forced to identify themselves in another way. The pressure will very great to adopt the card ‘voluntarily’; there will be more hassle in daily life without it, especially when you cannot even buy a teaspoon without an ID Card.
Second, if the NIR still exists, it will be trivial for the next totalitarian government to reintroduce compulsory ID Cards, and in any case, the NIR, since it takes your fingerprints, will make your fingers your id card. The position still remains the same that if you do not want to go into the NIR, you will have to forgo having a passport. This is totalitarian madness and yet another demonstration that Neu Liebour, even now, simply cannot change its evil nature.
The NIR must be SCRAPPED. Anything less than scrapping it is UTTER NONSENSE, and everyone knows it, because they know that the database is the problem, and not the card. Everyone also knows that the NIR does not make sense if the whole population is not in it. It is an affront to all decent people and must be abandoned completely.
Third, the suggestion that ID Cards would stop terrorism was not believed by anyone with a single brain cell, and everyone who said it was called a liar by us, and people better than us.
Fourth, the need to prove your age is a completely absurd excuse to maintain the NIR and ‘voluntary’ ID Cards. There are private organizations that print these cards for those people who really want them, and in any case, underage drinking is a health problem, not an identity problem.
Fifth. Compulsory ID Cards for foreign nationals staying in the UK is discrimination pure and simple. These people ALREADY have ID – THEIR PASSPORTS with VISAs in them; in other words, they have been vetted before they even got here. To require them to have (and pay for) another, superfluous piece of ID, running on the NIR, costing BILLIONS of pounds is
Clearly they have not got the guts to completely back down and destroy the work of David Blunkett
and Jacqui Smith,
who all spent so much time lying and misleading in an attempt to sell ID Cards to the British public.
What these cowards are doing is trying to steal the thunder of the Tories. The Tories have promised to scrap the ID Card. So now, Labour, to save their skins, are scrapping it.
This is actually a good thing.
Now the Tories will have to double down or fold. They will have to up the stakes and say that they are going to dismantle the NIR, since it is the key to the whole totalitarian system, and they are the party of liberty and freedom. If they do not do this, they LOSE the argument.
With both of the two parties playing this game, in the end, there will be NOTHING LEFT of the totalitarian apparatus.
Either way, it looks like ID Cards and now the NIR are finally on their way to total annihilation, and not a second too soon. Next, ContactPoint is going to go up for the chop. When that happens, it will be impossible for Local Authorities to generate lists of who is and who is not registered at a school.
I can hardly believe it, and I am tentative in saying it, but it looks like Britain is on the mend!
FURTHERMORE
Alan Johnson says in the Daily Mail:
Everyone who wants a card, or a biometric passport, will have their details stored on the national identity register.
So now there are going to be TWO types of British Passport?! a Biometric one and NON Biometric one?!!
As far as I know, there is only one type of passport available to British Subjects, the BIOMETRIC PASSPORT and in order to get one, you are FORCED to enter the NIR!
Mr Johnson said he still believed the cards would help improve security at airports.
This is a lie. HOW will it help security ANYWHERE that it is required?
Mr Johnson said he was an ‘instinctive’ supporter of ID cards and said he wanted to ‘accelerate’ the delivery of the cards.
That means that he is an instinctive totalitarian. What an admission!
Next year young people opening bank accounts are to be encouraged to obtain ID cards and over the following two years anyone getting a passport will get one – but can opt out.
Just like it was predicted; they are were going to tie the ID Card to your bank account, and use it to monitor your every withdrawal.
People are waking up to what all of this really means, and how all the dots join up.
By Chris Buratta
A father has refused permission for his daughter's Oxford school to take her fingerprints – fearing it is step towards a 'Big Brother' state.
IT IS a step towards exactly that, and even if this library system is self contained, i.e. does not connect to any other database anywhere, the very fact that they have it serves to soften up the students into accepting this sort of technology as a part of ordinary life, when it is not. It is a total invasion and violation, and as we can see below, even the ignorant pigs administering it do not know how it works.
Ben Emlyn-Jones's daughter Louisa, 12, attends St Gregory the Great School in Cowley – which is planning to use fingerprint recognition software in its library.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that Windale Primary School, Glory Farm Primary School, Matthew Arnold Secondary School and The Cherwell School currently use fingerprint systems in libraries and Cheney School uses the technology to register pupils.
Absolutely ridiculous. Whats more, I would like to know how much this system cost the school. I wonder how many BOOKS you could buy with the same money….hmmmmmm!
Mr Emlyn-Jones said: "I am really quite disturbed about it, it reminds me of a Big Brother state.
"There may be advantages in having a fingerprint database, but the price you pay is too high."
There is NO advantage to it. Library books in a school, where all the pupils are known and where only pupils can enter has no need to install a system whose purpose is to uniquely identify an individual. The people who allowed this to be introduced into the school simply cannot THINK.
He refused to allow his daughter's fingerprints to be taken and was also concerned that the school had not contacted parents.
Well done Mr Emlyn-Jones, you are a hero, and a good parent.
He added: "It is as if they know it is wrong and have done it secretly, hoping no-one finds out."
That is EXACTLY what they are doing, otherwise, they would have contacted everyone in advance. The amount of time, effort to explain and money to roll this out is a complete waste of scarce resources.
Mr Emlyn-Jones said he was opposed to the principle of biometric data being used by schools.
"Once people are on a computer then the world's your oyster as far as the Government is concerned.
"It also desensitises kids. When they're grown up and they apply for a passport and apply for jobs they won't bat an eyelid about having fingerprints taken or a laser being shined in their eyes."
This man's brain is switched to 'ON'. And what is great is that his daughter will also have her brain switched on also.
This week, Liberal Democrats called for Government guidelines to be introduced to control the use of the technology in schools.
But Mr Emlyn-Jones said that would not satisfy his concerns.
He said: "Once the infrastructure is in place those guidelines could be abolished. That's my concern."
Once people have their brains working, its impossible to placate them with doubletalk and weasel words, at which the Liberal Democrats are masters. They want to cancel ID cards because of the 'privacy concerns' but then want to replace the rates with a local income tax which would mean the council getting into far more of your private affairs than they do now, either by having data shared with them or by collecting it to calculate your new 'more fair' rates. You see? COMPLETELY STUPID. But I digress…
Now comes the ignorant pig part:
St Gregory the Great's learning resources manager Hilja Bassett said the library system, which would be operational next term, was very efficient and secure.
Just because it is efficient, that does not make it right. And in what way is it more efficient? By what measure? Does that library exist for the convenience of the students or the convenience of the staff? As for 'secure' how does she know it is secure? Did she design the system? Does she know wether or not it connects to any other computers over the internets? Does she know ANYTHING ABOUT IT AT ALL? Or is she just repeating verbatim from the sales pitch?
She added: "It can only be used in this one place, in this one way, for this purpose."
And that one way and one purpose are illegitimate.
She said fingerprints were not stored, just certain data taken from the print.
And there is the proof that Hilja Bassett is a completely ignorant pig, computer illiterate student violating jackass. NO biometric fingerprint system stores the ENTIRE PRINT. They ALL work by mapping the print, finding points to store and then storing those points; that is enough to (90% of the time) uniquely identify the person whose finger it is on the scanner. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT YOU STUPID RETARD its not about actual images of the fingerprints, its about being identified by a part of your body that is unique to you. And of course once it is in the database it can then be transferred (along with all the prints and the names and addresses of the other students) to other databases and systems where if the admins are corrupt, your UNIQUE IDENTIFIER can be placed alongside a criminal profile turing YOU into the criminal, even though you have never done anything whatsoever. Don't believe me? IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING:
Old news department, or a taste of how NIR information will be implemented. I emphasise.
A FYLDE coast student was arrested after posting Christmas cards to his family
Stunned David Atkinson found himself at his local police station under suspicion of stealing the festive greetings he last saw when he put them in a postbox five years ago. Due to fingerprints found on the mail – which was stolen then recovered – police thought they had their man. However, it transpired the “suspect’s” fingerprints were those of the student who had innocently sent the cards to relatives when he was 15.
Mr Atkinson, now 21, of [address omitted – gosh, to think that his address was posted online after this, mm], was arrested because his DNA and fingerprints had been kept on record under controversial Government laws to combat terror.
It was only after Mr Atkinson asked officers to look more deeply into the crime his innocence was proved.
The law student said it has shattered his confidence in the system. He said: “The potential incompetence, laziness, or over enthusiasm of an individual officer means an innocent, law-abiding citizen can never truly have confidence in the giant police database.”
It was the second time Mr Atkinson had been arrested – twice for crimes he did not commit. He has now lent his support to a campaign to force a rethink by the Home Office.
The mix-up began last March when Mr Atkinson was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage – but, when the real culprit gave himself up to police, he was released without charge.
During his short time with the police, he had his fingerprints and DNA taken as part of the arrest procedure but, under recently passed laws, all details – no matter whether the person is innocent or guilty – are kept on a national computer.
Mr Atkinson thought nothing of it until he got a call from officers a month later asking him to go along to the station. He said: “I was arrested as soon as I went in. “The officer told me he had a computer report which had automatically matched my fingerprints with those recovered from a number of items of post which had been stolen from a letter box in December 2000.
“As a result of this report alone, and no further investigation, the officer advised me to ‘get the matter out of the way quickly and take a caution now’.
“After refusing to admit a crime I’d not committed, I was bailed while further investigations were made.”
“The recovered letters were in fact my family Christmas cards which had been taken after I had posted them five years ago.
“This innocent explanation had not even crossed the officer’s mind and, as far as he was concerned, if his computer report said I was guilty then I had to be.”Mr Atkinson complained to Lancashire Constabulary and eventually received an apology. But, he claims, without the Government’s “menace to our freedom”, he would not have been put through the ordeal. A police spokesman said: “We can confirm that we did receive a complaint in August about a wrongful arrest concerning stolen post. “This was investigated thoroughly under our normal complaints procedure and dealt with locally to the satisfaction of both parties. “Under current legislation, all police forces can retain and record DNA taken for arrestable offences no matter what the eventual outcome of the investigation.”
And there you have it. These systems are EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, and should not be in schools for any reason WHATSOEVER.
Parents had been informed through a newsletter, she added, and pupils who did not wish to use the system could still make use of library services.
So out the window goes Mutterschwein Hilja Bassett’s claim that it is for efficiency; if people can opt out of the system, that means they will be running two concurrent systems, the old and venerable Library card system and the new one, causing inefficiency.
And apologies to all Mutterschwein out there; calling Hilja Bassett a pig is an insult to pigs.
If you are a Home Schooler, you never have to deal with any of this of course!
FURTHERMORE
This courtesy of Home Ed Forums:
The truth about biometric systems used in schools (using verifiable references)
“People have to be stark, raving mad to use conventional biometrics to improve the efficiency of a children’s lunch line.” Kim Cameron , Microsoft’s Identity Architect, 05 April 2007 (read more from Kim Cameron)
“If a child has never touched a fingerprint scanner, there is zero probability of being incorrectly investigated for a crime. Once a child has touched a scanner they will be at the mercy of the matching algorithm for the rest of their lives.” Brian Drury , IT security consultant, 12 March 2007 (read more from Brian Drury)
Schools that introduce fingerprinting usually try to reassure parents by saying “the system does not store a fingerprint, just a number. It is not possible to reconstruct an image of a fingerprint from what is stored”.
“If you want to find out who owns a fingerprint, just convert the fingerprint to a template and do a search for the template in one of these databases. Call the template a binary number if you want to. The point is that all you need to save in the database is the number. Later, when you come across a “fingerprint of interest”, you just convert it to a number and search for it. Law enforcement can use this information – and so can criminals.”
Kim Cameron , architect of identity and access in Microsoft’s connected systems division, 09 May 2007
First, take a look at this:
Then read this.
