Purge of e-mails will deny the right to know By Sam Coates and Jill Sherman
MILLIONS of e-mails to civil servants at the heart of government will be automatically wiped on Monday, 11 days before freedom of information laws come into force.
The Cabinet Office, which supports the Prime Minister and co-ordinates policy across government, has ruled that e-mails more than three months old must be deleted from December 20, TheTimes has learnt.
Its 2,000 civil servants are being told to print and file e-mails that should be disclosed under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act.
It will be up to the individual which e-mails are printed, with no monitoring from heads of department. Many officials, who receive about 100 e-mails a day, will have at least 3,000 items in their mailboxes. These include officials in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, the Delivery Unit, and the offices of Alan Milburn and Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary.
Although the deleted e-mails will be stored on back-up systems, these have been declared off limits to freedom of information requests because of the cost of accessing them.
Last night, Phil Boyd, the assistant information commmissioner, who will enforce FoI requests, said that the decision could be a big risk and that important files could be lost.
Constitutional experts called the introduction of an “opt-in” system, where civil servants are proactive in preserving information, a blatant contradiction of the Act’s “presumption of disclosure”.
The Tories said that the Government was deliberately trying to destroy embarrassing information. “This begs the question how much more does the Labour administration need to hide,” Michael Fabricant, the Shadow Minister for Industry and Technology, said.
The decision also raises questions about whether the trail of correspondence which brought down David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, would have surfaced.
The Cabinet Office insisted that the exercise was not related to the Freedom of Information Act but was “good records management practice”, to stop files blocking the system.
“It is the end of the year and our computer system is getting overloaded,” he said. Most e-mails would be copied to a number of officials, and ministers’ private offices would ensure that important records were kept.
“We are not going to get some 25-year-old graduate deleting the advice which the Attorney-General gave to the Government about going to war with Iraq,” the official said.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is monitoring the introduction of FoI legislation, said: “No Government Departments have been told to destroy records in order to prevent their release under the FoI Act, and such a policy would run totally contrary to the Government’s intention to increase openness.
“Departments regularly destroy records as part of proper records management policies. Paying to store outdated records which are no longer of any use, and which are not historically valuable, wastes taxpayers’ money.”
But freedom of information campaigners and opposition MPs called the decision extremely worrying. Alan Beith, the Liberal Democrat chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, said: “This has the appearance of trying to get round the new freedom of information legislation. It certainly appears that they are not observing the spirit of the Act. The FoI legislation was meant to result in a change of culture, not a wholesale clear-out.”
Mr Boyd said: “The risk is that you’re applying a deletion policy on the basis of the age of the record, rather than the information which it contains. The policy should not automatically decide that after three months a record has no value, but at that point someone must decide whether to keep it.” [...]
And of course, the "ordinary" mans emails, phone calls etc must be kept for SEVEN YEARS so that this immoral, law breaking murdering governmet can delve into your affairs at will, at the expense and inconvenience of your ISP.
In a perfect world, all ISPs and telecoms providers would point blank refuse to comply with such absurd data retention rules, on principle.
It is outrageous that public servants should be able to hide their communications, yet compel the very people that they work for to keep theirs.
There is absolutely no technical reason why all of these emails cannot be archived permanently just as they are, in a snapshot fashion. They just want to bury their dirty laundry murdered corpses, the bastards!
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!! (a Konono title that can actually be purchased in North America!) KONONO NO.1Lubuaku(Terp) cd 16.98 We have been totally obsessed with these guys (as have the rest of you judging from how many folks have called and emailed about them and already bought a ton of copies from us before this review even was written) for at least a year if not more and until now there hasn't been a thing (other than a minute long mp3 sample available on Crammed Discs' website) which has been taunting us with the promise of a full length from these guys. So until that fabled Crammed Discs release actually comes out we've got this little nugget to tide you over. From AQ Records
Brought to my attention by William Gibson's blog, some incredible quotes from the Law Lords' judgement on detention without charge...
[...] Lord Hoffmann’s remarks in the judgement by the House of Lords that the British government is wrong to detain foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial:
This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community….
Such a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory. [...]
It is good to be reminded that, whatever one may think of the House of Lords as an institution, some extremely wise people still reside there.
