War-on-Freedom.com

I have twice previously written about Blair's apparent path towards dictatorship.

I have yet to write about the most dangerous Bill yet. Called the Abolition of Parliament Bill by some, the Totalitarianism Bill by others, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (LRRB) is even more dangerous than the Civil Contingencies Act.

LRRB enables ministers to rewrite our constitution with only rudimentary scrutiny. Consider the extraordinary mass surveillance / coersion implications of the ID Cards Act. Even the well-organised opposition could not stop this legislation.

What chance then of:
1. Spotting obscure but deeply damaging clauses hidden in the boring legislation?
2. Motivating the Tories, LibDems and enough New Labour drones to subsequently block it?

LRRB is then carte blanche for Blair to do what he will with this country. Why can we deduce of his plans?

New Labour already rejected an amendment to stop LRRB re-writing our most important constitutional laws. They then promised to introduce new amendments fulfilling the same thing. Our skepticism was once again justified. This is more than enough evidence that Blair wants dictatorial powers.

LRRB is obviously a precursor to passing laws which Parliament wouldn't otherwise pass.

Considering the deeply scary laws he's got through Parliament, the likelihood is that he wants something so badly, and so unpalatable that he won't even risk presenting it for proper Parliamentary scrutiny.

- He does not need Parliamentary approval to invade Iran
- He already has Hitler's Enabling Act.
- He has already passed RIPA and the ID Cards Act for more Big Brother snooping than anything China or North Korea have.
- He already has locked up people for 3 years without trial or even being questioned - although he has been twice been 'told off' for breaching the Human Rights Act in this way.

I do not believe that he needs LRRB to repeal the HRA. When every other explanation has been ruled out, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be considered. I think something much worse is coming although I dread to think what.

The final reading of LRRB in the Commons will take place on 15th May. For the sake of your family and friends, please join the Save Parliament Campaign and write to your MP immediately.

Posted by Dave at 06:23 PM | Permalink

New Labour are masters at spin. Alistair Campbell controls media exposure so tightly that we can definitively say that every TV appearance is orchestrated from the highest level.

How then did New Labour benefit from Margaret Hodge using her privileged access to go on TV to say that 8/10 of her constituents were thinking of voting BNP? The BNP have been clamouring for credibility ever since the detestable Nick Griffen took over. Hodge just handed them that credibility on a silver platter.

I did some research. Hodge is Jewish, and therefore probably does not support the BNP. I was baffled...

... At least until I saw Frank Field MP's astonishing letter in the Daily Telegraph.

I couldn't help noticing that he'd used the same propaganda techniques the BNP use. If you want to play this game, read the article first and only then compare your notes with mine...

1. Appeal to authority whilst presupposing "their community [is] being taken over by Bangladeshis." Readers tend to accept whatever is presupposed, without even noticing they've done so, and with scant regard for the objectionable language. Did Field intend to plant this message in his readers' subconsciouses?
"The New East End, by Geoff Dench and Kate Gavron, starts by asking poor white East Enders what they object to as they witness their community being taken over by Bangladeshis."

2. This in turn plays the race card. It's not yet well known that nearly everyone is a little bit racist. If you don't believe you are, take the Arab Muslim IAT. Is appealing to people's racial prejudices to get votes more or less despicable than racism itself?

3. Use of group to indict itself ie "I'm not a racist, the Bangladeshis themselves are saying the same thing".
"Dench and Gavron record how surprised Bangladeshis were at receiving free access to welfare."

4. Presupposing that welfare isn't aligned with strong and sustainable communities and that it will be courageous to realign it.
"It will take a considerable amount of courage to realign welfare with the collective values that are crucial to underpinning strong and sustainable communities."

I won't comment on his suggested reforms except to say that the first and third are amateurish and I've seen better ideas from schoolchildren.

Instead, I want to talk about the deeply disturbing statements towards the end of the article

"the Government would be reconnecting with its once bedrock supporters by insisting that the collective rights should come first"

What are collective rights? Who needs more protection, the able majority or the weak minority? What Field is saying here is that votes are more important than human rights!

"Political correctness on individualised rights now runs deep in the Parliamentary Labour Party."

What a joke! How many times now have the Parliamentary Labour Party passed legislation which has contravened the Human Rights Act? Answer: Twice already: the Terrorism Act 2000 (which was used to lock up people in Belmarsh for 3 years without even bothering to question them, never mind present evidence) was the first. Its replacement, the control orders of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 were ruled incompatible on exactly the same principle, the right to a fair hearing. The European Commissioner for Human Rights has already advised that the insidious ID Cards Act contravenes the HRA as the Register will contain (vastly) more intrusive data than is necessary for the purpose of establishing identity.

Perhaps this is why Fields apparently wants to repeal the HRA?
"exemptions from the human rights legislation would be insisted on"

The HRA is the only legal protection stopping this Government locking innocent people in dungeons for years on end, or torturing them. I say stopping, but of course I've already indicated that's not true, and the control orders ruled illegal still persist. Are torture flights still passing through our airbases?

The HRA is the only legal protection stopping the creation of an Orwellian Big Brother state.

Is it a coincidence that the Government specifically blocked the HRA being amended by the unspeakably terrifying Democracy Bypass Bill?

In a flash, it became obvious to me why New Labour are deliberately giving credibility to the BNP. The most authoritarian credible party in Britain isn't electable.

A credible BNP makes New Labour look moderate.

Posted by Dave at 03:09 PM | Permalink

Focus groups have become a fundamental tool of politicians ever since Bill Clinton defeated George Bush. The same tactics were used by John Major in his 1992 victory and Tony Blair until at least 2001.

Focus groups were originally solely a tool of marketeers. Edward Bernays, Freud's nephew, invented them to find out how to satisfy mostly-unconscious fears and desires (MUFD) with products.

Politicians found the best way to get elected was to satisfy MUFD of swing voters with spin.

Here's the problem - our MUFD are often our least enlightened attributes eg greed, self-importance, fear of immigrants etc. If Government policies exclusively pander to MUFD, the country goes downhill extremely quickly.

One slight reprieve is that swing voters' MUFD vary. Blair found that New Labour got blamed for the problems with the railways, even though they didn't feature in the same voters' MUFD a year earlier.

Can spin fill the gap between sensible policy and catering for our MUFD?

Let's recap

Governments in democracies are (re-)elected for anticipating and satisfying voters' MUFD either with spin or actual policies.

Now, when will voters' MUFD start reflecting the urgent need to cut CO2 emissions? Probably only when the media makes them feel guilty about it. Why would the media want to do that? The BBC might, as it doesn't have to worry so much about losing sales. The Independent too, as it occupies a niche for people who feel they ought to know about such things.