In the past, the facts and subsequent analysis about an event like this would have taken months to propagate. Accurate analysis would never come to the attention of the wider public at all. Now both are happening in a matter of hours, thanks to teh internetz. The very systems that are being used to destabilize countries are self healing and nullifying the ill effects of dastardly plots like ‘Operation AJAX 2.0’:
We know that the US funds terrorist organizations inside Iran that are responsible for bombings and other violent acts. It is likely that these terrorist organizations are responsible for the burning buses and other acts of violence that have occurred during the demonstrations in Tehran.
A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election.
He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th. “IranElection” is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: @StopAhmadi @IranRiggedElect @Change_For_Iran. He researched further and found that on June 14 the Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new Twitter. He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.
[…]
which has been underway in Iran as the ‘Green Revolution’, the occurrence of which was known about before it actually started to happen:
Neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman let the cat out of the bag that there was an orchestrated “color revolution” in the works.
Before the election, Timmerman wrote: “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” Why would protests be organized prior to a vote and announcement of the outcome? Organized protests waiting in the wings are not spontaneous responses to a stolen election.
Timmerman’s organization, Foundation for Democracy, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for the explicit purpose of promoting democracy in Iran. According to Timmerman, NED money was funneled to “pro-Mousavi groups who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.”
The US media has studiously ignored all of these highly suggestive facts. The media is not reporting or providing objective analysis. It is engaged in a propagandistic onslaught against the Iranian government.
[…]
Read that entire article by Paul Craig Roberts.
Now we have even the pro intervention, pro regime change Guardian printing an article that hits the nail on the head:
Democracy, made in Iran
By reviving memories of an ousted leader, Iran’s protesters are signalling they want to win reform without US intervention
Stephen Kinzer
Protesters displaying pictures of former prime minister Muhammad Mossadeq alongside presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi during demonstrations in Iran last week. Photograph: Anonymous (courtesy of Stephen Kinzer)Despite efforts by Iran’s leaders to keep photographers off the streets during post-election protests this month, many vivid images have emerged. The one posted here, above, is the one I found most chilling, poignant and evocative.
By now, many outsiders can identify the man whose picture is on the right-hand side of this protest sign. He is Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reported loser in this month’s presidential election. The elderly gentleman in the other picture is unfamiliar to most non-Iranians. He and his fate, however, lie at the historical root of the protests now shaking Iran.
The picture shows a pensive, sad-looking man with what one of his contemporaries called “droopy basset-hound eyes and high patrician forehead”. He does not look like a man whose fate would continue to influence the world decades after his death. But this was Muhammad Mossadeq, the most fervent advocate of democracy ever to emerge in his ancient land.
Above the twinned pictures of Mossadeq and Mousavi on this protest poster are the words “We won’t let history repeat itself.” Centuries of intervention, humiliation and subjugation at the hand of foreign powers have decisively shaped Iran’s collective psyche. The most famous victim of this intervention – and also the most vivid symbol of Iran’s long struggle for democracy – is Mossadeq. Whenever Iranians assert their desire to shape their own fate, his image appears.
Iranians began their painful and bloody march toward democracy with the constitutional revolution of 1906. Only after the second world war did they finally manage to consolidate a freely elected government. Mossadeq was prime minister, and became hugely popular for taking up the great cause of the day, nationalisation of Iran’s oil industry. That outraged the British, who had “bought” the exclusive right to exploit Iranian oil from a corrupt Shah, and the Americans, who feared that allowing nationalization in Iran would encourage leftists around the world.
In the summer of 1953 the CIA sent the intrepid agent Kermit Roosevelt – grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, who believed Americans should “walk softly and carry a big stick” – to Tehran with orders to overthrow Mossadeq. He accomplished it in just three weeks. It was a vivid example of how easy it is for a rich and powerful country to throw a poor and weak one into chaos.
With this covert operation, the world’s proudest democracy put an end to democratic rule in Iran. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi returned to the Peacock Throne and ruled with increasing repression for a quarter-century. His repression produced the explosion of 1979 that brought reactionary mullahs to power. Theirs is the regime that rules Iran today.
Carrying a picture of Mossadeq today means two things: “We want democracy” and “No foreign intervention”. These demands fit together in the minds of most Iranians. Desperate as they are for the political freedom their parents and grandparents enjoyed in the early 1950s, they have no illusion that foreigners can bring it to them. In fact, foreign intervention has brought them nothing but misery.
The US sowed the seeds of repression in Iran by deposing Mossadeq in 1953, and then helped bathe Iran in blood by giving Saddam Hussein generous military aid during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Militants in Washington who now want the US to intervene on behalf of Iranian protesters either are unaware of this history or delude themselves into thinking that Iranians have forgotten it. Some of them, in fact, are the same people who were demanding just last year that the US bomb Iran – an act which would have killed many of the brave young protesters they now hold up as heroes.
America’s moral authority in Iran is all but non-existent. To the idea that the US should jump into the Tehran fray and help bring democracy to Iran, many Iranians would roll their eyes and say: “We had a democracy here until you came in and crushed it!”
President Barack Obama seems to grasp this reality. During his recent speech in Cairo, without mentioning Mossadeq by name, he conceded that “in the middle of the cold war, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” Then, after the current electoral protests broke out, he avoided the hypocrisy of righteous indignation and confined himself to saying that “ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide.”
Anyone doubting the wisdom of those words should pay attention to the sprouting of Mossadeq pictures during protests in Iran. They mean: “Americans, your interventions have brought us tyranny and death. Stay home, keep your hands off and leave our country to us for a change.”
[…]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/19/iran-protests-mousavi-mossadeq
The fact of the matter is that it is no longer possible to mount 20th century Psy Ops in countries like Iran; cellular networks are like mass vaccination – they immunize the populations that have them from being infected by the vile propaganda of the colonialists. Centralized radio and television cannot counter AJAX style operations. Why? Because the TV is not a ‘trusted introducer’ to any idea, whereas a text message from your social network IS a trusted introducer.
Those Rock & Roll loving Iranians had better watch out; they are doing the work of the lord when they hold up signs IN ENGLISH, riot, cause mayhem and destabilize THEIR OWN COUNTRY. They have only to look to their former enemies to see what US ‘liberation’ looks like. What they are actually asking for is the complete DEATH of Iran and their culture.
Thankfully, the small deluded minority causing all this trouble will not get it.
Now let me be clear. The problem with all of this has nothing to do with the ‘right and wrong’ of how Iran runs its own affairs, and wether or not you personally agree with it. What this is about it the pursuit of global domination by monsters, who are hell bent, literally, on wiping out any culture or system that is different to theirs, or which is not under their direct and absolute control.
Tehran is the largest city in the Middle East and is the second most populated. If the Iranians should ever discover the true nature of money they could become an unstoppable economic force in the region. Right now, they are being run by Keynsian witch-doctors (John Maynard Keynes is to Economics as a Witch-Doctor is to Medicine), who are printing money like drunk sailors on the rampage at the ripperbahn.
Did you know that Tehran has an ‘Underground’?
These people are dangerous; dangerous because they are so successful, so organized and so peaceful. They are the most threatening nation to the ‘New World Order’. They are showing, through results and not rhetoric, that you can have huge prosperity without interfacing with the globalists.
That is why they must be destroyed.
An Anonymous Coward at BBQ writes with great sadness:
The Tories have written to five firms bidding to supply ID cards warning them not to sign any long-term contracts.
In the letter, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling says one of his party’s first acts, if it wins the next general election, would be to scrap the scheme.
He said he was urging the firms against large investments that may be wasted.
The government says ID cards, being trialled in Manchester from this autumn, will combat fraud, terrorism and organised crime.
You see how the scumbag BBC promotes the lies about ID Cards by repeating without analysis lines directly from Neu Liebour? The BBC reporters are, and have been throughout all of this, the ultimate total human garbage.
‘Substantial bill’
They want a nationwide roll-out of the scheme by 2012 but with a general election due within a year, the Conservatives say they intend to scrap it.
Mr Grayling’s predecessor as shadow home secretary, David Davis, issued a similar warning to firms in February 2007 and gave Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell formal notice of the party’s intention not to continue with the scheme.
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats oppose the scheme, estimated at costing about £5bn, and some Labour MPs have expressed doubts.
ID Cards do not work, are socially corrosive, are un-British and only collectivist vermin like the BBC support them.
ID CARD TIMETABLE
2009: Workers at Manchester and London City airport
Autumn 2009: Manchester pilot
2010: Students opening bank accounts offered ID cards
2011/12: All UK passport applicants
2015: 90% foreign nationals covered
2017: Full roll-out?
I have another timetable for you:
2001 BLOGDIAL warns that ID Cards will not solve anything
2002 BLOGIAL describes how ID cards destroy societies and dehumanize people.
2003 BLOGDIAL describes how a centralized database is extremely dangerous and open to abuse.
2004 BLOGDIAL attacks the imbecile David Bkunkett
2005 BLOGDIAL attacks the proposed ID Cards bill.
2006 The Frances Stonor Saunders letter AKA ‘the anonymous email‘ widely circulated and published.
snip!
2010 ID Cards plans permanently abandoned. ID Card contractors lose billions. ContactPoint scrapped. NIR scrapped.
Mr Grayling told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme he was concerned about “a number of signals” recently suggesting “quite big penalty costs” were being built into contracts which will leave a “substantial bill” for the taxpayer.
“I want companies to be cautious and recognise that if they invest large amounts of money preparing for this business, it may not happen,” he said.
“There’s a danger the government will build more poisoned pills into the contracts that will simply make it more difficult to scrap.”
Asked whether the Tories were trying to paralyse government plans, he said: “I would be delighted if this slows down progress with the ID project because I think it’s the wrong thing to do.”
This is music to the ears of everyone in Britain.
Later this year, airside workers at London City and Manchester airports will be issued with ID cards.
They are all going to refuse them you jackass.
‘Conditioning’ public
And, from the autumn, people in Manchester will be able to voluntarily sign up for a card as part of a pilot project.
It is the beginning of the main phase of the scheme which ministers say will result in cards being available nationwide by 2012.
Within the next three years, the Identity and Passport Service plans to issue “significant volumes” of ID cards alongside British passports – but people will be able to opt out of having a card if they do not want one.
Earlier retired law lord Lord Steyn accused the Home Office of introducing the cards in stages as a way of “conditioning” and “softening up” public opinion.
He added: “The Home Office now proudly asserts that comprehensive surveillance has become routine. If that is true, the resemblance to the world of Kafka is no longer so very distant.”
The government believes that the public support the scheme – former home secretary Jacqui Smith said she was regularly approached by people who said they did not want to wait several years to register for an ID card.
It has been reported that Alan Johnson, who replaced Jacqui Smith as home secretary in the recent cabinet reshuffle, might be considering a U-turn on ID cards, after ordering a review of the scheme.
But in a statement Mr Johnson said: “In my very first interview as home secretary I made clear that identity cards was a manifesto commitment and that legislation governing their introduction was passed in 2006.
“We remain on progress to bring in what we believe has widespread public support.”
[…]
What does ‘remain on progress’ mean? Who cares. ID Cards in the UK are TOAST, millions will not accept them, the Tories are going to scrap them; from both sides, the pressure will be so great that it will be impossible for this insane nonsense to work.
The only people who are weeping about this are the corrupt monsters like the wife of former Downing Street policy adviser Lord Birt who was set to land £2 billion ID card contract who will now be getting precisely nothing.
In 1939 1,800,000 children were moved out of London to escape the bombing of that great city.
How it all happened is relevant to us today, in the light of New Labour, and its infinitely repulsive, shocking and sickening disregard for what Britain is and was, and what it is meant to be.
London was being bombarded nightly. Londoners spent their nights in shelters or deep in the Underground on the platforms as the bombs hammered away.