A sharp contrast from a cabinet and Prime Minister whose decisions and policies lack all evidence of rational thought.
But the real question is why? Why do people put themselves through all the stress and pressure? Why do they go into debt so they can give gifts that the receiver probably doesn't even need? Why do they complain about the excesses of Christmas and then fall for it again every year?
I believe they are trying to fill a void. With fewer and fewer people taking part in the religious aspects of the holidays, many are looking for other rituals to take their place. Humans have an innate need to connect to their families, their communities and to the rhythms and cycles of nature. Throughout human history, we've done that with celebrations and rituals to reflect the changing seasons, the lunar cycles and important stages in our lives. ...
Al-Manar's website says it first began satellite broadcasts in 2000
The United States has added Hezbollah's al-Manar television station to its list of terrorist organisations, saying it incites violence in the Middle East.
The designation comes less than a week after France banned broadcasts of al-Manar's satellite channel.
The station is backed by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, already considered by the US a "foreign terrorist organization".
Anyone linked to the station could face action, the State Department warned.
"For example, an alien would be found inadmissible ... if the alien is a member of al-Manar, if a person solicits funds or other things of value for al-Manar, if he provides material support to al-Manar or solicits any individual for membership in al-Manar," State Dept spokesman Richard Boucher said.
Mr Boucher denied the US decision had been made under Israeli pressure.
"It's not a question of freedom of speech," he said.
"It's a question of incitement to violence. And we don't see why here or anywhere else a terrorist organisation should be allowed to spread its hatred and incitement through the television airwaves." [...]
Where are the demonstrations demanding the identity card, the letters imploring the government to introduce a scheme as soon possible, the citizens calling phone-in programmes anxious to be able to identify themselves beyond reasonable doubt?
Of course, there has been no such clamour, merely a silence, and a rather eloquent one at that. Since the 1939 National Registration Act was repealed in 1951 after Clarence Willcox, the manager of a dry cleaning shop, challenged the principle that a policeman could demand to see his wartime identity card, the British have seen compulsory registration schemes as the mark of more officious and authoritarian states than ours. Over the years we've taken pride that we carried as much or as little identity as we pleased, and that as long as we were within the law, no official or policeman could demand to see proof of our name and address.
Although little essentially has changed in the condition of the country, the government wants to compel us to accept what the former home secretary called the "gold standard of identification", with large fines for non-registration and failing to renew a card or notify the authorities of a change of address.
Some 95% of Britons do not lack the means to identify themselves. We voluntarily carry driving licences, credit and bank cards, professional ID of every sort, security passes and sometimes social security numbers and medical tags. If a document needs to be signed or a large sum to be collected from the bank, it is simply a matter of producing a passport.
So the important point is not that we need to identify ourselves, but that the government wishes to identify us, which is a different matter and one that should set off alarms. That David Blunkett has been replaced by Charles Clarke, who has shown that he has some reservations about the details of the scheme, should not mean that we relax.
To be anonymous, to go privately, to move residence without telling the authorities is a fundamental liberty which is about to be taken from us. People may not choose to exercise this entitlement to privacy, or see the point of it, but once it's gone and a vast database is built, eventually to be accessed by every tentacle of the government machine, we will never be able to claw it back. We are about to surrender a right which is precious, rare even in western democracies, and profoundly emblematic of our culture and civilisation. And what for? The government advances arguments of necessity, raising the threats of terrorism, organised crime, benefit fraud and illegal immigration.
It is obvious that the members of criminal gangs will not be deterred by having to apply for identity cards, just as they are not by the need to have a passport. The possession of a legitimate national ID card does not of itself magically prevent criminal intent. It doesn't in mafia and Camorra strongholds of Italy, so why should it here?
Benefit fraud may be reduced a little, but most cases involve people making false claims about their circumstances, not their identity. A national registration scheme will do nothing to put off those bent on coming here, as has been discovered in France, Spain and Italy, which of course all have identity card schemes.
The first claim about countering the terrorist threat is, of course, baloney. Even at the height of the IRA campaign no one suggested that identity cards would defeat the active units here, or in Northern Ireland. [...]