But the rest don't.

Therefore, democracies tend to elect governments who, while paying lipservice, avoid making voters pay for protecting the environment until it's too late.

Posted by Dave at 02:10 AM | Permalink

Was I the only one who found the endless statements like this all week very odd indeed?

How can we have a representative democracy unless MPs are free to best represent their constituents?

Having found our that Bob Marshall-Andrews was being threatened with deselection for encouraging MPs to represent their constituents I sent him a supportive email:

Thank you for standing up to the increasingly authoritarian executive. If they try to deselect you, it will bring them down even faster. Keep asking the awkward questions. ;)

He actually replied to me personally:

Thank you very much for your kind email. Your support is greatly appreciated. Regards, Bob

I found this quite touching and perhaps an indication that those who do stand up for democracy are having a tough time.

It has also come to my attention that our legislative process (which failed to recognise that the Civil Contingencies Bill is in fact a Hitlerian unlimited legal power Bill) is having scrutiny removed completely thanks to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
This is nothing less than a another major step towards dictatorship.

I wrote to my MP. It will take you 5 mins.

Posted by Dave at 04:25 PM | Permalink

I first wrote this article back in October. In 3 short months, things have got a lot worse. Additions in italics.

As you're walking to work, imagine you pass a broken shop window. Later on, you hear that other shop windows have been broken, all belonging to an unpopular group of people. Such was Crystal Night, the first time that ordinary Germans realised that something was wrong.

The date was 9th Novermber, 1938. Hitler had been in power for almost 6 years. Goebbels spun that story in a way that blamed it on the Jews. Indeed, one might call it a stupid move, for why would a government ever want to reveal that it's a fascist dictatorship?

So how do you transform a democracy into an authoritarian dictatorship? By simply transferring all power to your government.

In Britain, there are several checks and balances on the power of the government:

1. The British Constitution
2. The House of Lords
3. The Judiciary
4. Freedom of press/media
5. The Opposition
6. Public elections every 5 years

You might notice that 1, 2, 3 & 4 have been systematically attacked by New Labour. Also 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 depend on 1.

Unfortunately, our Constitution is spread over several documents and therefore few people have noticed that most of the less visible aspects of our Constitution have been rewritten.

In 2003, the Civil Contingencies Bill gave the Government unlimited control including the ability to rewrite our Constitution. This differs from Hitler's Enablement Act only in that by itself it specifically excludes abolishing our democracy.

If that wasn't enough, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has now passed its Second Reading. This will allow the Government to revoke legislation or introduce new laws without even the kind of scrutiny that allowed the Civil Contingencies Bill through.

In April this year, the Prevention of Terrorism Act reversed the presumption of innocence and abolished habeus corpus (the right to a trial). After many elderly Lords stayed up several nights to block the Bill, it was set to expire after a year.

A year later, these control orders were just extended without even a vote.

It is being replaced by the even more draconian 2005 Terrorism Bill, which allows innocent people to be locked up for 90 days without trial and also introduces internet censorship.

Luckily, Blair suffered his first defeat on this Bill. The Commons sent forwards a still abusable 28 days without trial.

Also in the news recently was the plan to allow tapping of MPs phones.

I have written extensively on the so-called ID Cards Bill. Behind the Bill is a deliberate numbering of the every citizen. This provides the foundation for collating all the data held on us. Combined with making international travel, employment & public services dependent on being registed, it gives any future government the means to quietly but effectively persecute any group they want. The Bill will probably be approved in the House of Commons tomorrow. Even if it doesn't, the exact same numbering is part of the biometric passport scheme being introduced via the "democracy bypass" known as Royal Prerogative.

Despite Minister's deceptive claims to the contrary, it has now come out that there are already plans to link the ID database to police databases (including DNA), the criminal records database, the tax database and the driving license database. The latter is especially disturbing since the Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which is in the process of going nationwide, will track and store all our car movements for 3 months.

Furthermore, Charles Clarke refused to deny that our medical records would also be linked to the ID database. Even the Stasi never held this much information on East German citizens.

Once this is in place, and when the Human Rights Act is revoked, will anybody be able to stop this Government doing whatever it wants?

Posted by Dave at 08:24 PM | Permalink

Tony Blair is preparing to scrap a 40-year ban on tapping MPs' telephones, despite fierce Cabinet opposition, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. He is expected to formally announce to the Commons within weeks that MPs can no longer be sure that the security services and others will not intercept their communications. - Independent

We continue to struggle to give Blair the benefit of the doubt. As SpyBlog writes:

Is this an outrage against democracy and further evidence of the slide towards an authoritarian NuLabour police state ?
Or is it an attempt to regulate or stop an existing illegal political bugging operation ?

Blair has a lot to gain by tapping David Cameron's and Gordon Brown's phones. But presumably this announcement would just mean that Cameron and Brown can simply switch to a more secure form of communication.

Is it then an indication of Blair's complete disregard for anyone's privacy? Will this changeLabour MPs pro-ID excuse of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"?

Posted by Dave at 01:01 AM | Permalink

Ahh, hark back to 1996 when Blair promised us an open government. Sadly, as soon as he got into power, he sacked the writer of the FOI white paper and watered it down. As this Government became the most secretive in history, the FOI only eventually came into power at the start of 2005.

Anyone who has tried to find out their dirty dealings over the Stasi ID database knows they illegally refuse/delay responding to FOI requests anyway. They even set up a department to frustrate FOI requests.
Anyone who has the patience to follow through can appeal to the Information Commissioner. Consequently, 1200 cases were pending in September.

But now, using the excuse of 'parents requesting too much information on schools', Ministers are now apparently considering charging us to further limit us from finding out what they're doing.

Posted by Dave at 12:49 AM | Permalink

After 9/11, Blair started telling us "the rules of the game are changing" - Guardian

This was to justify deporting innocent-until-proven-guilty Muslims to be tortured, as well as other totalitarian laws sneaked through under inconspicuous titles:

Civil Contingencies Act = unlimited legal power.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers = unlimited electronic surveillance.
ID Cards = unlimited accumulation and sorting of electronic surveillance (not yet passed).

Whether the threat is conventional or WMD, we need to know if we are dealing with it as well as possible, especially considering the strong criticism of Govt/JIC relations in the Butler report.

It is therefore quite chilling that Charles Clarke today told us that the British public are only entitled to the Govt version of what went on that day. (BBC)

These fundamental questions remain unanswered to any degree of satisfaction:

How much did British Intelligence know ahead of time?