It was decided that children living in the areas that were being Blitzed were to be evacuated to safe parts of Britain. The first evacuations began on Friday 1 September 1939, and was code named 'Operation Pied Piper'.
The evacuated children were put on trains in London, had tags pinned on their clothes stating their names, and were then despatched to different parts of the countryside.
When they arrived at the various train stations and evacuation centres, adults who were to take in the evacuees were waiting. The children were selected on the spot, by a point of the finger and words like, "I'll take the one with red hair just there", and taken away to their new homes; those who were not wanted, judged solely on the look of the child were simply left behind:
[…]
The whole school (Sellincourt Road Infants) marched through streets to Tooting Junction station. I was carrying a small rucksack for my luggage. I remember the cornfields en route and that we changed trains at Exeter. We stopped at several villages and at each stop we got off and lined up in the road so the villagers could take who they wanted. Those of us that remained then re-boarded and went onto the next village. Those of us not selected were then deposited at a commandeered camp belonging to NALGO (trade union).
[…]
[…]
“We were walked to the rail station at Clapham Junction and from there we caught the train to Waterloo, from Waterloo we travelled all the way to north Cornwall.
“After a short period of time, I was evacuated to a farmer and his wife who had no children, and I became part of the family.”
Children at the time would wait at temporary evacuee centres were they could be selected by a family who liked them. He felt he was one of the lucky ones who got a good home.[…]
[…]
I suppose there was about 20 of us from class seven of Christ Church. The children from other classes went elsewhere to nearby villages. I remember standing in a line next to Kenneth, my friend, feeling hot, tired and somewhat unsettled. The long journey, just undertaken, left me slightly bewildered. Was it all a dream?
Standing opposite us in the hall was quite a large group of villagers. These people had agreed to take us into their homes and become our foster parents. They had, previously, signed the necessary forms and stated their preference for boys or girls. Soon a rather awkward process of selection began, and after, watching, waiting and wondering. My friend Kenneth and I found ourselves being paired up and being led along by a tall, kindly-looking gentleman, Mr Ware, the village postman. At that moment, to use the official term, he had become our foster father. Waiting outside, no doubt very interested to see what we looked like, were two of Mr Ware's daughters, Maureen and Barbara.
[…]
And so on and so on. What an incredible story!
Now, fast forward to 2009.
We have a government that wants to force everyone to carry an ID Card that is linked to a giant database of fingerprints and faces that can identify you in a fraction of a second from one of millions of CCTV cameras that are everywhere. A country where if you change your address and do not tell the government, you can be fined £1000, where you will not be able to buy wine or withdraw money from your bank account without presenting this card. Where you cannot even buy a teaspoon without showing ID. We have a government that believes that all parents are child abuse suspects, and as such, must be put into a database.
Just what the HELL has happened to Great Britain?
How has it come to pass that in a country where people were trusted and trusting by default, to such an extent that children could be given away to total strangers without any doubt whatsoever that strangers will have nothing but absolute concern and care for the welfare of their wards, in close to two million instances… that this trust is all but completely destroyed?
How is it that the people of this fair island have become so ground down, so inured to slavery and tyranny that when over 100,000 parents are accused in a most vicious and dastardly way, without a shred of evidence, of being potential child abusers, that almost nothing is said, and that there are even parents who AGREE with the totalitarian government responsible for the perverted claims and insane recommendations?
How is it that two men, named 'Balls' and 'Badman' can get away with such a thing, and no one thinks this combination of names is in any way odd, or unusual, or freakish, monstrous, sinister or nightmarish? Are we living as characters on the pages of an edition of 200AD?
What the HELL is wrong with everybody?!
Even if you accept that it is the role of government to organize education and protect children (which I do not), any reasonable person would require that there is evidence of a real problem before you legislate; in this case, the author of the review, the singularly unqualified Badman, admits that there is no evidence that Home Educated children are at risk and that Home Education is not being used as a 'cover'. Even by those standards the conclusions and recommendations of this scabrous review are completely illogical in that light.
The fact of the matter is, quite apart from the natural rights aspect of this, parents are the most trustworthy people when it comes to the care of their children. The vast majority of people are also completely trustworthy, as the example of the evacuees demonstrates. The only people who cannot be trusted are, CRB Checked, ‘trusted’ agents of the government; the social workers, local authority workers etc etc, who are a self selected group of control freaks whose only desire is to exert their will upon others. They never refuse new powers, are keen to enter into and interfere with the private business of every family, down to the food that is eaten in the home.
The men and women of the 1930s adn 40s would never have accepted a government like New Labour; in fact, they were willing to die fighting against a government just like it; a government that explicitly banned (and continues to ban) home schooling.
They did not need to check every adult against a database before they did the evacuation. Even if they had time and the means to do it, they would not have done it, just as in the 70’s ID Cards were rejected as ‘un-British’ when the IRA was attacking England and the attackers were visually indistinguishable from the attacked by virtue of both groups being ‘European’ in appearance.
The men of that era would never accept a government like New Labour:
Clarence Henry Willcock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clarence Henry Willcock, (23 January 1896 – 12 December 1952) a member of the Liberal Party, was the last person in the UK to be prosecuted for refusing to produce an Identity Card.On 7 December 1950, Harry Willcock, 54 year old dry-cleaning manager was stopped while driving in Finchley, London by police constable Harold Muckle who demanded that he present his identity card at a police station within 48 hours. He refused, reputedly saying "I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing". He was prosecuted under the National Registration Act 1939, convicted and fined 10 shillings.
Willcock appealed, in the case Willcock vs Muckle. Although he lost the appeal, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Goddard, spoke out against the continued use of compulsory Identity Cards and commented that they "tend to make people resentful of the acts of the police".
As a result of the court case, Willcock became well-known and he founded the Freedom Defence Association to campaign against ID cards. In a publicity event he tore up his own identity card in front of the National Liberal Club, inspiring a later similar action for the press outside Parliament by the British Housewives' League. When the Conservative government elected at the 1951 general election decided to abolish identity cards in 1952, Willcock received hundreds of redundant cards through the post to auction for charity.
Willcock was the Liberal candidate in Barking in 1945 and in 1950. He came third in both contests, losing his deposit in 1950. He had been a councillor and magistrate in Horsforth, Leeds.
Willcock was born in Alverthorpe, Wakefield, Yorkshire and died, while debating at a meeting of the Eighty Club at the National Liberal Club.
Goddard's comments are thought to have influenced Winston Churchill's decision to scrap compulsory national Identity Cards in 1952.[…]
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is now your turn to defend your rights; the rights that people died to protect and give to you. If you give them up as if they were nothing, if you compromise one inch, go half way for a little peace, go along to get along, or sign up so that you can continue to get ‘free’ rail cards and other ‘benefits’…. then you are not fit to breath the air of this great country. You deserve whatever they put upon you. You lose your right to complain, to make a fuss or to whine about 'civil liberties'. You are already dead.
You are at the same time, very lucky. In this case, all that is required of you is that you refuse to comply. Refuse to register. Refuse to take the ID card. Refuse to engage in any way with anything that comes from ContactPoint. Never use or agree with weasel words of compromise and, 'seeing the other point of view'. Do not bow and scrape to anyone, and thank your oppressors for 'being on your side'.
There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have to put up with the incessant abuses, violations, invasions, smears and the totalitarian apparatus that this government, New Labour, is pouring out on the land.
Enough is enough. Just as this venal and murderous government stubbornly refuses to submit to the will of the public, as it should, since it has no legitimacy (so the textbooks say) without the consent of the governed, so too can anyone also refuse to obey any illegitimate law or regulation.
Those of you who believe that you have a sacred duty to protect your family from evil are already on this page.
Those of you who have doubts, who are frightened about the consequences of 'going silent' or who are swayed by the soothing weasel words of men with an air of authority, or who are actually dumb enough to believe that what is planned is in any part a good thing; be warned – the reason why we are at this abysmal point is because the weak people between the days of the evacuees and today, allowed small concessions to their liberties year on year that mounted up to become the totalitarian state that now looms over you, and which is about to tip over and crush you, splitting open to unleash a torrent of aparatchick ants that will swarm over you and your family and bite you to death.
The only way to stop this is to draw a line in the sand and say, "this far, and no further" The power of the totalitarian state is derived directly from the cooperation of the people who are its victims. The aparatchicks who use ContactPoint (for example) will be sitting in offices on the phone, compiling lists and contacting people, trying to arrange interviews etc etc. If no one speaks to them or answers their letters, they will be completely stymied. If no one registers, they will have an intractable task on their hands of tracking everyone down, writing to them, chasing them up on foot… They will never be able to pull this off. And remember; all of this is going to happen whilst they are taking care of all their other duties, with which they are already overwhelmed. This is why it is important to make it absolutely clear; this report is rejected. We will not comply with any of it, should it become the law. You are wasting your time, and we will not waste any more of ours responding to you now, or in the future.
WE ARE DONE.
Later this year the venerable incandescent lightbulb is going to be banned in many countries in the west. The reasoning behind this ban is that the bulbs are ‘inefficient’, and that removing them from use will save energy and reduce the amount of ‘carbon’ that is released into the atmosphere by the people who use them.
As a replacement for these bulbs, ‘energy efficient’ fluorescent light bulbs are planned to replace the incandescent light bulb, by the force of law.
All of the production lines that used to produce the incandescent light bulb have either been stopped or are in the process of being stopped. Capital has been diverted to the production of fluorescent light bulbs, and manufacturing capacity of the factories that make them has been increased to meet the demand caused by the ban on incandescent bulbs.
The incandescent light bulb is an old technology, developed and patented by Thomas Edison, and refined over many decades. They are cheap to manufacture, made of simple, 100% recyclable non toxic parts (glass, steel and tungsten), and there are literally billions of receptacles that have been designed to accommodate their shape.
The new ‘Environmentally Friendly’, ‘energy saving’ compact fluorescent lightbulbs are expensive to manufacture, have plastic parts, are not simple in design and contain poisons like mercury, making it necessary to dispose of them carefully, lest the mercury escape, polluting the environment and poisoning people.
The new bulbs also produce a hideous, unpleasant light that flickers at the frequency of the electricity mains. These bulbs have been demonstrated to have deleterious effects on people who are sensitive to their light, causing them migraine headaches and eye strain.
Now, as the ban on the incandescent light bulb is about to come into force, we read the following:
Boffins: Ordinary lightbulbs can be made efficient, cheaply
Incandescents nearing extinction: Impeccable timing, everyone
By Lewis PagePosted in Physics, 1st June 2009 11:03 GMT
Just as authorities in much of the Western world have moved to phase out the incandescent lightbulb, American boffins believe they have developed a process which can make the oldschool lights more efficient than energy-saving lamps.
Optics boffins at the Rochester Uni in New York state say they’ve developed a process in which an ordinary lighbulb is zapped with a femtosecond-long pulse of extremely high-energy laser light. The laser blast travels through the glass to hit the tungsten filament, causing complex nano- and micro-structures to form on its surface.
Once the lasered light bulb is than powered up, according to the Rochester scientists, it emits a lot more light for the same energy compared to an untreated bulb – equivalent to 40 per cent energy savings. The process of lasing incandescent bulbs wouldn’t be expensive, apparently, so they’d remain cheap compared to fluorescent energy-saving jobs.
According to Rochester Uni:
The process could make a light as bright as a 100-watt bulb consume less electricity than a 60-watt bulb while remaining far cheaper and radiating a more pleasant light than a fluorescent bulb. Despite the incredible intensity involved, the femtosecond laser can be powered by a simple wall outlet, meaning that when the process is refined, implementing it to augment regular light bulbs should be relatively simple.
It seems that Professor Chunlei Guo of Rochester hit upon the idea of brightening-up lightbulb filaments following earlier experiments in which he and his team used laser zapping to turn metals completely black. This worked so well that Guo and his cohorts wondered if they could reverse the process.