It is my feeling that those librarians who contract with Google for access to their books and documents for purposes of digitization should require that any future searches done on Google that produce this material, must respect the anonymity of the searcher. This would mean that Google cannot record the IP address or unique ID from the cookie for such searches. Short of this, another alternative would be for libraries to deny Google access to any literature that has political content or relevance.
As I understand it, for legal reasons Google will be interested primarily in material that is not copyrighted.* But this could include a lot of political and anarchist material from 100 years ago. What, for example, would prevent Google from supplying to the FBI a list of those who read Marx, if required to do so by subpoena?
I'm aware that the ALA is already involved with discovery and lobbying on this issue with the Justice Department over practices that evolved out of the Patriot Act. But keep in mind that the scale of anything Google does is a million times larger than the scale of anything that involves discrete libraries, access to paper hard copy, and occasional subpoenas for specific information. Perhaps the scale of what Google does is even ten million times larger.
Google is increasingly turning into a portal, in which the more Google knows about its users, the more competitive Google becomes for purposes of targeted advertising. This targeted advertising is over 95 percent of their gross revenue, and it is obviously their main priority. The new Google Groups Beta is merely the latest manifestation of this. Other major players such as Yahoo, Amazon, and Microsoft are also very interested in "personalized search." My concern is that libraries may get sucked into this scenario if they don't take steps now to make their priorities clear. Google, Yahoo, Amazon and Microsoft are already unstoppable, but librarians still have time to speak out.
Polly Curtis, education correspondent Friday December 17, 2004
Tariq Ramadan, the leading Muslim academic, has resigned his professorship at an American university after authorities refused to give him a visa.
Swiss-born Prof Ramadan is one of the most respected philosophers of religion and conflict resolution; he has argued for a more moderate and modern Islam, and was named by Time magazine as one of the world's top 100 influential thinkers this year.
But in July his American visa was revoked under the Patriot Act, adopted after the terrorist attacks on September 11, prohibiting him from taking up the post at the University of Notre dame in Indiana. They have so far refused to issue a new visa.
Today he announced his resignation of two professorships at the university - professor of Islamic studies in the classics department and professor of religion, conflict, and peace building - and accused the American authorities of attacking academic freedom.[...]
Mind control from Number Ten Mind control from Number Ten: Take your protein pills and put your blinkers on Mind control from Number Ten: Commencing countdown: freedom's gone Check id-nation and may God's love be with you
This is Mind control from Number Ten, you've really made the grade! And the police want to know whose shirts you wear, Now it's time to leave your home if you dare
This is Number Ten your mind con-trol, I'm slipping through the door And I'm gloating in the most peculiar way And the Stasi look very different today
For here am I sitting in Number Ten, far above the world Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing you can do
Though I'm passed one hundred thousand lies, I'm feeling very still And I think my spaceship knows which way to go, tell my Bush I love him very much he knows
Mind control from Number Ten: Your freedom's dead, there's nothing wrong. Can you hear me? Number Ten Can you hear me? Number Ten Can you hear me? Number Ten Can you ...
Here am I gloating round Number Ten, far above the Hoon Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing you can do
"To the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee."
I didnt know you meant to brand him "clunk" after all, it did just say "clunk clunk clunk"!
Now, this is the guy we are discussing:
who votes for "Dumbo" and who votes for "Clunk"?!?!?
By the way, we can lay into this guy because its "plans unchanged" for human rights abuse and ID cards under his tenure as Home secretary. The law lords voted 8:1 that detaining people without trial because they are foreign is an abuse of their human rights, yet, this PIG says "I will not be releasing them because they constitute a threat to this country."
Let me be the first to name the new home secretary
Et tu Brute?
Why Blunk' it when you can Clunk it.
I heard a bootleg recording of something I went to on friday amazing how completely different it is. Completely different balance of sounds and almost no resonances from the space itself, whereas I was enveloped by them. I think I'll stick with my memory while it lasts
My god, I know I am ages behind everyone in here, but I am cheating on my boyfriend. I am having a lover, and we are falling into deep deep love. I got a new AMC amplifier and Evox speakers, waiting for a mixer and a recordplayer more.... I just got a program on my computer so I can record my vinyl as mp3 and hav'em in my ipod, and I have just recorded my first vinyl - and I looked at all the waves - and there! Looking at the music as mathematical waves I feel in love... like never before...