The official answer so far is "nothing". Now is that absolutely nothing, or nothing indicative?

Or is it a complete lie because many reports indicate they warned the Israeli embassy 6 mins before the first blasts? Further reports indicate that all 4 bombers had been tracked for over a year and one had been linked to a previous bombing attempt.

Further leaks have highlighted Haroon Aswat as a possible mastermind of both London bombings, as well as being a British intelligence asset.

What are the connections to Al Qaeda and 21/7 if any?

Probably the most obvious unanswered question.

Can anyone independently confirm the Government's story?

Many eyewitnesses report evidence that the explosives were underneath the trains.

Although the bombers must have been caught on many CCTV cameras, authorities have not released any video of the men, only bizarre, easily-forgeable photos.

Further doubts arise from knowing that the only train the bombers could have taken from Luton was cancelled.

Posted by Dave at 04:48 AM | Permalink

Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, I'm lying and that behind this there is some kind of secret state in league with some dark forces in the US, and we believe Secretary Rice is lying, there is simply no truth in claims that the UK has been involved in rendition. - BBC

Posted by Dave at 02:11 AM | Permalink

Got invited to hand out some No2ID leaflets so I went along expecting to be the only person who turned up...

As it turns out, 30-40 campaigners were there - what a great bunch of people! We talked to hundreds of interested shoppers, fed them (for free), painted their faces (for free) and sang Christmas carols...

Must see video (you need VideoLan again)

The battle with the brass band continued into the late afternoon... Considering the instruments were mostly things like tin cans, a surprisingly good rhythm was established and we definitely had more shoppers dancing than the band did.

I find most poetry self-indulgent tosh, but this poet was pretty good. His lyrics were all suggesting that it's a teeny bit demeaning to spend your life as a consumer drone when you have the potential to experience incredible beauty in life, change the world etc. Dude - send me some lyrics/a URL.

Indymedia link and Xmas carol lyrics ;)

More pics

Posted by Dave at 07:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As you're walking to work, imagine you pass a broken shop window. Later on, you hear that other shop windows have been broken, all belonging to an unpopular group of people. Such was Crystal Night, the first time that ordinary Germans realised that something was wrong.

The date was 9th Novermber, 1938. Hitler had been in power for almost 6 years. Goebbels spun that story in a way that blamed it on the Jews. Indeed, one might call it a stupid move, for why would a government ever want to reveal that it's a fascist dictatorship?

So how do you transform a democracy into an authoritarian dictatorship? By simply transferring all power to your government.

In Britain, there are several checks and balances on the power of the government:

1. The British Constitution
2. The House of Lords
3. The Judiciary
4. Freedom of press/media
5. The Opposition
6. Public elections every 5 years

You might notice that 1, 2, 3 & 4 have been systematically attacked by New Labour. Also 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 depend on 1.

Unfortunately, our Constitution is spread over several documents and therefore few people have noticed that most of the less visible aspects of our Constitution have been rewritten.

In 2003, the Civil Contingencies Bill gave the Government unlimited control including the ability to rewrite our Constitution. This differs from Hitler's Enablement Act only in the sense that the Government has yet to publicise it.

In April this year, the Prevention of Terrorism Act reversed the presumption of innocence and abolished habeus corpus (the right to a trial). After many elderly Lords stayed up several nights to block the Bill, it was set to expire after a year.

It is being replaced by the even more draconian 2005 Terrorism Bill, which allows innocent people to be locked up for 90 days without trial and also introduces internet censorship.

I have written extensively on the so-called ID Cards Bill. Behind the Bill is a deliberate numbering of the every citizen. This provides the foundation for collating all the data held on us. Combined with making international travel, employment & public services dependent on being registed, it gives any future government the means to quietly but effectively persecute any group they want. The Bill will probably be approved in the House of Commons tomorrow. Even if it doesn't, the exact same numbering is part of the biometric passport scheme being introduced via the "democracy bypass" known as Royal Prerogative.

Once this is in place, and when the Human Rights Act is revoked, will anybody be able to stop this Government doing whatever it wants?

Posted by Dave at 07:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'd spent all week phoning the Home Office trying to get them to reveal the time and location of their not-so-public biometric roadshow. I found out through alternate means around 3pm the day before and starting phoning around. Given the Home Office's previous treatment of peaceful protestors (1, 2), we decided to remain incognito.

I was intercepted on my approach towards the ID Cards Minister, Andy Burnham. I was told that I could speak to him after he'd finished his media interviews...

For a while it looked as if nothing would happen. The BBC said they had to leave and so the troops came on rather inconspicuously.

The BBC suddenly notice the banner and start pointing the camera at it. I use the distraction to shimmy past all the people who are supposed to stop me and start talking to Burnham.

He said he wouldn't talk to me on camera. "What do you have to hide?" I asked. I repeated it when I noticed this big camera lens behind me.

When I asked the question a third time, he agreed. We sat down, surrounded by cameras and microphones.

First question: "Why are you using public money--our own money--to sell the public a scheme that hasn't been passed by parliament? Don't you believe in democracy?" (thanks to Guy for that one).

Slight pause then he started talking about supposed benefits of biometric passports. I asked him how much it was going to cost. He evaded the question. I repeated the question, must have been at least 6 times.
Then I said "You're obviously not going to tell us the cost so I'll ask you an easier question. How would ID Cards have stopped the London bombings?"

Another pause. Burnham replies "I've never said ID Cards would be a silver bullet". Thinking about it now, I should have replied "You just did." Oh well, hindsight.

"So what you're saying is that after we lose our privacy, after we spend 6 billion, Al Qaeda can simply do the exact thing again. Terrorists always attack the weakest link."

Burnham then started his 'people like you' speech. "If you're worried about privacy, your details are already on the DVLA blah blah".

I replied "I'm glad you brought this up" . This when the Home Office goons started saying "that's enough". Apparently, Burnham's handlers were talking about getting him out of there as quickly as possible.

I think it was at this point I asked him if he'd read his own bill. Unbelievably, he refused to answer that question. So I kept asking it, maybe 10x, before eventually answering "yes" in a small voice. Think he lied? I did. Shame I didn't know it well enough to test him on it.

Then I said "As you know, all these databases are separate, and what you're doing is assigning everyone in the country a unique identity number so that you can amalgamate all these databases into a massively intrusive personal dossier. This numbering is actually illegal according to the German constitution because of what happened in the 40s there."

I repeated the same point about 3x because I didn't make my point particularly cleanly.

His reply was "We do things differently blah blah."