“We fired the laser beam right through the glass of the bulb and altered a small area on the filament,” says the prof. “When we lit the bulb, we could actually see this one patch was clearly brighter than the rest of the filament, but there was no change in the bulb’s energy usage.”
It seems that Guo and his team of lightbulb-blasting boffins can also produce other strange effects, getting incandescent bulbs to emit partially polarised or differently-coloured light – without the energy-wasting filters that would normally be necessary.
It’s the efficiency-enhancement aspect of the studies which could make headlines, however. Both the US and European Union governments are now committed to firm timetables which will see incandescent bulbs phased out in favour of more energy-efficient alternatives, such as fluorescents. This is being done in order to save energy and so lower carbon emissions. But if it’s as simple as Guo suggests to enhance an incandescent with his laser process, this may turn out to have been an unnecessary or even retrograde step.
Guo’s research has been accepted for publication by the journal Applied Physics Letters, but isn’t out yet. In the meantime, there’s a pop-sci release from the university here.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/01/light_bulb_laser_blast_enhancement/
This is a perfect example of why the state should have no say in what technology firms must use to produce their goods and which goods people can and cannot have access to.
In their zeal to ‘protect the environment’ the state has diverted capital and resources away from the well established incandescent lightbulb production lines, by force, to the new fluorescent lightbulb lines, that have had their manufacturing capacity ramped up in order to meet the artificially stimulated demand for the new bad bulbs.
The decision to ban the incandescent lightbulb was made with all of the information the legislatures had to hand; i.e. all the relevant facts about the different types of bulb that were available in 2007/2008. What they did not and could not take into account was the research in the above article, which, had they known about it, may have prevented them from legislating for the ban.
This is the central problem with the state interfering with technology; no one can predict the future. Now that the law is about to come into force, we are in a situation where capital has been wasted and misdirected, resources wasted and misdirected and depending on the state of the decommissioning of the incandescent bulb lines, no costless way back to the manufacturing of incandescent lightbulbs.
The state, by its nature, is incompetent. They cannot predict the future and they are not omniscient. In order to be able to legislate effectively, especially where technology is concerned, they would need to be omniscient, with perfect knowledge of every piece and field of ongoing research and technology, and the potential of each piece and field of research and technology.
The enormity of this amount of knowledge is beyond the capacity of any man or group of men; it would mean being able to apply each existing technology (implemented or not) and each piece of research against each other (in the case above, femtosecond lasers and incandescent light bulbs), considering the effect of multiples of them upon each other in succession, and then considering the knock on effects of each of these, say, ten levels down on the tree. This would produce a multi dimensional matrix / tree with a size bigger than the universe. Only then would they be able to synthesize an optimal plan that would maximize the production and movements of capital to reach any particular goal, and of course, who has the moral authority to choose the appropriate goals is something to consider…. for another post.
Applying a femtosecond laser to incandescent lightbulbs is one solution that has produced significant increases in efficiency. Who knows what other treatments, changes in filament formulation, the glass envelope etc etc will produce? Certainly, the state cannot possibly predict them. What the state can do however, is prevent research and innovation, destroying potential breakthroughs, efficiencies, savings and progress.
The state is a bumbler, a reactive and ignorant dealer; they are like a cave man being tasked to turn off a diesel engine that has been left running. Instead of getting into the car by actuating the door handle and turing the key counter clockwise, the caveman takes his club out and beats against the hood covering engine until it stops running. Of course, he claims success when it stops, when in fact the tank has run out of gas and the engine cuts out of its own accord. But I digress.
This femtosecond laser process, an inexpensive, and easy addition to any incandescent lightbulb production line, would have saved billions in electricity bills, spared the environment – and our bodies – from tonnes of mercury poisoning, eliminated the need to build light bulb recycling plants and spared the health of many millions of people, with all the costs attendant on that. Then there are all the other applications of this femtosecond laser technology that are now going to be delayed or which will not now come into existence.
Think about it; the widespread deployment of femtosecond flashers would mean designing modular systems for resale to manufacturers; out of that design and manufacturing process, other processes will have emerged. Secondary uses of these flashers would have been subsequently discovered, which would have other knock on effects. The innovation cascade resulting from this process is what the state has destroyed.
When you apply this example to any other industry or technology where the state legislates, and take into account the default incompetence that inheres in the people that make these decisions, you can begin to get a glimpse of the suboptimal world that we are now in.
Imagine what sort of world it would be had the state not interfered in any way with any technology. To put it into perspective, think of the ubiquity of cheap mobile phones, and then apply that example to every expensive technology that the state has controlled in any way… like the automobile. Imagine how much more efficient, inexpensive, clean and beneficial cars would be had the state stayed out of the business of the details of car manufacture.
‘Consumer advocates’ would tell you that cars are safer now only because the state intervened in the manufacturing process. This may or may not be the case, but what is certain is that cars would be safer than they are now had the state not interfered with the manufacture of cars.
I do not know of a single person who would not pick a safer car over an unsafe one, and since competition is fierce in car manufacture, this fact would be taken into account at every point the design stage, producing just the sort of cars that people want, and cars that people did not know that they wanted. Think iPhone here; once you see it, you want it; you did not know that you would want it before it existed, but now that you have seen it, you want it more than any other mobile phone… the same could be said for the very idea of the cellular phone itself.
Extrapolating from all of this, it is clear that in many aspects of the way we live, we are existing in a world that is grossly distorted and sub-optimal. This world could be better in every way by orders of magnitude had the destructive and disruptive state not interfered with the innovations and interactions of men.
The single worst interference in technology has been the system of Patents. The system of state granted monopolies on ideas has been a total disaster, causing distortion and disruption for generations, throwing us off the optimal path down the years leading to a future that is literally retarded by a century or more of compounded diversions. See ‘Against Intellectual Monopoly‘ for the full, and truly horrifying story of this.
If you are one of those people who have not drunk the Environmentalism Kool-Aid, then you will realize that state intervention in technology is the worst possible thing to do to protect the environment. Only when technology is unleashed can the imaginations and inventions of men be applied dynamically across the maximum number of fields to produce the sort of efficiencies that are needed to keep the environment clean.
Then again if you have drunk the ‘E Kool-Aid’, by definition you have no imagination, are science illiterate, irrationally anti business and are incapable of understanding any of this.
Like we have been saying for years, all you have to do to completely derail the state is refuse to obey and there is nothing that they can do about it. The pilots have won their fight against being made the test subjects for ID Cards and there has not been the slightest sign of this climb-down from the state. That may be because we are witnessing the ignominious and long overdue end to fascist New Liebour but whatever the reason for the silent u-turn, it happened, and it happened because the pilots refused to obey.
June 4, 2009
The Home Office has made a “very quiet U-turn” over its plans to make airport ID cards compulsory for all airside workers, Public Servant Daily reports.An initial roll-out of the controversial cards – which the Unite union said had “insulted” its members – was due to take place at London City and Manchester airports.
But with the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) threatening legal action over the move, the government appears to have backtracked on its plans.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who announced her resignation from the cabinet yesterday, approved the early-adopter scheme for Manchester workers in May.
It has now emerged, however, that buried within the fine print of her statement was the revelation that the 18-month scheme will apply solely to new starters.
A BALPA spokesman told Public Servant Daily that it was unclear what had prompted the revision. He welcomed the apparent U-turn, but reiterated that once the scheme is rolled out nationally “pilots who refuse to have the card will lose their job”.
The Home Office responded by confirming that its long-term plans have not changed.
“We have previously said that identity cards will be mandatory for all airside workers, just as other pre-employment checks are today, so that the benefits from the scheme can be realised across the aviation sector,” a spokesperson told the website.
Airport workers have steadfastly opposed the introduction of ID cards, insisting that extensive vetting procedures already in place make them redundant.
[…]
The disgusting fascist queen of the aparatchicks, the witch Jacqui Smith, now resigned, caved to pressure from the brave members of BALPA.
The thinking of the witch and her minions must have gone like this:
“we are determined to roll this out. This trial is not really needed; we can iron out the bugs with a wider sample user base. If we antagonize pilots, who have a high status in society as eminently sensible and inherently trustworthy people, the public will pay attention to the details of their complaints, which could seriously derail the project. When the public realizes that pilots are willing to strike over this matter, all eyes will be on the details of what we are planning and the jig will be up. Let us quietly drop the pilots trial. No one will notice, the schedule will not be affected and damaging information about the system’s flaws will not be amplified by a very public pilots strike and its inevitable disruption.”
Of course, what they fail to understand is that the resistance of the pilots is only a single instance of a much wider resolve to absolutely refuse ID Cards that will not go away, and that will become more and more ferocious as time goes on.
All of this can be avoided by a Tory government putting an end to it once and for all. If they do not do this, it will be the Poll Tax all over again, and they will throw away the massive swing and good will they are going to be given.
BLOGDIAL readers know that we are for a general and permanent boycott of everything related to the police state and its apparatus (ID Cards, ContactPoint NIR, CCTV etc). In this General Boycott Everything that touches them is ‘tainted’, so if someone contacts you because they got your details from ContactPoint, those communications are tainted, and so should be ignored. Any request to show ID for purchases should likewise result in ‘NO SALE’.
Academics are taking exactly this stance within their own field:
Academics boycott visa ‘snooping’
University academics say they will boycott new visa rules for overseas students that would make them into “immigration snoopers”.Delegates at the University and College Union’s annual conference said they did not want to become a branch of the UK Border Agency.
This is absolutely excellent. We have said many times that the state cannot run the police state by itself; they do not have the resources. They need business and the people themselvs to run it. This is why all professionals should pledge not to become proxy aparatchicks; everyone must reject the Zero Trust Society if we are to avoid the creation of a hideous STASI style state where everyone is spying and tattling on everyone else.
Under the new rules universities are expected to monitor whether overseas students really attend their courses.
The Home Office said such things were part of their normal duty of care.
Once again, this is a BBC News article by an unnamed author, quoting unnamed spokespersons; you cant make stuff like this up. Voices from nowhere, unaccountable and untraceable, issue commands from secret offices that everyone is expected to read and obey without question. Yet another example of the BBC News website acting as a propaganda repeater. Absolutely disgusting and transparent.
And Neu Labour cannot understand why they are about to be flushed down the toilet in the upcoming EU and local authority polls.
More on the ‘part of their normal duty of care’ below.
Institutions must also report concerns that a student could be involved in terrorism.
This is not the job of teachers.
In a debate at the conference, in Bournemouth, delegates argued that the rules would place a strain on the relationship between staff and students from outside the European Union.
‘Pernicious’
General secretary Sally Hunt said: “UCU members are educators not border guards.”
She said later: “Politically, UCU is absolutely opposed to this legislation and we know that many members have strong and principled moral objections as members of society and as professional educators.
At last, people are beginning to stand up and simply say ‘NO’. That is all it takes, believe it or not.
“One of the more pernicious effects of this new system will be to turn our members into an extra arm of the police force, placing monitoring and reporting responsibilities onto academic and support staff.”
Precisely. They are trying to turn everyone into a spy, eliminating the normal bonds of trust that should exist between human beings and delivering everyone into a horrible, inhuman state where trust is mediated by machines and a secret police state. And as it implies above, anyone from the EU will not be subject to this; that means in reality, profiling. This indefensible, immoral and thankfully, will not be done, because someone had the guts to stand up and say ‘NO’.
One of the resolutions tabled for discussion said the new system “makes educators into immigration snoopers which could damage UK education irreparably”.
Once the word gets out that people are being mistreated by the very institutions that they are PAYING to learn in, there will be an exodus of students to other centres. No one will trust the Universities in the UK; and why should they? If these academics did not stand up and do what they are doing, it would be stupid to come here and be mistreated when you can go to other countries and just get on with learning.