Unfortunately Clunk, the remote control robot is not going to question ID card legislation. Hardly surprising bearing in mind that Liar was not going to appoint anyone who questioned his appeasement of the Whitehouse on 'security' issues.
What is so delicious about this resignation is that he was caught by a type of system that he wants to impose on the entire British population; a system where everything you ever do is recorded and retrievable to haunt you and bring you down at any time.
This system is how they managed to have all the emails he ever sent, that came back to incriminate him. How they have all the phone calls his office made that incriminated him, how they know that a letter was read out to him over dinner, how they know WHERE he was having that very same dinner.
Turn about is fair play motherfucker; thats what its like to be a victim of a Total Information Awareness society. It sucks.
I have no problem at all with a government minister fast tracking Visae, or Passport applitcaions or anything else like that; that is how the world works, that is how things get done. What I cannot accept is that everyone EXCEPT government ministers are made to be accuntable down to the last action, while they do whatever they want, whenever they want. Rather like the drinking laws that tell everyone last orders are half past ten, yet they can drink 24/7 in private bars in parliament. We should all be able to live by flexible law, bending the rules sensibly when we need to, without any consequence.
Life is fuzzy. It is grey, and messy, and muddled up. It is not geometric, except in the messy fractal sense - it is not Platonic in its geometry. Everyone needs to be able to escape, to shrink, to expand, to step forward obliquely, to spin on their heels, do a favour here and there. An NIR/ID card society is less like a fractal one, and more like an idealized Platonic one, and it is inhuman, inflexible and a bad idea, and its greatest proponent has just bitten the dust and been made to eat shit by the same bad mechanisms that he sought to foist on all of us.
Four men in the their early thirties meet in the lounge of a New York-Montreal train, and discuss the topics of the day, such as the war in Korea, the British Labor Government, pension plans in industry, etc.
a. was born and brought up in New York, belongs to a wealthy family, is assistant to the president of a firm that makes office machines and in which his family has the controlling interests. Was a pilot in World War II. Single.
b. is French from Quebec, educated at Harvard, is general manager of the family's firm in Quebec. Theirs is the largest foundation garment industry in the British Commonwealth, with factories under license in various countries. No military experience because one eye was lost playing hockey. Married, no children.
c. is an engineer, born and brought up in the Middle West, earned most of his education, was Lt. Colonel of paratroop unit in Pacific theater. Now assistant to Works Manager in a large plant in the western part of New York state, where mining and construction equipment is made for the U.S. and outside. Married, 2 children.
d. is second generation American, of Polish descent, born and brought up in Chicago. Military service in Infantry and Intelligence (European theater) up to rank of Major. College: Arts with major in sociology. After the War took graduate work in Human Relations at M.I.T. Now industrial relations consultant to a large labor union. Married, 1 child.
Mr Blunkett has been in the media glare for much of the last month
David Blunkett has quit as home secretary after an e-mail emerged showing a visa application for his ex-lover's nanny had been fast tracked. Mr Blunkett said he had nothing wrong because the visa had been processed by the "system".
But he said questions about his integrity had been damaging the government.
Sir Alan Budd is due to unveil the findings of his inquiry into the allegations in the next few days. [...]
See the statue of the beast-man pulled down as the crowds cheer; this is a moment the people of the UK had...you get the picture!!!!
Oh well, there goes my new tshirt!!!!!
Caught with his pants down in an adulterous affair, Caught abusing the system...TWICE Eager as fire in a petrol station to force everyone into a ID card cage, but bends the rules for himself like its his God given right...
This despicable, evil, twisted, low down dirty dog is gone gone gone!!!!!
Allons! the road is before us! It is safe—I have tried it—my own feet have tried it well.
Allons! be not detain'd! Let the paper remain on the desk unwritten, and the book on the shelf unopen'd! Let the tools remain in the workshop! let the money remain unearn'd! Let the school stand! mind not the cry of the teacher! Let the preacher preach in his pulpit! let the lawyer plead in the court, and the judge expound the law.