I stood up, was amazed that their stand was swamped by No2ID protestors and nobody was stopping us!

I started handing out leaflets to everyone, including Burnham himself: "Just so you know what we're talking about..."

I just spoke to the BBC, they said because of Hurricane Rita and the terrorist alert at Manchester, it probably won't get on the national news, but apparently it's been on the local news already and it will be on the evening news as well (6:30-7pm). They also said it should make BBC News 24 although I haven't seen anything yet.

27/9/2005

No National coverage yet AFAIK. The local news showed it three times. Now you too can watch it!

One of our local member's friends encoded this for us:
5MB MP4

You need either the 3iv codec or Videolan to watch it.

Mirror

New Statesman coverage

The Register/Infowars coverage

Bristol Evening Post coverage

Posted by Dave at 06:02 PM | Permalink

A group of US army soldiers live in Uday's palace, complete with swimming pool, collapsed ceiling and piles of rubble. Nearly all male, aged 19-28ish, some black, some white and several talented poets, musicians and comedians. More than even with celluloid heroes of the 'Nam, you feel a great cameraderie with these people.

Most of them seem to like it there, although of course there are bad days. Not all of them will make it out alive.

The vast majority of Iraqis seem glad they're there. Obviously, a few are busy firing mortars and RPGs at the palace. And around the Mosques, they don't seem too friendly.

'You haven't got a hope of understanding what it's like out here' the soldiers say. This film helps and is certainly entertaining, but I suspect you actually have to be shot at to really understand them.

Posted by Dave at 04:36 AM | Permalink

The man who lied over WMD, our April 2002 commitment to war and probably the legality of the war is expected to tell Parliament tomorrow that we don't need to know the truth about the biggest terrorist attack on mainland Britain.

Perhaps some of the truth is already out. Even Yahoo is still reporting that Benjamin Netanyahu was warned by British Police before the blasts occurred.

I can't see any reason for the Israelis to generate distrust in Blair & our security services.

So is it true and have we been lied to ever since?

My regards to anyone who was or knew someone who was affected by the bombings. Let me know if I can be of any help.

Posted by Dave at 04:57 AM | Permalink

Let's first agree how our political system falls short of democracy:

1 Our FPTP system leaves us with a choice between the Opposition Leader and the PM whose 2 inner circle make all the decisions except the few which need to be approved by Parliament when 3 90% of MPs vote along party lines rather than for their constituents and 4 The makeup of the Commons isn't proportional to the electorate's voting nevermind 5 the electorate's wishes.

Most commentators agree this is closer to an elected dictatorship than a democracy.

I've mentioned previously that the AV+ & STV electoral systems can fix 4, 5 and to some degree, 1.

3 is the trickiest to fix. Secret ballots would be infinitely better than what we have now but I think that ultimately the public should be able to find out how their MPs voted. I would approve secret ballots to be revealed when the election is announced after which the new MPs should vote on whether to return to open ballots.

That leaves 1 & 2 for which I also have a solution: get MPs to elect the Prime Minister and inner circle after the election. In the absence of the Blair & Howard show, elections would become much more focussed on issues and local candidates. The PM & inner circle would be elected on merit rather than loyalty to a party or leader. This system could prevent deals being made.

This would be a form of "basis democracy" (according to my friend Silke).

In other words, we get a choice (and with STV a wide choice) of candidates who WE trust to a) represent us locally as well as b) elect the leaders.

Posted by Dave at 06:44 PM | Permalink

I have just watched the best documentary I have ever seen, about Robert McNamara, a brilliant man who courted controversy...
The film covers his WWII job of more efficiently bombing Tokyo, to his being made the first president of Ford outside the family, to his recruitment as Secreatary of Defense 5 weeks later by JFK, his deep involvement with the Cuban Missile crisis and his even deeper involvement in the build-up of US forces in the Vietnam War.

In his later years, McNamara is a compelling speaker with an apparent need to impart some lessons of humility that he so painfully learned.

The documentary was made in 2002-2003 and without one mention of Iraq, one gets the impression that McNamara was hoping that what he had learnt, especially from the mistakes he had made, could prevent similar disasters.

In particular, McNamara comments on the US inability in the 60s to persuade allies to agree on the need for conflict.

The "Fog of War" refers to the inability of anyone to effectively manage something as complex as a war. The emotional resonance of the film is helped by an original soundtrack by Philip Glass.

Posted by Dave at 09:07 PM | Permalink

Not one to throw around excessive accusations, I was interested that someone posted an academic's list of defining characteristics:

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I'd say Neo Labour are guilty of 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and maybe 14.
9.5/14 = 67% fascist?

Of course, Dr Britt missed out issuing of ID papers (although our corresponding mass surveillance network wasn't possible in Suharto's time), creating new laws for unlimited government power and locking up political opponents.

Posted by Dave at 04:37 AM | Permalink

Tony Blair has rewarded 3/4 of those who donated £50k+ to Neo Labour under the Honours system. If you can spare a cool million, you can guarantee yourself a peerage or knighthood.

Neo Labour donors are 3 times more likely to rewarded than Tory donors. Chances of this being coincidental are less than 3 in 1000.

It gets worse - Blair just abolished the committee whose job it is to prevent abuse of the system.

Why am I not surprised?

Link to Sunday Times article

Posted by Dave at 05:10 AM | Permalink

As most of you know, the Government's Orwellian Database Bill is back on the agenda and due to be voted on in a couple of weeks. The Government indefensibly continue to call it the National Identity Card Bill, even though the Lords Committee on the Constitution called it "misleading". One wonders what the Government have to hide.

Whilst the Bill is the same monstrosity that the Government tried (and nearly succeeded) to rush through Parliament last session, the Government's justification for this massive intrusion into our privacy has shifted yet again.

No longer confident of selling the "It will help combat terrorism and illegal immigration" lies, the Government has switched to telling us that this clampdown will save us £1.3 billion a year in identity theft.

Hopefully, most of you will not be surprised to learn that this is yet another deliberate deception by Neo Labour. A perfectly operational ID Card scheme could only save £35 million of that £1.3 billion!

Even though the only published costing of the scheme shows that it's likely to cost a family of four around £1000, it is by no means certain that the Bill will be defeated.
Blair's effective majority of 72 (Sinn Fein never vote) means that even if the 80% of Conservatives, 50 Labour rebels and ALL the Liberal Democrats oppose the Bill, it will probably still pass into law. This is because nearly all Labour MPs do what Blair tells them. One embarrassing example is Dawn "Brain-Slug" Primarolo, MP for Bristol South, who has never voted against the Government despite over 700 opportunities.