When they say that UK education could be damaged irreparably, they are talking about people not coming back here for generations. They are talking about becoming a pariah system that students avoid reflexively. They are talking about a stain that will be very hard to remove.
It deplored “this pandering to anti-immigration racism” and committed the union to “non-compliance with all such policing and surveillance duties”.
This is the key; non compliance. What is the state going to do in response?
Imagine any of those three happening. Imagine the other, equally absurd things the state could try and do to coerce the academics into betraying their students. None of it will wash.
But a Home Office spokesman said: “Educational institutions have a duty of care to all their students and checking that they are attending and making progress in their studies is part of that responsibility.
“The records we expect education providers to keep are those which most will keep for their own purposes anyway.”
Now this is the most sickening part.
Is is possible that this anonymous person is so retarded that she cannot see that information that is PRIVATE and collected as a part of running a college is perfectly natural, and the sending of that information to the state is a gross violation?
There are two possibilities:
(1) Either these people think we are so stupid they can say something like this and get away with it
or
(2) These people are so stupid they can say something like this and believe it doesn’t matter.
Whatever the reason this has been proposed and put into law, it is clear that this spokesperson and the other people who are behind this are not ‘fit for purpose’. They are of the same school that believes everyone is guilty until proven innocent, that parents have no rights, that all children belong to the state, and all data belongs to the state. Except theirs of course, which is why they constantly speak anonymously.
Whatever happens next, all of this is going to end up being destroyed. The nanny state is finished. We will soon see the end of ‘legislation by grieving parent” and all the other vile garbage that has turned the UK into what it has very sadly become – a place where the lunatics are running the asylum:
Spotted today:
A female PCSO (Police Community Support Officer, or Pretend Police Officer) stopping a father (naturally, what do they know?) who was pushing his baby daughter along the road in a pushchair. She demanded to know why his baby looked so hot – I suspect it was due to the HOT WEATHER, but perhaps she’s still working on her investigative skills. The PCSO was so doubtful of this man’s ability to parent, she even checked the child’s pulse – without asking – and took a few notes. At this point the man declined to give his details and simply walked off, shaking his head.
Scary, huh?
I had two PCSO’s tell my daughter who was about 11 at the time that she shouldn’t eat the blackberries that she was picking, because they might be poisonous. I interjected and told them they were perfectly fine and popped one in my mouth (a blackberry..not the PCSO). They both nearly fainted. I then informed them that Sainsburys sell blackberries and they said, “Oh do they? but they must be safe because they come from the supermarket”. (They hadn’t even heard of blackberries!)
I then thought of showing them my trick of picking nettles with my bare hands, but thought they had suffered enough excitement for one day!
If nothing concrete happens to fix it in the very short term, people everywhere are going to fix it themselves. This is now absolutely inevitable. Reading any of the comments in the newspaper’s websites, you will see Jultra style invective forming the majority of responses to anything to do with government.
That is what we call ‘GAME OVER’; and there is no way to re-boot this particular game. The only way to go forward is to dismantle the hardware, and switch operating systems (to use a computer analogy). This is not switching from Windows 95 to Windows XP (actually, what they are proposing is to keep the same old hardware and switch from Windows XP to Windows VISTA!), no, this is switching from Windows XP to Ubuntu Linux. This is switching to stability, real security, real choice and real freedom.
Nick Clegg chimes in on the Guardian with a well crafted piece demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of what the real problem is. I was going to entitle this post ‘Foxes call for chicken coop redesign’. But thought better of it.
Nick Clegg: Bar the gates. No summer holiday before the overhaul
Warm words and rhetoric are easy. We must seize the mood and enact a radical programme of reform within 100 days
Why the rush nick? The British Form of Government®, whatever your opinion of it, took ONE THOUSAND YEARS to get to this state. Do you really think that you have not only the right, but the capability to redesign it in ONE HUNDRED DAYS. That is the very definition of conceit. You people are so full of FAIL, so terrible, so spineless, murderous, rudderless and worthless that you could not be trusted to design a new milk bottle, let alone a form of government that is ancient.
Furthermore, if everything is to be torn up, why should YOUR voice be louder than anyone else’s? Just who the hell do you think you are?
Finally the dam has broken, and everyone is talking about changing Britain’s political system. For decades reformers have been thwarted by Westminster inertia. But the MPs’ expenses scandal has overturned old certainties and made change possible.
As bad as it may seem this ‘crisis’ is not enough of a reason to destroy something that is 1000 years old, wether you agree with it or not, and certainly the insane people who sit there should not be the ones who ‘reimagine’ it.
This moment must be seized by all who want a different kind of politics. Warm words, rhetoric and consideration are not enough; indeed, they are a guarantee that little will happen. So let us bar the gates of Westminster and stop MPs leaving for their summer holidays until this crisis has been sorted out, and every nook and cranny of our political system has been reformed.
This is so ridiculous that I laughed out loud.
You want to reform Parliament, while all of the electorate in the country are away on THEIR holidays, sunning themselves in Dubai, while you make everything WORSE without anyone watching…..ROTFL!
Today I’m setting out a plan of action to get all the changes we need delivered in just 100 days
What’s the rush? The evil that has been emanating from that house has been going on for years; why the need to act quickly? If you want to do something quickly, why not remove all laws from the statute books that are the cause of everyones anger? The expenses scandal is merely the pin that has popped the boil. It is the final straw. How is it that you cannot see this?!
– making it possible for MPs to be sacked by constituents,
Irrelevant; if your MP sits and votes your rights away, and then you sack her, what does that do to the legislation she voted for? NOTHING. Nick Clegg and his party of FAIL are sour grape class warriors, interested in punishing everyone and not in the real things that matter
abolishing the House of Lords,
See what I mean? 70’s style class war that is the hallmark of the sour graper. No one cares that there is an unelected upper house; in fact, they have been useful in resisting the excesses of the lower house. This obsession with abolishing the lords is like journalists interviewing journalists about journalism. The only thing that matters in this, the real crisis, is the killing of the British people by the incredible burden of laws and the police state. A house of lords in a country where everyone’s rights are respected is completely tolerable; after all, someone has to organize the street sweepers. As long as that is all they are doing, who cares how they got there?
getting corrupt money out of politics and changing the electoral system to give everyone a voice.
Proportional representation; this will benefit only Nick Clegg’s party. It is a non issue when put against the core problem; power itself. A proportionally represented parliament that votes for illegal wars, ID Cards and ContactPoint is just as bad as one that is elected the old way.
People will say it isn’t possible – parliament can’t act that quickly.
‘Some people say‘? Actually, we say that it doesn’t matter wether or not it is possible. But you read that.
I say the innate conservatism that marks out our political establishment is part of the problem. Let’s stop all this self-congratulatory hype about the mother of parliaments and get on with improving it.
No one cares. Dismantle the police state and the 3000+ police state laws of Tony Bliar and everything else, using the old system, before you start tearing down parliament and replacing it with Parliament 2.0.
Momentum will ebb away unless we act quickly.
Its always best to act after careful thought and never in haste. This demonstrates that you are not fit to lead a donkey.
Delay would be a victory for those who want to confine change to the bare minimum – the two establishment parties who will talk up reform long enough for the storm to pass, then kick it into the long grass for good.
The whole thing is over…. that is what you DO NOT UNDERSTAND Mr FAIL!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/nick-clegg-a-new-politics
Who is the ‘We’ in this? In this case, it means the foxes who want to design a streamlined chicken coop with racing lines on the outside.
No thanks Nick Clegg… 100% FAIL.
Cameron has just delivered his speech in Milton Keynes, and the Daily Mail has an article on it.
Let’s see shall we?
An end to ‘top-down authoritarianism’
authoritarianism that is bottom up instead of top down is still authoritarianism. FAIL.
Education:
Take power out of councils’ hands and give it to parents
End state monopoly of state education
Any suitable organisation can set up a new school
Parents can send child to different school if unhappy
new extra payment for children from poorest families
And ‘enshrine the rights of Home Educators’ is missing from that list. As is enshrining the rights of parents. Also, the scrapping of ContactPoint is not anywhere mentioned here is it? How can you return power to parents if you COMPEL them to be listed on an Orwellian Database that is made to work against them, violating the sanctity of the family, privacy and everything else bad that ContactPoint does? FAIL.
Housing:
local community to decide size and shape of their area
new local housing trusts giving neighborhoods power to build houses they want
planning permission granted if agreement on local level
Once again, the local community, a collective, cannot have the power to say what you can and cannot do on your own land. If Britain is to be a free country, then what you do on your property is your business, as long as it does not interfere with anyone else’s life or property. FAIL.
Local government:
cut back on central regulation and targets
end central ring-fencing of local budgets
publication of spending over £25,000 online
local referendum on any excessive tax increases
keep proceeds on any activity that boost local economic growth
new general power of competence to act without government’s permission
directly elected mayors
policing under local democratic control
Local referendum on tax increases? So the collective can decide to steal more as long as the majority vote for it? FAIL.
“Policing under local democratic control”. Does this mean that if the local community wants smoking in pubs, speed limits on roads, an end to ‘drug’ prohibition etc etc, that they can have a police force that will only enforce the laws that the local community agrees on?!! WIN!
Europe and Justice
redistribute power from EU to Britain and judges to the people
referendum on Lisbon Treaty
law to require referendum on any further transfer of power to Brussels
negotiate return of powers and greater scrutiny of European legislation
British bill of rights to strengthen liberties
proper democratic accountability over creation of new rights.
British bill of rights to strengthen liberties WIN. Although how this line is worded should give everyone pause. Rights are absolute, not conditional. A bill of rights that lists conditional rights like the German Constitution is going to be complete FAIL. The right to privacy, the right to property, freedom to travel and all the other rights that are well understood and which have been enshrined in the constitutions of other countries should be in any bill of rights that Britain adopts. I fear that it is not likely that anyone in Britain today who is currently in a position to make it happen, has the spiritual and intellectual purity to write such a document. In any case, I mark it as ‘WIN’ because it is the right noise.
As for the rest of it, Britain should not be in the EU, so everything else on that list is in that block FAIL.
So, it looks like Cameron is full of FAIL. No surprise there.
The Daily Mail article title is:
Cameron promises fixed-term Parliaments under Tories as he unveils ‘manifesto’ to tackle ‘Orwellian state’
There is no mention in this article about anything to do with the Orwellian state; i.e. the NIR, ID Cards, ContactPoint and the insane number of networked CCTV cameras in the UK.
Like I said before:
Shifting the the responsibility for running the nanny state from the centre and distributing this vile power to the regions does not solve the actual problem, which is that people are tired of being interfered with by power itself.
[…]
Can you think of anything worse than being under the thumb of non cosmopolitan people with the power of the Orwellian State to back them up? We know what it looks like, thanks to New Labour; witness the recent outrages of Councils using Anti Terrorism laws to spy on the people they are ‘serving’:
And there you have it; just a smattering of the insanity we can expect to be amplified by the amount of power devolved to the local level.
Now take a look at this:
State recruits an army of snoopers with police-style powers
A growing army of private security guards and town hall snoopers with sweeping police-style powers is being quietly established, the Daily Mail can reveal.
Under a Home Office-run scheme, people such as park wardens, dog wardens, car park attendants and shopping centre guards receive the powers if they undergo training, and pay a small fee to their local police force.
Their powers include issuing £60 fines for truancy and dropping litter, and being able to demand a person’s name and address on the street.
Under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme, the number of civilians wearing a special badge, and a uniform approved by the local chief constable, has rocketed by almost 30 per cent in a year and there are now 1,406.
Critics claim Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is quietly seeking to create a third-tier within the ‘policing family’, with even less training and accountability than the controversial Police Community Support Officers.
The civilians are known as Accredited Persons, but they have been nicknamed ‘Jacqui Smith’s Irregulars’. The only significant difference between them and PCSOs is that they do not have the power to detain a suspect. Instead, they have to summon police.