Mon enfant! I give you my hand! I give you my love, more precious than money, I give you myself, before preaching or law; Will you give me yourself? will you come travel with me? Shall we stick by each other as long as we live?
That is not which is. The only Word is Silence. The only Meaning of that Word is not. Thoughts are false. Fatherhood is unity disguised as duality. Peace implies war. Power implies war. Harmony implies war. Victory implies war. Glory implies war. Foundation implies war. Alas! for the Kingdom wherein all these are at war.
"I stand before you today as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States. I am not the candidate of black America, although I am black and proud. I am not the candidate of the women's movement of this country, although I am a woman, and I am equally proud of that. I am not the candidate of any political bosses or special interests. I am the candidate of the people."
Can you believe me when I say there is no god? It's only my opinion, as it was Flew's opinion.
What I am talking about is something different than a man stating an opinion.
"I ate bacon and eggs this morning"
That is either a true statement or it is not. The tendency of people to NOT believe a statement like that is what I am talking about, pure and simple. Ish.
When a man like Flew says "I ate bacon and eggs this morning" it is often prefixed by "OFFICIAL" simply because of his special staus. That is wrong. Bacon and eggs are always bacon and eggs, Flew or no flew. You cannot doubt that a bum in the street ate it for breakfast becaus he is a bum, but people do, because they tend towards disbelief and this is a sickness, a terrible mind shackeling sickness.
What is worse, a symptom of this sickness is that the long pigs who suffer from it believe liars more than they do people who tell the truth; they prefer to believe lies, gravitate towards them and make these lies their own.
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, or Osama bin Laden
The Dalai Llama, endless hoards of Swamis, Rabbi and the like, hey wait a minute, OBL isnt a religious leader you tricksy-man!
Back to what I was saying. If a man says "I ate bacon and eggs this morning" you can believe this wether it was said a week or a month or a year or a thousand years ago. Time doesnt fade the truth or the recounting of an experience. Go to the British Museum and have a good look around if you think that the truth of man's life fades over time. All the myriad things people did and experienced are still true, no matter how outrageous they might seem now, like the building of the pyramids, something that a man like Flew would never believe had they not survived to the present day; and this is a perfect example of the flaw in his way of thinking.
The pyramids, a mind blowing achievement, were built three thousand years ago. Had they been dismantled before the present day, he would dismiss completely accurate historical accounts of such an ancient feat as utter nonsense. It is only because they are still here that him and his sort admit that they exist - a written account would not have been enough. That is a belittleing and dehumanizing way of thinking, perfectly harmless in a person without authority, but in a man like Flew, whose every pronouncement has consequences, and whose words are automatically spread all over the globe, those thoughts are a dangerous and destructive tool of opression.
Now, there are some that say that the Pope has precisely this power over his flock, BUT that is a private matter between him and his flock, and NOT a secular matter of the kind that people like Flew are asked to advise on. There must be a separation between the private and the public, the secular state and the private beliefs of individuals. Flew is an adherent of a religion, a transparent, emperors new clothes like religion, a religion that has slipped unquestioned into the mind of the public by its masquerading as secular common sense; we should not be made to swallow his poison or accept the consequences of his brainwashing.
And to top it all off, and most revoltingly, he comes from this false common sense religion standpoint, and then pronounces that God is real, transforming his common sense religion into a near sanctioned quasi religion by virtue that he and his evil cabal accepts that God, after all, made his world - the world that they alone are able to define and explain. From now on, not only will they explain the world to the public, but they will be explaining the design of God himself.
Now that the news about Google teaming up with Harvard, and more top tier research in the future libraries has hit the press I have gone and deleted my eariler post as it now useless and I will take this moment to comment on the Google-Library phenomenon.
Most stories covering the story are echoing a sentiment which says: "wow" "imagine that" or "how cool." But what goes unnoticed is a statement issued by the EFF which reads:
"Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done. [EFF 10/31/01]
What this means is that Google, a privately traded company, would not stand up to the US Government and its PATRIOT ACTS which allow for the unchecked powers of government surveillance. Yet, information professionals are all too happy to see Google team up with libraries. There is no denying that many a great thing could come from Google and its $$$ helping to digitize and provide search tools to library materials. People must, however, take into consideration the ethics/goals/ideas of a company they are so happy to let into the public information sphere.