Therefore it is our duty to make our representatives doubt this Bill, to vote against it if possible, or otherwise to stay away.
The newly renamed WriteToThem website (formerly FaxYourMP) is the easiest way to do this. All you need is 5 minutes and your postal & email addresses. I even wrote a standard letter for you to cut & paste, though please make alterations if you have time.

----------

I wonder if you are as concerned as I am about the Government's National Identity Card Bill:
- It will significantly shift control away from an already disempowered public, according to the Lords Committee on the Constitution.
- Our Unique Identity Numbers will allow any future government and even the CIA virtually unlimited access into our private lives.
- The only published costing of the scheme shows that it's likely to cost a family of four around £1000.
- The Government's track record on IT projects (eg CSA & NHS databases) is appalling - and these are far simpler projects.
- Biometric technology is unproven on such a scale and the current level of technology is clearly unsuitable.
- Secondary Legislation would allow things like RFID tags in the Cards to track our day-to-day movements.
- Our democracy doesn't work well enough to stop function creep like forcing ISPs to allow all our internet activities to be indexed and searched by any future government.
- The existing powers of the police to harrass people to identify themselves biometrically will likely lead to a Police State.
- The ability to persecute minorities, protestors, people hiding from abusers etc would be unprecedented.
- None of the Government's shifting justifications for the Bill stand up to scrutiny.

For all these reasons, will you please vote against the Bill in all subsequent Readings and do your best to prevent similar schemes eg e-passports being introduced under "royal prerogative"?

Posted by Dave at 01:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5578608578

Posted by Dave at 02:34 AM | Permalink

In case it isn't obvious, we no longer live in a democracy.

However, we get one chance every 5 years to make the government listen.

If, like most of the country, we think Blair should go, we must vote tactically. If we believe in democracy, ironically we must still vote tactically. More importantly, we must persuade as many people as possible to vote tactically.

Labour's claim that tactical voting will let the Tories back in is yet another lie. As electoral analysis shows, for the Tories to have any power whatsoever, they would have to poll 10.3% higher than Labour, requiring a further swing of ~16% ie. nothing to worry about.

What we are looking for is a Tory vote 1-9% higher than Labour. This will force Labour to form a coalition with the LibDems in return for electoral reform.

Here are two websites that make it easy for you to vote tactically:

The first simply tells you the most likely non-Labour candidate to win in your constituency. The second gives you much more detail, reflecting current polls but is definitively anti-war.

Under our current electoral system, your vote only counts if your candidate wins. Therefore, it is pointless voting unless you vote for a candidate who can win.

New Labour lied yet again when they promised a referendum on proportional representation in 1997. They did set up a commission which recommended the AV+ electoral system similar to that used in Scotland, Wales and Australia.

Posted by Dave at 11:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Given the Tories' failure to select a figurehead who actually comes across OK on TV, their election campaign has been as brilliant as Labour's has been a disaster.

The Tories have been highlighting very emotive issues to grab headlines and take the initiative from Labour. Although cases like Margaret Dixon could have happened under any government, it promoted a public debate on a major failing of this government: despite the billions pumped into the NHS, it is just as bad as it was under the Tories.

Labour today announced that the Tories' long-time spending plans do not match theirs, trying to spin this into '£35 billion worth of cuts to health & education'.

This shows exactly how stupid Blair thinks the public are.

Furthermore, the Tories merely have to reframe it as '£35 billion savings on public sector waste' and the media debate will back up their claim.

Posted by Dave at 08:34 PM | Permalink

Sent to my MP, Valerie Davey, courtesy of http://www.faxyourmp.com/

Thank you for your letter of 3rd March.

I agree that in the next 50 years, a WMD-type scenario in Britain is
likely and we should be prepared for it. Indeed it is better to be
prepared for it now, rather than rushing in overzealous legislation
when it's too late. Preparation also includes extra emergency services
on standby which, as I understand it, we simply don't have.

Compared to ID cards, control orders is a fairly simple issue,
understandable through weighing up 4 issues:

1. Immediate Level of Terrorist Threat - many experts doubt Sir John
Stevens' sensationalist News of the World assertion that up to 200
Al-Qaeda terrorists are waiting to strike Britain. If that was the
case, I believe that we'd have more than 11 detainees in Belmarsh (none
of whom are apparently dangerous enough to hold under house arrest
anyway). We'd also have more convictions than the accomplice of the
incompetent 'shoe bomber'. We'd have more evidence of close-calls.
And since it will be near-impossible to prove Sir John wrong, his
reputation isn't on the line.

Mr Blair already has a track record of pressuring third parties into
helping him to deliberately exaggerate dubious evidence to justify his
preconceived notions.

2. Due Process - the Bill breaks 900 years of Habeas Corpus and the
notion of innocence until proven guilty. Since police can detain
anyone for 36 hours anyway, it's inconceivable that a private court
hearing could not be arranged within that time. If evidence against
the suspect must be withheld from the suspect, such measures must be
deemed proportional by an objective (and hence accountable) judge.
Since evidence may well include that obtained under torture, I believe
that all evidence should be brought before a judge before any control
order is imposed.

3. Accountability - without any personal responsibility (ie potential
loss to the judge/Home Secretary), there is nothing to stop abuse of
these laws. In light of claims of needs for secrecy, it is easy to
imagine control orders being imposed irresponsibly.

4. Abusability - the capacity for the laws to be used in ways not
justified by the Threat. The government proposals are still extremely
abusable. In addition to the dangers I mentioned in my last letter,
section 1(2) of the bill states:

"A control order may impose ANY OBLIGATION on the individual against
whom it is made that the Secretary of State considers necessary..."

Just imagine what Mugabe would do with such power.

Asked whether Home Secretary Charles Clarke would use the new
anti-terror laws against G8 protesters, our Prime Minister said: "I
couldn't rule it out". As somebody who'd MUCH rather be getting on
with my life than pouring over the fine print of the latest draconian
Bill, I am seriously concerned by this comment.

Nor does needing a judge's signature do much to stop potential abusers.
But at least it's a move in the right direction.

I congratulate you for voting for Amendment 4. I also hope that you
voted for every single amendment returned by the House of Lords. The
balance of probability amendment is especially important. It is better
than 'reasonable suspicion' as it is unlikely that any judge could
argue that the Home Secretary is unreasonably suspicious.

In regards to the Emergency Powers already granted to ministers by the
Civil Contingencies Act 2004: section 2, I want to make sure you
understand that even a government Party Whip could orally declare an
Emergency and "make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of
Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative."