Councils and other public sector organisations must pay between £300 and £315 to be accredited to the scheme, and between £35 to £90 per employee.
[…]
Phil Booth, of the NO2ID privacy campaign, said: ‘This sharp increase in Jacqui Smith’s Irregulars makes you wonder what her policing ambitions are.’
[…]
My emphasis.
Think about that; park wardens, dog wardens, car park attendants and shopping centre guards are going to be able to give you an on the spot fine for TRUANCY. How are they going to know wether or not you and your child are truant? Why, they will consult ContactPoint in real-time, phone the school your child is attending and ask if you have the school’s permission (in itself, utterly absurd) to be away from school. That is why they have given access to ContactPoint to so many people; in the context of this, it all makes sense.
This is what Cameron has utterly failed to address.
Unless the apparatus of the Orwellian State is removed in its entirety, the reins of authoritarianism will simply be handed over to other, even more brainless people.
The first group of people in the right place to stand up and say this will collect the light of the incandescent rage that is coming off of the British public, and that light will turn them into a shining beacon around which everyone on this island will rally.
Madeline Bunting writes at the Grauniad.
She has penned a breathtaking piece of trash; terrifying in its ignorance, its basis in illogic and bone shaking fear.
It is terrifying because she is an example of the devotees of the new secular religion of Environmentalism who are polluting our internets and taking up our time with their increasingly shrill and absurd claims.
And these shrill noises are going to get worse as more and more data emerges to destroy their false religion. They will do anything for their religion and because they are irrational and have no holy book to follow, they can change the focus of their religion at will.
First the threat to the environment was the coming of a New Ice Age. Then it was Global Warming. Now it is Climate Change. Each time, as the data shows that what they believe is not true, they change what they believe.
I have no problem with people following the religion of Environmentalism. They can believe in Santa Claus for all I care. the problem I have with the religious devotees of Environmentalism is that these people are ready and willing to make blood sacrifices on the altar of their new religion, and the blood they will be sacrificing will be yours and the families of other people.
Similar to the Malthusian “mass cull” enthusiasts Attenborogh and Porritt, Madeline Bunting wants everyone to be entered into the most fantastic and fine grained totalitarian system of absolute control in order to satisfy her insane Environmentalist agenda of complete degradation and subservience to Gaia.
These people feel a deep seated guilt at having lived in comparative prosperity, and they are desperate to ‘pay back’ for what ‘they’ have ‘taken’. The problem is, they want to superimpose their guilt onto everyone who lives in their part of the world. Like the Eugenics boosters who will not kill themselves and their children, Madeline Bunting is not willing to suffer alone as a dignified religious fanatic; she must CONVERT everyone, and drag them down into her pit of excrement.
The Daily Mail published a blistering attack on HMG, written deliberately to raise questions. Shall we answer them?
Why not?!
This Parliament has now lost all moral and political authority and ought, by rights, to dissolve itself.
Thats like asking a bank robber to turn himself and his bag of money in, or more accurately, a counterfeiter to hand in his printing press and plates, ink and paper stock voluntarily. No corrupt political power ‘dissolves itself’. That would be an act of decent, moral people. These are not decent moral people.
It is now not only the Government that has ceased to deserve our trust. So many members of the House of Commons have disgraced themselves so completely that their right to make laws for the rest of us has evaporated.
These people have been abusing their positions for years. All during that time, they schemed up the ID Cards, ContactPoint and countless other evils. They never had the right to make laws for anyone. So, if this is the case, should not all legislation introduced by New Labour be struck off of the books? If we are going to start with a clean slate, then let’s actually clean it; the 3000 laws of New Labour should be removed, and all of their purely evil and fascist proposals permanently scrapped. That means ID Cards, ContactPoint, the NIR and everything to do with them – SCRAPPED.
Nothing comparable has happened to British politics in modern times. The revelations of surreptitious greed – sometimes pathetic, sometimes outrageous, often both at the same time – are uniquely damaging.
These people are not greedy. They are behaving like human beings. The mistake the Mail makes is to put these people on a pedestal and expect them to not be human. Instead of asking for this, they should ask instead why these people need to ‘cheat’. Once they find the answer to that question, they will come to the conclusion that everyone in the country should be relieved of the insane burdens that they live under.
We have always known that MPs are human and imperfect, like the rest of us. In fact, it is important, for the sake of our democracy, that they are.
Nonsense. Since no one can be trusted, no one should be put in a position of trust with exceptional powers over anyone else. No one should be able to steal money or property from other people. No one should be able to murder. No one should be able to initiate force against another person. This is true of individuals or collections of individuals, no matter how that collection is selected.
But we also assumed that on election to that hallowed chamber, they recognised the seriousness of their tasks, the long, honourable traditions of freedom and courage which they had been elected to defend and the need to be honest above all things.
This is a joke right?
Nobody can assume that now. Grubby, grasping, shameless, these essentially little men and women are now shown to have become worse, not better, to have shrunk rather than grown, once they took their solemn oaths and added the letters ‘MP’ to their names. What did they think those letters stood for? Manipulate and Profit?
Murder and Pillage
Money and Power
Milking and Pilfering
Menace and Poison
Manacle and Prison
Monsters and Parasites
Money-grabbers and Prostitutes
Movies and Popcorn
Morons and Pipsqueaks
Miscreants and Poopheads
Meddling and Profane
Mad and Pathetic
Mountebanks and Pillocks
Malignant and Perfidious
MMORPG and Pwned
Muffdivers and Poodlefakers
Feel free to add to this list.
They seem to have been gripped by a sort of collective madness, combined with an astonishing heedless arrogance.
Almost there… COLLECTIVIST MADNESS!
How did they dare to finance their unearned profiteering and nest-feathering using taxpayers’ money – and then actually exempt themselves from tax?
‘Who dares wins’ thats how. People like the Mail allowed it to happen by consistently failing to rise to the challenge (as if they even had the choice) of confronting evil from the root; that collectivism itself is the evil.
Like the members of some pampered rubber-stamp Soviet in the old days of communism, their relationship with the State has been the exact opposite of that suffered by ordinary citizens.
Firstly, they are not LIKE members of a rubber-stamp Soviet, they ARE the NEW rubber-stamp Soviet Britain. Everyone knows it.
The hand of Government reaches ceaselessly into the pockets of the hard-working and the productive: when they earn, when they spend, when they travel, when they try to provide for old age, when they die.
And the solution to this is?…. Wait for it…..
For MPs it is the other way round. The State kindly subsidises their forays into the housing market, pumps other people’s money into their pensions, furnishes their little bolt-holes, provides them with free car parking and fat car allowances. Tax free.
The Daily Mail doesn’t seem to understand, THEY ARE THE STATE. The State is not separate from them, they are the State INCARNATE.
Tax free – two little words. Most of us would faint with shock if we were allowed even for a single year to see how much wealthier we would be without this burden.
There it is!
When the Daily Mail types wake up and understand that there can be no State without their cooperation, then the image will have cracked, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” will be everyone’s new reality, and all our troubles will soon after be over. Not only would everyone be wealthier, but this country would start to resemble the sort of place that it used to be; not a police state.
Yet MPs, who impose most of our taxes, do not even have to pay them on what is for many the bigger part of their income, an arrangement that places them in the luxury class. No wonder they are so carefree about loading taxes on everyone else.
‘The luxury class’ what does that even mean? Whatever it is you own or make, no one has the right to steal it from you. Whatever happens, nothing must distract from this and the fundamental principles.
Even now, they do not understand how their behaviour appears to others. Monstrously, it is proposed that the police should act against the source of the leaked information. How doubly ridiculous.
“Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done”. Hmph! What their behaviour appears like is IRRELEVANT. It is what they are ACTUALLY DOING that is important. All the time they were ‘cheating’, they were passing draconian measures to enslave the British people, all the while, appearing to be decent and behaving correctly. Correct behaviour, or at least the appearance of it is enough to keep everyone quiet in the UK. This is TOTAL INSANITY; as long as they are not spitting in your face, they can steal your money, your property, your liberty and …. you do not care? How can people BE like this?!
Modern Whitehall, so keen on gathering our secret details on its databases, so blithe in its promises that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, has proved yet again that it is not fit to be trusted with a bus ticket, let alone information of any value.
Actually, they have control of Bus Tickets also and you are right, they cannot be trusted with that either. As for all the other databases, you are paying for them; you are financing your own oppression. When are you going to join the dots and complete the hideous picture? Not only are they taking your money to live lives of ‘luxury’ but they are using your money to put you all in virtual cages from which you will never be able to escape, short of a total revolution. Wake up you dunderheads!
The 2005 Parliament is, in all important respects, not just a lame duck but a dead one. The Cabinet is an assembly of haggard political ghosts awaiting the end, bereft of ideas and even of the gimmicks and stunts that have served it so well till now.
It has been like this since before Bliar took office. This is not a new phenomenon. This is not news. What people like you need to talk about is how nothing like this is ever going to be allowed to happen again. What are you going to do to ensure that this is the case? That is the question.
Prime Minister’s Questions is a futile, modern version of bear-baiting in which nothing is revealed or gained. Nothing will come out of this nothingness.
The ‘modernisers’ and radicals who have sneered for so long at the Monarchy might now reflect on the fact that the one part of Government completely untouched by scandal and wholly above suspicion is the Sovereign herself.
I defy anyone in Britain to name a modern prime minster that would be preferable to absolute monarchy. Its an interesting question!
As she surveys the behaviour of her MPs, the pitiful failure of the Speaker and of the House of Commons authorities to check their behaviour, the involvement of Privy Counsellors and of the Opposition in the scandal, she must be more than tempted to summon her Prime Minister to the Palace and suggest to him that it would be a kindness to dissolve one of the most disgraceful Parliaments of modern times. This could begin a process of cleansing which is sorely needed.
And the Royal Prerogative to declare war should be returned to the monarch also. The power to wage war is too dangerous to be left in the hands of peasants. Yes, PEASANTS.
The Speaker should, of course, go. The officials supposedly supervising MPs’ allowances should likewise go. The MPs themselves should be compelled to face their constituents, who should all be provided with full details of their member’s expenses claims. The ex-MPs can then explain how they plan to reform their own institution and work out a system by which they would be adequately paid and properly recompensed for genuine expenses. Some of them might then be allowed back.
‘Allowed back’. This is why you FAIL. Its like voluntarily letting a thief back into your pockets for a second rifle around. Are you all TOTALLY INSANE?!?!
Voters face an awkward problem here. This is not – as will become increasingly clear in days to come – a party political issue. The Conservatives were trembling last night, wondering when their own misdeeds would begin to be exposed alongside those of Labour.
If you are a voter, then you have more problems than political parties. If you believe that voting can solve your problems, you are insane.
It is worth recalling that when The Mail on Sunday first uncovered the misuse of housing allowances in December 2002, it was the Tory MP Michael Trend who was found out.
So, between 2002 and 2009, nothing has changed and yet you want to go back to the polls, AGAIN, for MORE OF THE SAME. That is insane. There is no other word for it. Total unhinged insanity.
This newspaper has continued with its bipartisan pursuit of this abuse ever since, following a long trail. This has led more recently to the exposure of the increasingly preposterous Jacqui Smith’s slippery arrangements and to the unveiling of Tony McNulty’s similarly suspect claims.
These stories, doggedly and consistently investigated, undoubtedly helped bring about the mass exposure now under way.
It is true that Labour has made matters worse than they were, repeatedly trampling on rules and institutions which once preserved integrity at Westminster.
Without a paradigm shift, nothing will change. You can write all the articles you like; as long as you prop up the system by pretending that it is legitimate in its form and only needs ‘the right people’ to make it work properly, you will consistently FAIL and continue to be stolen from.