We all know that the American Empire is on the wane, that America as a project is failing, and only its cold corpse is standing, dangling its dead fingers over the world. But, giving over precious public information to corporate control must be seen as the one more artery of democratic life becoming, as we speak, a clogged vein on the cadaver of freedom.
Where are the Question Google t-shirts!! I want one.
Can you believe me when I say there is no god? It's only my opinion, as it was Flew's opinion.
Why should you? Why should I believe your opinion on the existence of god, or the Archbishop of Canterbury's, or the Pope's, or Osama bin Laden's? Has not Flew put in as much study on the subject as Dr Williams? Are they not all basing their answer on the evidence they have personally experienced or decided is relavent?
"It is wrong that people give the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, or Osama bin Laden a platform above all other men. It is wrong that they, from their narrow point of view are able to shape the thinking (and the lives) of millions. It is wrong that their word is trusted above anyone elses."
I would wager this man Flew's comments changed not a single mind. He may well have got a lot of people thinking about things though, and coming to their own conclusions. The believers listed above, I would also wager, have far bigger public profiles than does Mr Flew, and are therefore that much more likely to be "believed above all others because the masses of putain vache have been brainwashed to believe what people like that say above all other speech".
Objectively, personal beliefs aside, is that good or bad?
Well yes indeed. What the imbecile Howard seems to have misunderstood is that by doing this "not be outflanked" he has made the tories unelectable. Why should you bother to vote for the Tories if they have all of the same policies as Labour? There is now no reason to vote for them, in fact, anyone who experienced the Tory government that Howard was a part of would never vote for a party lead by him. When he was home secretary, he was a monster (though no where near as monstrous as Dimwit Blindkid).
The Tories are a party without morals, without fire in their bellies, without belief, without grapefruits. Just to punish them for thier spinelessness, Labour should be brought back in; certainly its clear that voting Tory will change nothing, so why give them the satisfaction of a Labour defeat?
As far as everything else is concerned, its is clear to anyone that is awake that all bets are off. Democracy has failed, it is every man for himself, women and children first, man the lifeboats.
Now for "inter alia".
That man is one of the people who, in this "society" wield power over everyone. He is one of the types that says "fingerprinting as a way to identify a person is absolutely accurate" and thanks to a proclamation llike that, we are now made to fight for our right to walk the streets, smoke a ciggarette or have a drink.
His words are believed above all others because the masses of putain vache have been brainwashed to believe what people like that say above all other speech. They are always the ones asked whenever a consultation is needed on a topic that affects the public good, when they know nothing, and have only darkness in their hearts.
This is wrong.
It is wrong that people give men like that a platform above all other men. It is wrong that they, from their narrow point of view are able to shape the thinking (and the lives) of millions. It is wrong that their word is trusted above anyone elses.
It does not "fit" that he should be believed, and that he should be the confirmer of the existance God. His word is worthless because he believes in nothing but what he can see himself. His philosophy is the complete opposite of what makes (and made) man great; man is great because he can believe, and trust, and through that belief and trust, learn, grow and achieve.
Men who do not do this - men who cannot believe anything other than the evidence of their own eyes, no matter what they are told by another man - are not men at all, but instead are a sort of clever animal, actually, that is an insult ot animals - they are like a strange motivated flesh, with a short, goldfish like attention span, existing only in the everpresent now, unaware of the past, or the future, snapping at the food dropped into its cage/tank, and even unaware that it is alive in any way other than something that eats. And doubts.
A man should never be ridiculed for what he thinks, or what he says he has experienced. He should not lose his job. he should not lose tenure. He should not be burned alive. No one way of thinking should dominate an entire society, and the proclamations of a cabal of detached men should not be the basis of laws that control every one, down to what we eat and drink and the medicine we use.
And that is that.
Finally, a greate friend of me (YES "greate friend of me") said something that I liked:
"...people start a revolution now (seriously) - after all a blind man wants us to have our eyes scanned..."
Now that is pure genius. I feel a t-shirt coming on!!!