Did you know that Britain is now a few spoken words away from a legal
dictatorship?

Posted by Dave at 04:01 PM | Permalink

Kenneth Clarke said the proceedings were "a complete outrage" and the Government was treating the Commons with "intolerable contempt".

“It is something which undermines the liberties of each and every one of us and this House should have no part of it” – Tory former Cabinet minister Douglas Hogg.

Dominic Grieve said the committee stage of the bill had been "completely corrupted." On control orders - “Unpleasant, repellent and disgusting.”

Mark Oaten said the home secretary's letter made a "nonsense" of the Commons proceedings.

The Prime Minister’s wife, Cherie Blair is said to be "vehemently opposed" to her husband’s plans to place terror suspects under house arrest at the behest of the Home Secretary.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick said ministers "have produced this illiberal Bill and told us that, unless it is passed by March 14, the heavens will fall. I do not believe it."

Lord Kingsland: “We do not like what the Government has done from first to last"

The Earl of Onslow said: "This is not a bill to reorganise Scunthorpe borough council! We are being asked to overturn 800 years of British history!" and “I personally hope (the Government) does not get this Bill at all. It is a rotten, stinking Bill.”

Lord Peyton of Yeovil said: “I am an extremely reluctant passenger in the vehicle which my noble friend is driving.”

Cabinet Minister Lord Peyton of Yeovil protested that the Lords was being treated by the Government “as its washpot” and "We have been reminded over and over again that we are inferior to! And subordinate to! The other place! Now we have been put into the driving seat. I believe it is an impertinence!"

96-year-old former MP Lord Renton said that in all his 60 years in Parliament he had never witnessed the way in which the Government was conducting a Bill of such national importance.

The Bishop of Worcester, the Rt Rev Peter Selby, condemned the legislation as representing a "victory for terrorists", declaring that it threatened the "spirit" of British life.

The Liberal Democrat Lord Goodhart said: "It is entirely wrong that the Home Secretary, or indeed the courts, should have power to restrict liberty in ways that are not specifically authorised by Parliament. The Government needs to sit down with the opposition parties and work out what it can legitimately do in the 10 days before the anti-terrorism Act runs out of time. What it cannot do is force this Bill on us. That would be an affront to the constitution."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns, the Conservative home affairs spokesman, said: "It was a shocking way to treat the elected chamber by a Home Secretary who has legislated in such haste that we face the very real danger of getting the proposals in this Bill wrong."

"Security is no justification for the breach of the fundamental principles which underpin our democratic system. No deprivation of liberty by ministerial say so, no midnight secret knock on the door, no gulags whether in Siberia or in Guantanamo." - Lord Thomas, Liberal Democrat, former High Court judge.

"When you are dealing with the orders that are to be made to keep a person in his own house, when you are basically destroying his liberty albeit for a short time, then the burden of proof should be the ordinary criminal standard - beyond reasonable doubt." - Lord Ackner, former law lord.

"Throughout modern history, our sea defences against unfair executive power have been serially attacked by the threat of erosion. The executive, like the sea, will always come back. Provisions that commit such wide incursions into liberty as these do need to be examined by other minds as well [as the police and security services]." - Lord Mayhew, Conservative, former attorney general.

"The Home Office practice now is to bring forward new legislation which is absolutely abhorrent and totally disgraceful in its abuse of civil liberties and then, when there is uproar, replace it with something only slightly less abhorrent and tell us a major concession has been made. The concession being made should provide this House with no comfort." - Baroness Kennedy, Labour, human rights barrister.

Cabinet Minister Lord Forsyth said: “I really would like to protest in the strongest possible terms.

“It is ironic that we should be here to save the Government’s bacon, pursuing procedures which are unheard of and which are making it impossible for this place to do its job properly.”

Any others, please let me know.

PS. I suspect the ID Card Bill would have even worse criticism if anyone understood it.

Posted by Dave at 03:21 AM | Permalink

I wonder how history will look back at Blair's government?
Will he be seen as the PM who took us into 5 wars, including Iraq-nam? Or will he be seen as the PM who systematically dismantled all the safeguards against dictatorship & tyranny?

I've written extensively on the "information is power" ID Bill. Let's see what House Arrest really means:

At the Home Secretary's whim (ie without a warrant):
- anyone can be confined indefinitely as well as having phone and internet access cut off.
- the police can break your front door in half and search your property at any moment. And you have to pay for the door.

We apparently didn't need these laws when the IRA was bombing mainland England, so why do we need them when there has been no evidence of terrorist attacks on Britain since? Yes we need to be vigilant, but we also need to keep government accountable to the public.

These laws are being railroaded through the Commons in a gob-smacking six days. This means that not only will important details of the Bill be left unscrutinised, but that the public is more or less excluded from that process.

The justification has changed from the "terrorists" being released from Belmarsh... to the Law Lords judging that indefinite detainment without charge or trial was unjustifiable and hence unlawful -- because the Home Office has decided that they aren't even dangerous enough to be held under house arrest and will merely be kept under police surveillance.

For anyone that still thinks we live in a democracy, note that even if you did FaxYourMP, Blair's three-line whip means you're likely to get ignored.
Oh yeah, and the government has already threatened to override our last hope of democracy (the House of Lords) using the Parliament Act.

Further information here along with a list of New Labour's other Draconian laws.

Posted by Dave at 06:21 PM | Permalink

Seems the media are finally waking up to nightmare that is Blair's ID Bill. I was asked to be interviewed for the ITV West programme Sunday Roast, 12:15pm on the 27th. Not surprisingly, they were having trouble finding a Labour MP who would defend the Bill.

Posted by Dave at 01:16 AM | Permalink

After the Tories decided they'd rather lose the 'law & order' vote than appear fascist, Labour denied the Tories' right to oppose them:

"It is irresponsible for the Tories to first say they would support ID cards but then say they will not vote in support of them this week." - Home Office minister Des Browne.

But at least Des actually believes in the scheme. Charles Clarke and Gordon Brown apparently don't and it turns out that Blair was previously skeptic.

Yet our head of government is insisting Labour Whips force their massive Commons majority to vote for this bill.

Seems a lot of people forgot that regional representation is the basis of our democracy. The sole duty of MPs is to serve their constituents.

Regardless, this vote is likely to be the worst result this Labour Party have ever faced (including Iraq) and will encourage the Lords to block the bill.

Especially with your help. Please fax your MP now, before the Final vote this Thursday 10th February.