It has debauched Civil Service impartiality, imposing political commissars on Whitehall. It told deliberate lies to Parliament and people to gain support for an illegal war, the one single action that has done most to undermine good government, corrupting everyone involved. The lasting shame of the MPs gulled in this episode has no doubt demoralised them.
That war really and truly broke something. What you are doing by talking like this and holding back is trying to glue back together the dust of the porcelain vase that was the illusion you were living. Instead of trying to glue dust together, you should seize this opportunity to build a truly just britain, with a very small government that does not tell anyone what to do, and that does not steal money from its citizens.
Labour has also connived at torture and presided over the worst economic catastrophe for 80 years, bleating that it is not to blame.
A country with a small government cannot act as the poodle to any other country. Britain should get out of the EU, and tear up all the other treaties that cede sovereignty to foreign bodies. As for the financial crisis, if Britain had sound money no one in this country would be suffering the secret taxation of inflation and all the other problems to do with currencies controlled by a central bank.
At the same time it has extended the system of MPs’ allowances, and accelerated the process (already under way for many years) by which MPs have become the compliant, feather-bedded employees of Downing Street rather than the vigilant representatives of the British people.
When were they EVER the ‘vigilant representatives of the British people’? Those people are nothing more than warmongering ignorant control addicts hell bent on gaining absolute control of every British person down to their urine. After years of publishing articles about this, SURELY you all realize that that is the truth.
The Mother of Parliaments has been transformed into a personal wealth-creation scheme on the moral level of Las Vegas.
When has it been otherwise? It has always been an organ of organized theft and murder. It is only now that they not only steal and kill, but seek to totally oppress the population in a system of absolute control facilitated by technology. The vegas analogy is interesting. Let’s flesh it out.
At a Las Vegas casino, the house (parliament) always wins. The casino owners make a fortune. They ‘own the joint’. The difference is, people CHOOSE to gamble there, the rules NEVER CHANGE, and players can win MILLIONS of dollars with a single pull of a lever on a small stake. While you are there, you are treated with great respect and friendliness by the casino employees, there are free shuttle busses to everywhere laid on for you by the casino, you and your family have lots of fun, the food is cheap, plentiful and high quality, the weather is nice, and when you leave, you cannot wait to come back and spend more money.
Does that sound like Britain’s Parliament to you?
But both major parties have played their part in the transformation of politics into a well-paid and comfortable career for people who probably could not succeed in any other field.
True.
Both have done this as the European Union has hoovered power from Westminster to Brussels, leaving British governments with little to decide and not all that much to divide the parties.
Wise, experienced and forceful men and women have increasingly turned away from parliamentary politics. Inexperienced and unqualified backstairs-crawlers have taken their places.
So, you prefer to be stolen from by ‘wise, experienced and forceful’ men? That does not make sense. Also, even if those men WERE decent, there is always another Bliar or Brown around the corner. Only a system that permanently defangs government can prevent future theft, murder and abuses.
This change, until today too little noticed by the public, is now exposed in all its squalor.
Serious citizens of all parties and none should recognise that they have not been paying enough attention, that they have trusted too much and questioned too little.
Bloggers would disagree with this. Clearly.
We cannot expect Parliament to hold the executive to account, if we do not ourselves hold MPs to account, in every sense of the word.
Now is the time to do so. The people can and must recapture Westminster from the careerists and the cheats.
[…]
Judging from the comments on this related post many people seem to instinctively understand that something fundamental is wrong, but they are incapable of making the leap to the final conclusion that the whole system is fundamentally evil. There is talk of throwing them all out and starting again… starting again with the same rules? That is going to inevitably end up with more of the same.
Speaking of rules, Labour’s Lynne Jones, MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, had this hilarious line:
She said: ‘It’s a very difficult situation. People retire on certain financial assumptions and we can’t just change the rules.
[…]
Astonishing? Hardly.
These are the same people who do nothing but change the rules in the middle of the game (people’s lives); the most recent example is the change of the rules for ‘Non Dom’ workers:
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.
[…]
This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of government aparatchicks; the rules cannot be changed when it comes to THEIR PLANS FOR THEIR OWN FUTURES, but the plans for ANYONE ELSE are infinitely mutable. I do not need to go into how these parasites are not even productive, producing nothing ever, whereas the people in business are actually productive.
Like we have been saying for many posts, there are too many laws and regulations. If you are going to bring back parliament at all, it should sit in an unprecedented form whose sole Raison d’être should be to remove legislation.
Parliament in its current form sits to create legislation. If it continues to exist as it was, it can only make things worse for everyone, since it justifies its existence through the creation of legislation. As time goes on, they will, logically, have to legislate on every aspect of human life. This is unacceptable. Its like a runaway population of consumers producing garbage until there is no more space to live on earth. And no, the laws cannot be recycled.
Such a parliament could sit for many decades carefully undoing the byzantine and irrational laws and regulations that their venal predecessors conjured up. They would be assured of jobs for life, and great, even unprecedented popularity, as their role would change from ‘oppressors’ to ‘liberators’.
As it stands now, they are revealed as almost completely illegitimate and actually dangerous. They have very little room to maneuver; they can either go forward with the police state and risk being obliterated by force, or they can re-define their role and survive till the end of this century as heroes.
Either way, business as usual is off of the table!
This is the letter posted to Mr Graham Badman of the Elective Home Education Review, on May 6th 2009, calling for the review to be scrapped and including AHEd’s dossier of information and responses:
Dear Mr Badman,
AHEd members call for the Review of Home Education to be cancelled immediately on various grounds, not least because of the illegitimate Terms of Reference. We have completed the consultation document, not in recognition of the value or legitimacy of the review, but as a means of being statistically included and conveying important messages about the errors inherent in the consultation process and questions.
We attach a copy of the response of AHEd members to the six question consultation “Home Education – Your Views” on the DCSF consultation web site.
AHEd object to the claim that this is not in fact a consultation, thereby allowing for avoidance of the regulations governing public consultations set by the Better Regulations Executive. DCSF Public Communications Unit state:
“Mr Badman has decided that he wants his review to be informed by material from a wide range of stakeholders, so he decided to offer the opportunity for organisations and individuals to contribute to the review by filling in a questionnaire.”
Quite how this aim can be achieved by avoiding good consultation practice and thus limiting the scope of those reached is a mystery, especially as the major and only really valid stakeholder group, home educators, are likely to be those most frequently excluded by this methodology. Despite efforts from within the HE community to contact a wide range of home educators, it is not possible to reach anywhere near the majority of the estimated 20,000 to 50,000 home educators.
On the other hand, local authorities who also had access to the six question consultation (and who are known to be often hostile toward and uneducated about home education and who are largely responsible for the calls for unwarranted increases in their powers) have been asked to complete an exclusive 60 question missive. The questions in this document demonstrate a shocking lack of understanding of the law and constitute a blatant incitement to local authorities to illicitly harass and persecute home educating families. They also highlight the DCSF’s and Review Team’s disdain for the Elective Home Education Guidelines for England which were only recently published by the DCSF after an extensive public consultation.
AHEd members believe that the review has been composed in this skewed manner in order to attain predetermined answers for the purpose of supporting the government’s desire to impose compulsory registration, monitoring and tracking of electively home educated children and their families, including state control and prescription of educational method, content and outcome for all children. The government’s motto seems to be “If at first you don’t succeed (in getting the answers you want from your consultation) try, try, try again (using increasingly devious techniques to try to thwart those who oppose you).
Further evidence of the predetermined outcome of this review was provided by yourself in a meeting with home educators when you declared that the “status quo” cannot prevail and changes WILL be made. Saying this before the review is complete is a clear indication that you have a predetermined outcome.
AHEd members are aware of the document “Education Otherwise Prospectus for Improving Support to Home Educating Families” presented to the review and wish to distance ourselves from it and dismiss the proposals out of hand. The document was written by a handful of home educators with no reference at all to the wider home education community or even to Education Otherwise members. In our opinion it does not represent proposals we would be happy to engage with and is extremely unlikely to have support in the wider home educating community. On the contrary, it has caused outrage.
AHEd members insist in the strongest possible terms that the only necessary changes are for LAs to stop ultra vires activity and instead learn to use the legal powers they already have. If changes in legislation that reduce the freedoms of home educators are proposed, this would be an act of the utmost hostility toward home educators and would be rejected out of hand by the home education community.
The public, especially those actually involved and likely to be affected by the outcome, do not have a taste for accepting such invasion into their private business. Our members will not co-operate with their own oppression and will continue to act and speak for our historic freedom to raise and educate our children in accordance with our personal philosophies, religious beliefs and conscience. Please see our Parents’ Declaration, attached.
You may also be aware of our petition which gathered 3,126 signatures in a short time plus that of the petition creator:
Further material supporting our call for cessation of the review is included.
Yours sincerely,
[…]
This is a great thing.
It draws a line in the sand, and gives the enemy a chance to back down. Sadly, they will not back down.
We all know that petitions do not work, that the declaration is flawed because it relies on the law as a basis of rights, etc etc, but in the main, this is probably the best thing a Home Education group has ever produced.
What needs to happen next is that every parent in Britain should be made to understand what this review really means. It is actually about the rights of all parents to look after their own children in any context, wether they are in school or not:
There is no current system for safeguarding children who are educated at home. There is no need for such a system, there never has been a need and there never will be. Children who are educated at home are exactly the same as those who are educated at schools. If you think there is a need for a system to safeguard children who are educated at home, then you need to start one to safeguard children who are educated at school. All schoolchildren have home lives just like home educated ones do. There is no more risk in either type of education. This consultation is the result of the fantasies of ignorant aparatchicks who are desperate to destroy the family, and to put every child in a government brainwashing centre. It simply will not wash. All the assumptions of this are completely wrong, and everyone knows it.
[…]
Home educating families should not be monitored, any more than families who send their children to schools should be monitored. Both of these groups have family lives; the only difference being that home educating families have more of a family life than those that send their children to school. Once again, this question is borne out of complete ignorance of what Home Education is, why it is done, who is doing it, what the proper role of government is, and what the fundamental rights of parents are.
[…]
I will give you an example.
There is talk about provision for kindergarten being made available nation-wide for children of three. Imagine that you do not want your child to attend one of these state kindergartens, and that you want to keep them at home…just because you want to.
If your child is in ContactPoint (if they do not scrap it) the Local Authority will know that your baby has reached the age of three. They will also know that you have not registered your child at one of the local kindergartens. They will then assume that you are an incompetent child abusing parent because you will not avail yourself of their ‘free’ ‘service’.
This is essentially what they are saying to all parents; you are not capable of looking after your own children – only we have the necessary skills to look after children…THE STATE.
This is why I have been privately advocating for a professional PR company to engineer the reality of Home Education; to put it into its proper context and head off the inevitable smear campaign that is going to go into full gear once the review is nearing completion and the results published.
Now for the hard questions
Our members will not co-operate with their own oppression
What does this actually mean? You will have several options, and the Germans are years ahead of you when it comes to this.
You will be obliged, first of all, to ignore any and all legislation that attempts to take away your rights.
You will then have to make a choice.
You could go into hiding. In police state britain, that will be a great challenge. People are being encouraged to tattle on their neighbors over garbage – literally – and so it will be a simple thing to convince a propagandized public to report home schoolers, since, ‘everybody knows….’. You would have to restrict your movements, only going out when school is out, lest the truancy officers spot you. It would be a difficult existence to say the least.
You could opt for taking a stand and Home Educating no matter what. As in the case of the Germans you can expect huge fines, jail, and being threatened with the loss of custody of your children. Without a large fighting fund behind you to give the authorities pause, we could call such a strategy a ‘Martyrdom Path’. It might actually be a good thing, as it could wake the nation up to the insanity of the State raising all children from the age of three, wether the parent likes it or not.