I mean isn't it a gross dereliction of duty for a so-called opposition party not only to NOT hold the government of the day accountable to the expert evidence which raises serious doubts and concerns about the government's Information Grab, but also bars the members of that party from representing minority/majority/citizen's interests in the matter.
For the sake of a few notional votes and the party leadeer's arrogance. Presumably Howard didn't read the reports that it was liberty loving conservative voters that were most opposed to ID cards and the surveillence state they will engender.
The Conservatives have finally stated their position on Labour's idiotic ID card proposal and like the bunch of parroting puppet gangter slaves that they are they ENDORSE the proposals.
Not only is this an insult to common sense, basic freedoms, etc. it means that whatever the government plans to push through regarding this idiotic scheme BEFORE the next General election will only have the Liberal Democrats voicing opposition in the Commons (that and the very few 'independently minded' MPs), and that is very bad news and completely undemocratic - especially as the Vampire's will is seemingly being enforced by a two-line whip and the threat of a frontal lobotomy (no big jobs for bad zombies).
No tory would make themselves on the Toady programme this, morning and the 'discussion' of this was pushed to the very last slot despite being in the top five headlines since yesterday evening. Cynical side reckons a certain person's certain company may have lobbied certain people but that is pure speculation.
More later (I assume).
breakin' the law
You won't believe how hard I tried to do that one as well.
The quality of the photograph is also relatively unimportant, so the system is able to match even grainy stills from CCTV cameras outside banks and petrol stations. And while it cannot scan a crowd, it can isolate an image from a crowd photo much more effectively than the naked eye[...]
And given that the police video pretty much every grouping of over 20 people these days it is feasible that SOCA will be given the powers to build up a database of images cross referenced from such videos and an NIR register. And that the technology will give false hits, etc.
1999 Jones covered a Marine Corps exercise ... which took place at several US locations and which also involved the UK, Australia, Canada, Holland and France (no, seriously - this was 1999-2000).
Wow, 1999, that's before trrrrrsm even existed.
I call your bluff you wrong I think that most people going to a search engine will have some specific subject in mind These suggestions point to searches and not directly to sites I'd become cynical if A being for Amazon also gave a sub-menu of www.amazon.com without having to do a proper search As for those who search random topics I see no harm in finding out who Tara Reid is (but I'm not as eager as Alun is to find out - ignorance is a sage & nutmeg meatball).
We began our China tour in Shenzhen, a 1970s purpose built 'special economic area' across the bay from Hong Kong. Played two ecstatic shows, a lot of fun, The second night, the audience being predominantly those who'd made the short (but apparently tough) trek from Hong Kong itself. We amused ourselves in the interim with fake Rolex. Shenzhen is interesting, but we expect it to be little like the real China. [...]
They also, it seems, arrange for British groups to tour in China.
: NEWS :
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: Ladytron sign to Island Records. ( 7th December 2004 ) Ladytron are happy to confirm the rumours, that after extensive negotiations they have finally signed with Island/Universal records. It is with great pleasure they now join the likes of Roxy Music, Sparks, B52s, Pulp, PJ Harvey, and countless other acts they love on this label. They are currently in London mixing their new LP, working on the songs: 'international dateline', 'weekend', 'soft power', 'destroy everything you touch', 'sugar', and 'highrise'. A spring 2005 release for the yet untitled album is planned, accompanied by an extensive tour.
??!! ..............No Mira, Nooooooooooooo!!
The corrosive influence of a major label, unless this group has grapefruits of steel, will RUIN its output. Unless we are very very lucky. During the China tour, in a press conference, someone asked them:
"Did you choose Reuben to be in the band because he is Asian for his special effects?"
They might think that a question like this is quaint, even funny. Just wait till it comes from some piece of shit at Island, said in complete seriousness. Tina Weymouth had to audition for her own group just because the group got a major label deal. I had actually heard a different rumor to the one recited in that link, that she had to re-audition because some record company dude thought "girls cant play bass", but still, what a completly outrageous thing to happen. An example of very recent major label insanity; Craig David being told he must replace his guitarist because he is "white". When those subhumans get a hold of you, and start to superimpose their ideas of what you do on to you, everything about your group and its work is up for destruction, from your artwork, the songs you record, how and when they are released, who mixes the tracks...everything....and in return for what? Increased sales of something you rather would have done differently?