Here's why the Database State scares me to death

Any future government & several hundred civil servants will know pretty much everything there is to know about you. They will have unlimited access to your bank & credit accounts, phone & internet records, tax records, medical records etc.

Civil servants don't have the best record on sanity. So you better be extremely careful who you upset in future.

Now all it takes is for a few scary stories (true or false) to appear in the press about the government victimising campaigners and our delicate democracy is gone.

The first and only major step towards this Database State is, of course, the creation of the database itself.

Given how the government has rushed through this £5.5+ billion plan, lied about passport requirements & the extent of opposition, and failed to answer any of the criticism by their own committees... what chance would we have of stopping amendments to the database in future?

Since we have no constitution, all our rights are protected only by a disorganised set of laws. Yet we have seen a Labour-driven erosion of the powers of the Judiciary, the Monarchy and the House of Lords... combined with a massive increase in police powers.

Posted by Dave at 09:24 PM | Permalink

James Lovelock was interviewed by Marcel Theroux on the Channel 4 programme, The End Of The World As We Know It. Dr Lovelock estimated that 1 billion people will die unless we dramatically cut CO2 emissions over the next 20-30 years... which let's face it, is never going to happen.

My plan so far is to:
a) live on a hill
b) never go out.

Posted by Dave at 08:08 PM | Permalink

During a TV ad break, upon seeing somebody over 50 talking to the camera, I caught myself in the assumption it would be about:

a) Life insurance or
b) Mobility aids.

Does this make me prejudiced?

Posted by Dave at 08:44 PM | Permalink

Whatever Tony Blair promised Lord Butler to exonerate him on the WMD lies obviously fell short as Butler finally delivered the truth we all knew: that the Iraq Dossier was fudged because it didn't support the government's case for war.

He also delivered a blistering attack Blair's "inner circle" executive style of government:

"I think we are a country where we suffer very badly from Parliament not having sufficient control over the executive, and that is a very grave flaw.

All that is part of what is bad government in this country.”

-- BBC report on Spectator article

Posted by Dave at 04:07 AM | Permalink

An analysis of registered voters vs actual votes shows a massive disparity in the trends between districts using Marksense voting as opposed to those using E-touch voting machines:

The following table gives a more detailed breakdown of the anomaly.  The 2nd and 3rd columns show how many more people voted than would be expected if the breakdown of votes was split by registered voting intentions:

Now, what does this all mean?

Maybe the Republicans focused much more on the districts who are much more likely to use Marksense?

That is one possibility but the Republicans would have had to have done a miraculous job in capturing swing and independent voters in those districts yet an equally sloppy job in e-voting districts, where such voters were divided equally among both parties.

News networks' exit polls also showed a Kerry win, despite being subsequently changed to reflect the result.

However, a similar disparity exists in 2000, 38.37% for those states that went to Marksense in 2004 and -12.64% for those that went to E-voting.

Thom Hartmann thinks the vote collecting machines were hacked, although 2 or 3 different systems were used and all reported the same trend.

Some people have pointed out that since 2 separate companies make the optical scanning systems, they are unlikely to be involved in the same fraud.  This would be a good argument except for the fact that Diebold's CEO founded ES&S.

Either way, we need a lot more information before we can establish the cause of this disparity.

Posted by Dave at 01:52 AM | Permalink

Despite the fact we know Blair and Bush have lied to us, I never considered a deception on this scale.

The third part of Power of Nightmares deconstructed every bit of the Al-Qaeda myth.

Now I'm not saying that 19 mostly-Saudi Arabs didn't hijack 4 planes. Which is why we hunted Afghan and Iraqi Arabs, right?

The name Al-Qaeda was first invented by the US in order to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence.  Bin Laden never used it before 9/11.

Now let's go through the other attacks supposedly perpetuated by Al-Qaeda.

Anthrax?  Traced to a US military scientist.

Sleeper cells?  No proof.  Not one of the 600+ arrests made in Britain has been convicted of terrorist charges.

Training grounds and underground fortresses in Afghanistan? Never found.

Madrid train bombing?  They're prosecuting a 16-year old boy from a broken home.

Ricin in London?  Turned out to be wheat germ.

Iraq? Al-Zarqiwi expressed a need to JOIN forces.  Evidence that until recently, the groups were separate.

By creating this myth, we've cultivated the fear which allowed Bush to get re-elected, we've condoned human rights abuses and promoted a banner to entice disenfranchised people around the world into attacking us.

Some people even question whether Bin Laden is still alive...

Posted by Dave at 10:37 PM | Permalink

In case you're not having enough trouble stomaching the result, let the bile build on this one:

Diebold's CEO Wally O'Dell last fall penned a letter pledging his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."  Diebold e-voting machines have been greatly criticised for not having a paper trail.

Mother Jones article

Fair E-voting campaign

Posted by Dave at 07:25 PM | Permalink

At what point does a conspiracy theory become accepted reality?

The first of three parts of The Power of Nightmares described how a conservative think-tank looked to explain the failed liberal policies of the 60s & 70s. A Jewish political philospher, Leo Strauss, claimed the greed, conflict and loneliness of Western society was a necessary consequence of the individual right to freedom.
Strauss taught that cultural leaders had to create a shared pride, creating myths if necessary.

Consequently, neo-conservatists sought to influence American politics. In order to engender a mass belief in America, the neo-cons needed an enemy -- The Soviet Union.

So Donald Rumsfeld and an 'independent' commission exaggerated Soviet military capabilities. If this doesn't sound familiar enough, the neo-cons actually persuaded the Reagan administration that the USSR was behind ALL worldwide terrorist networks.

Posted by Dave at 04:41 AM | Permalink

As dysfunctional as the British political system currently is, at least there's some semblance of plausibility.

The same cannot be said for the race to be the American President for the next 4 years. Considering Bush's record so far which compelled 250,000 Americans to demonstrate purely for the purpose of getting him out... he should have no chance of being re-elected to office.

"Should" meaning that in any reasonable democratic system, the votes for any half-decent opposing candidate would dwarf Bush's share.

Why then have the Democrats put forwards John Kerry?  Has he only recently become so obviously unelectable?

The answer, of course, is that Mrs Clinton is not ready, but doesn't want to have to wait 8+ years.  A decent Democratic candidate (Dean) might hold office for 8 years, with a possible reversal back to Republican president (Cain) for another 8 years, which means that Hillary might have to wait 16 years, bless.  I guess Bill thinks she earned it.

Then there's the whole debacle over Kerry's Vietnam record.  The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were so effective in casting doubt that the Democrats accused Bush of running a smear campaign. Bush is considered so untrustworthy that he's had to distance himself from the Group and ask McCain to investigate rules.