Finally, you could opt to flee the country with your family. Iran is a nice place to live compared to the UK if you Home Educate and they change the law. Certainly going to another western country is not a good idea. France is out of the question (for example) since:
In France, homeschooling is legal and requires the child to be registered with two authorities, the ‘Inspection Académique’ and the local town hall (Mairie). An inspection is carried out twice yearly once a child reaches the age of six (it is obligatory from the age of eight).
[…]
Not very nice. Its exactly what you do not want; the state interfering in your private business through invasive and pointless registrations and inspections.
Take a look at this map:
(Green) Legal
(Yellow) Mostly Legal; may be disputed in most political subdivisions
(Orange) Generally considered illegal, but untested legally
(Red) Illegal
All the places in red are where Home Education is illegal. The Brutish government wants to join all the bad places on this map. Absolutely SHAMEFUL.
According to that map, and the Wikipedia page it came from Austria looks like the best country to move to if you have an EU passport. Home Education is just legal; no registration, no interference, no nonsense. You will not have any problems with immigration, you can travel anywhere in the EU…
Which gives me an idea.
Why not take an address in Austria, and say that you live there? Think about it; how long do you have to be in the UK before the State requires that your children attend school? If you are from Austria, and you decide to spend some time in different parts of the EU as a family exploring Europe, how can the State expect you to register your children in every country as you move around? Its completely ABSURD.
Which brings us to the final conclusion of all of this. Eventually, the government is going to have to implement exit visas for all UK subjects. You will have to apply for permission to leave Britain with your children, so that they can make sure that you are not leaving during term time, or so they can catch Home Educators. When you apply for a visa, you will of course, have to get a signature from your schools headmaster, confirming that you have his permission to leave the country with ‘your’ child. The E-Borders project will facilitate this nicely.
Think about it; it is the logical end to all of this madness. As long as you have the right to leave the country at will and relocate anywhere you like with your family, their law means nothing. As long as you are free to live anywhere in the EU and can return to Britain at will, and there is no rule about how long you have to be in Britain before you must send your children to school, all of their Home Education laws will have no meaning. In order for these laws to be enforceable, what I have just described needs to be rolled into the equation.
This is why everything that they are planning now needs to be stopped. Once all these pieces are in place, they will have a system of total control over everyone. The keys to it all are the databases. Never before in the history of man has such a comprehensive grid of control been possible. Never before have such an evil group of monsters been in a position to make it a reality.
The war on Home Education is only a part of this. All groups, need to stand their ground in their own corner, and absolutely refuse to cooperate with anything that destroys their rights. Together, as we act individually, we will be transformed by emergent behavior effects into an unstoppable force for good.
Thankfully, it appears that this is actually happening!
As Education Othewise become less and less important for various reasons, other more focussed groups are forming and asserting themselves. Action for Home Education is one of those groups. They have a ‘Parent’s Declaration’ online that they are asking HE parents to sign. This is a good start. It shows that finally, HE families are beginning to feel the very real threat to their families and are girding their loins for the upcoming confrontation with the evil state. The first step is to do this; declare your rights and your unalterable position.
Whilst its great to have a declaration, it is important that it makes sense, and does not contain any language that allows the state to assert in any way that they are the source of your rights. They are not. Your rights have nothing to do with the state, or its myriad pieces of legislation, or fake types of right that are in vogue today, like ‘children’s rights’ or ‘patients rights’ etc etc.
Let’s do it:
PARENTS’ DECLARATION
WE DECLARE our independent status and affirm our responsibility for the upbringing and education of our children in accordance with our lawful rights and natural justice.
First of all that is ‘sole responsibility’. Secondly, any rights you have come from nature, and not from the law, therefore we can only talk about our ‘natural rights’ as opposed to ‘lawful rights’, since the state can declare anything it likes to be unlawful; like drinking orange juice. If, all of a sudden, your ‘lawful rights’, in this case, to drink orange juice, are declared unlawful, are they taken away from you? Obviously not. Your rights exist with you, and cannot be legislated away. The state may make you an outlaw, but that does not erase your rights. For a particularly nasty example of the law making criminals of people who merely exercise their rights, see this. The ‘natural justice’ part is redundant. If you are exercising your rights without interference, that is just.
WE ASSERT our right to choose the place, form and content of the educational provision for our children in accordance with the following:
The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable—
(a)to his age, ability and aptitude, and
(b)to any special educational needs he may have,
either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.
(Section 7 of the Education Act 1996)In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
Once again, if the law changes, do your natural rights disappear? What if parliament revokes Section 7 of the Education Act 1996? That is a very real possibility, especially as all UK HE people rely on this piece of law heavily. If that is one of your pillars then you are in serious trouble if they remove it. Your right to choose the place, form and content of the educational provision for your children has nothing to do with any legislation. The Germans do not have this legislation on their books, do they not have the same rights that you do? Of course they do, because rights do not come from the law.
(Protocol 2 Article 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights)
The european court has already declined to defend the rights of German parents to Home Educate, so I would not put too much store in using them to defend your rights in the UK.
WE WILL protect the rights of our children to own their own lives, to privacy and freedom from undue official interference in accordance with the following rights:
The right to respect for a private and family life, home and correspondence
(Human Rights Act 1998)
The right to be free from “arbitrary or unlawful interference with [their] privacy, family, home or correspondence” and from “unlawful attacks on [their] honour and reputation”
(Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child)
Once again, Britain chooses to ignore what it likes when it comes to the EU, and in any case, as I say above, you cannot rely on European courts to defend what is naturally yours.
WE DEMAND that state officials remain within the bounds of the powers already conferred upon them under current law in their dealings with us, the people.
WE WILL UPHOLD AND DEFEND the above principles without fear or favour where the state forgets its legitimate function, oversteps its bounds or seeks to exert undue influence or power over our lives and those of our children against our traditional freedoms and natural justice.
Finally. This translates to (if we are taking it seriously) “we will not comply with anything that violates our rights.” That means that whatever nonsense the state comes up with, all the signatories of this declaration will simply disobey.
Once again we have some troublesome wording; freedoms are not traditional, they come from you by virtue of your existence. Traditions can be broken, are arbitrary and fleeting. Your rights are not breakable, are not arbitrary, and are eternal. Natural Justice we have already dealt with.
The next obvious step is to create a fighting fund for the inevitable lawsuits that will need to be brought, as LAs pick off the most vulnerable families to make examples of. A list of things that will not be obeyed could come in handy for those who are not up to speed on just how intertwined the monsters tentacles are.
This is good news all in all. Hopefully the numbers in HE crowd that are not willing to compromise will increase and the others who would sell their children for a pat on the head or a job in government will dwindle to a handful and then be permanently sidelined.
Snarfed from Renegade Parent.
UPDATE
The declaration has been translated into Portuguese, including all the references to British Law. Clearly this doesn’t make any sense, since the laws in the UK do not apply to Portugal. Had this document been written more carefully, it could have been adopted world-wide by any parent, since it would have dealt unambiguously with rights that everyone has in common and nothing to do with any particular state and its bogus legislation.
Airline pilots are to become the first group to refuse to take part in the national identity scheme when compulsory trials start at Manchester and London City airports this autumn.
The British Airline Pilots’ Association (Balpa), which represents more than 80% of commercial airline pilots, is to mount a legal challenge to Home Office plans to use “critical” airside workers as the first compulsory “guinea pigs” for the scheme.
MPs are shortly to be asked to approve the powers to compel the pilots and other airside workers at the two airports to register for the national ID card scheme as part of their “pre-employment” checks. The £30 fee is to be waived as an incentive for them to sign up.
The pilots’ union has protested to ministers that the £18m scheme cannot be regarded as voluntary when they are being told they will not qualify for an “airside pass” without them: “ID cards will have absolutely no value as far as security is concerned. This is nothing other than coercion and promises that ID cards would be voluntary have been broken,” Jim McAuslan, Balpa general secretary, has told ministers. “We will resist.”
These behind the scenes preparations and the recent signing of two 10-year contracts worth £650m to get the ID cards programme under way undermine recent speculation that the cabinet is considering axing the scheme as part of the general Whitehall spending squeeze. The speculation took off when a suggestion by David Blunkett, the former home secretary, that the ID card programme should be repackaged as a biometric passport scheme to reassure the public was misintepreted as him turning against the idea.
But the details of the two contracts awarded in the last few weeks show just how far the ID cards scheme has become embedded in the introduction of “biometric” passports. For 80% of British citizens their identity card will be their passport.
The Home Office describes the two contracts as “bringing the large scale deployment of ID cards a step closer”. The first contract, worth £385m and awarded to a US computer company, CSC, will cover processing applications for passports and ID cards and dealing with any subsequent changes in personal details . The second contract, awarded to IBM, and worth £265m, is to build and run the database that will store the digital fingerprints and facial images for the ID scheme and the new generation of passports.
The decision to combine what the Home Office calls the core elements of the ID cards programme and the modernisation of the passports means it will be difficult for any incoming government after the general election to cancel the ID scheme separately.
Two further contracts will be awarded this year for the design and production of identity cards and the next generation of passports to be introduced from 2011.
[…]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/04/identity-cards-airline-pilots
So, IBM is at it again:
During the rise of Nazi Germany and the onset of World War II, IBM had relationships and contracts with the German military/industrial technocracy. IBM’s punch card machines were used by Germany to keep track of people who were to be subjected to the Holocaust.[7]
[…]
and
IBM and the Holocaust is the stunning story of IBM’s strategic alliance with Nazi Germany — beginning in 1933 in the first weeks that Hitler came to power and continuing well into World War II. As the Third Reich embarked upon its plan of conquest and genocide, IBM and its subsidiaries helped create enabling technologies, step-by-step, from the identification and cataloging programs of the 1930s to the selections of the 1940s.
[…]
I’m surprised that no one is pulling up these companies, especially IBM for participating in this absolutely appalling and fascist scheme and of course, there are no companies in the UK who are capable of pulling off this nefarious project.
The grauniad betrays its secret pro ID card stance (not surprising, since they are pure statists in every other way) with this paragraph:
The decision to combine what the Home Office calls the core elements of the ID cards programme and the modernisation of the passports means it will be difficult for any incoming government after the general election to cancel the ID scheme separately.
This is a lie.
Lets try it this way:
“The decision to combine what the Home Office calls the core elements of the ID cards programme and the mandatory barcode tattooing of the British public means it will be difficult for any incoming government after the general election to cancel the ID scheme separately.”
It doesn’t work does it? And it doesn’t matter how much money they have spent, or how the system has been designed; it can be dismantled, and WILL be dismantled. The money they have spent on this project will be written off, and the companies will get compensation for the cancellation of the contracts. GAME OVER.
We have just seen the climbdown on keeping the DNA profiles and samples of innocent people, resulting in the destruction of the information on 800,000 completely innocent people, including children. Do not think for one second that the ID Card system can not be dismantled completely and sanity restored.
The only people who write like that, saying that it will be a fait accompli are those who want to carry these noxious and purely evil documents. It is not an excuse for Alan Travis to say that he is “merely reporting” when he writes this, because it is a lie to say that it cannot be, or will be ‘difficult’ to, “cancel the ID scheme separately”. Difficult by whose measure? Who said this? And if, as it is, it is not the case, why is there no counter argument saying that it is in fact not ‘difficult’ at all to cancel the project…just expensive, which when we are talking about human lives and dignity, means nothing. ‘Expensive’ itself is a relative term; Number 11 can just push the speed of their printing press up to 10.5 from 10 for an hour to pay off IBM and CSC….but I digress.
As for MPs asking for “powers to compel the pilots and other airside workers at the two airports to register” they are just going to further solidify the resolve of the people who they have chosen to attack first. Everyone in the country will get behind them; there is no way that the government can possibly win.
They have already threatened to strike. I hope that the other airport staff are also ready to come out on strike at the same time. Both airports should be completely shut down until the government announces that the scheme is permanently cancelled.