Earlier this month, as recounted on this Blog, I received a happy little missive from the DVLA demanding £80 for being late taxing my car. This is of course a new impost by the regulatory authorities who have long failed to enforce the law, resulting in an estimated 1,000,000 untaxed and uninsured vehicles on the road.
Now conscious of the scale of money slipping from their grasp, the authorities therefore decided to get a grip of the situation - not by actually getting out on the streets and picking up the tax evaders, but by creating a new charge for everyone, if they fail to get to the post office on time. Anyhow, by an almost comical set of circumstances, I was late in getting my tax, but not least because the car spent two weeks in the garage being repaired, which delayed me getting an MOT.
Having sent a letter to the DVLA, explaining the circumstances, together with the documents and a cheque, I received almost by return of post, a tax disc, suitably backdated, which is what I asked them to do.
For one moment, I thought, sense had prevailed. But, oh no. I had reckoned without the mind of the bureaucrat… especially when there is a chance of easy money.
In the post I have received another letter, this one from a Mrs P Woolley, Enforcement Manager, pointing out that although I have paid my full tax, I still owe them another £80 for being late - or £40 if I cough up quick. If the car was going to be off the road – which indeed it was – I should have sent a SORN declaration (notwithstanding that I did not know it was going to be off the road).
Anyhow, it may come as a surprise to some, but there is a law against this sort of thing. It is called The Bill of Rights of 1689. And it is still in force. Accordingly, I have sent my own happy little note to the said Mrs P Woolley, which I reproduce below. I will let you know how I get on.
Mrs P Woolley Enforcement Manager Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Continuous Registration Centre 3rd Floor Riverside House Riverside Way Northampton, NN1 5WW 24 July 2004
I write with reference to your letter of 21 July and your demand that I make a payment of £40/80 to the DVLA as a penalty for late payment of vehicle excise duty.
In response, may I refer you to the Bill of Rights 1689, this being an Act "Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown". I am sure you are aware that this states, inter alia, "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".
You may also be aware that the Bill of Rights remains on the statute book and has not been repealed, and is therefore still in force. Furthermore, in the absence of any specific subsequent Act, directly and specifically repealing the above-quoted provision, you may not rely on the principle of implied repeal, the Bill being a constitutional Act.
On this basis, given that I have not yet been convicted in respect of any matter relating to the payment or non-payment of vehicle excise duty, any demand for payment of a penalty is, as set out by the Bill, "illegal and void".
Unless you are able to cite me a valid authority, by which you can demonstrate unequivocally that your demand is in fact legal, therefore, I am advised that I am in no way obligated to comply with your demand.
OSX and Linux users, feel free to download foofoofoo, an MPEG Layer-3 smasher script that will create a single MP3 file out of mini-chunks of all the MP3 files in your hard drive(s). The standard downloadable file is packaged for OS X-friendly use (a package installer file), so Linux (or other Unix flavs users) should get the fooUNIX.tar file and follow the install instructions in there. We are collecting the resulting MP3s for an eventual release on Alku, so feel free to send us your foo-file. Mucho love for beta testing and support: Stephen, Joe, Olivier, Kike, Michi.
Anybody who might have the slightest doubts about the US intentions in relation to the EU’s Galileo satellite constellation (see earlier Blog), should it represent a threat to their interests, might care to read US Air Force Doctrine Document 2-2.1, issued as recently as 2 August 2004, entitled "Counterspace Operations".
Not only does it make their policy very clear, in a foreword to the document, the Honourable Peter B Teets, Undersecretary of the USAF states that "space is the high ground" and talks about "denying that high ground to our adverseries".
In that same foreword, he also asks: "What will we do ten years from now when American lives are put at risk because an adversary chooses to leverage the global positioning system of perhaps the Galileo constellation to attack American forces with precision?"
Well, the answer has been given. Either jam it or shoot the satellites out of the sky. And there is no way that this should be considered to be bluff. The USAF has already developed a range of "micro-satellites" designed to "destroy enemy spacecraft", so small that ten can be loaded in a reusable military orbiter and despatched into space. [...]