Posted by Dave at 02:39 PM | Permalink

Sign the No2ID petition against ID cards now. It will force the government to reverse their lie about how popular the scheme is.

This is the fourth draft of a letter to my MP - please leave feedback.

Dear Ms Davey,

Michael Moore pointed out that we are bombarded with threats of impending doom: global warming, mega-tsunami, asteroids, biological/chemical attack etc. The normal response is to become anaesthetised, as the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” found out.  How then are we to react appropriately to real, impending dangers?

The ominous threat I’m writing about is regarding the Home Secretary’s proposal to compile a database of every single UK citizen, which already requires them to submit their current & past addresses, photograph and even iris scans and fingerprints.  Worse yet, it contains a public unique National Identity Number which corporations can use to link up every bit of information about us already stored on computer (banking, phone, internet & shopping records).

Let me first assure you, I am personally happy to disclose my identity to trustworthy people.

What concerns me is the potential for every aspect of every innocent citizen's life to be collected in one database… and how easily that information could be abused, not just in that person's life, but in their children's lives too.

Even the Home Affairs Select Committee made serious criticisms of Blunkett's draft bill, predicting that ‘Identities may soon be checkable on the national register from CCTV pictures.’

'The report warns that once the cards become compulsory it is conceivable that private companies will be able to demand access to the full information held on an individual on the register as a condition of providing a service.  The access is "well in excess of what is justified in the fight against serious crime or terrorism."' -- Front page, Guardian 29/7/04

Sadly, Mr Blunkett failed to address any of these crucial issues.  Surely any government that supported individual freedom would want to preserve civil liberties rather than decimate them?  Shouldn't our priority be for legal protection against potential abuse of collected information?

The EU Data Protection Working Party expresses concern about biometric data stored in a centralised system.

In August, the royally-appointed Information Commissioner, David Thomas felt the need to go public via The Times and warn us against “sleepwalking into a surveillance society.”  He adds: “I don’t think people have woken up to what lies behind this”  and: “Some of my counterparts in Eastern Europe, in Spain, have experienced in the last century what can happen when government gets too powerful and has too much information on citizens."

When our most respected authorities tell us in such candid terms that we need to stop and think, only the most dangerous and unaccountable governments would continue to try and sneak such plans though.

And yet that is exactly the behaviour of this government.  It has already been criticised for ignoring the overwhelming majority of those replying to the so-called consultation, who stated that they did not want national identity cards.  It has refused to justify such an infringement on our personal freedoms.  And it is apparently refusing to allow any kind of debate or free vote in the House of Commons.

The Home Office is already spending hundreds of thousands of pounds recruiting a PR team to sell the benefits of compulsory identity cards.  Considering that the government's own polls say that 48% oppose the card, I am truly scared by this government's lack of accountability.

Should the government manage to spin this legislation through Parliament, none of the protagonists will be around to take the blame for the inevitable technical failure.

Every major government IT project has been a monumental failure.  The NPfIT, whilst a much simpler project than this database (no biometrics, predictable patterns of usage), is now expected to cost £30 billion.  Ask any independent IT contractor whether the Home Office's budget is realistic...
It is for all these reasons that I am requesting your support on this issue.

Posted by Dave at 01:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Police will now be able to sample and store your fingerprints & DNA without you ever knowing.

Given that the Home Affairs Select Committee has already warned that the ID card database will be extended to include fingerprints, is anyone not concerned that their DNA will soon be on there too?

Gattaca is here...

Posted by Dave at 07:49 PM | Permalink

Knowing full well that an early draft of the September dossier didn't make the case for war, Blair himself wrote a foreword which highlighted the claim:
[the dossier] discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. -- The Butler Report.

But Blair later claimed that he was unaware that this intelligence "referred only to battlefield, as opposed to long-range, arms."

Are we to believe that Blair highlighted this claim without knowing what it referred to? Even though he endorsed the September dossier as "extensive, detailed and authoritative"?

Is Blair an imbecile or a liar? Cast your vote now.

Votes so far (imbecile, liar): <$MTVoteNumber$>

Posted by Dave at 02:42 AM | Permalink

Labour's own Home Affairs Select Committee criticises David "Big" Blunkett's draft bill for compulsory ID cards:
'They warn that ministers are already planning to use the ID card scheme as a cover to introduce a national fingerprint system within five years.

Identities may soon be checkable on the national register from CCTV pictures, they predict.'
'The report warns that once the cards become compulsory it is conceivable that private companies will be able to demand access to the full information held on an individual on the register as a condition of providing a service. The access is "well in excess of what is justified in the fight against serious crime or terrorism"'.
-- Front page Guardian 29/7/04

Posted by Dave at 09:02 PM | Permalink

One of the five members of the Committee that made the investigation which resulted in the Butler Report has spoken against the lack of criticism pointed at the government:

'Lord Inge made it clear that he believed the pressure from Downing Street on the JIC to harden the wording of the dossier on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had turned the intelligence committee into a government propaganda organ for war.

"It was asked to do things which I personally don't think it should do in the sense that intelligence and public relations need to be kept separate," said Lord Inge.' -- The Independent

'The Hutton inquiry revealed that Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, had e-mailed Mr Scarlett [then head of JIC, since promoted to lead MI6] asking for the dossier to be redrafted because there was "nothing to demonstrate a threat, let alone an imminent threat from Saddam."'

'Ann Taylor, a former Labour cabinet minister and current chairman of the Prime Minister's Intelligence and Security Committee, is believed to have played a key role inside the Butler inquiry in limiting the criticism of the JIC'

'One inquiry source said: "There was clearly a debate inside the committee between Lord Inge and Michael Mates on one side, and Ann Taylor on the other. It looks as though Tony Blair was pleased by the outcome judging by his smile outside Downing Street."'

'Ms Taylor, a former Labour chief whip, was called to order by the Speaker of the Commons for shouting across the chamber at Michael Howard, the Tory leader, when he attacked Mr Blair over the Butler report in the Commons. A senior Tory figure said: "We thought it was pretty extraordinary that the Speaker should have to speak to a member of the Butler inquiry in that way."'

Posted by Dave at 07:49 PM | Permalink

Once again, a judge chosen by Tony Blair has avoided criticising the Prime Minister by avoiding the critical issues. This is not surprising. Tony Blair did not want this report. His sole purpose for announcing it was to divert blame away from him and his government.

To pretend that this was any objective or judicial report is a complete deception. If Michael Howard had an ounce of sense, he would announce a completely open enquiry into these enquiries should the Conservative Party win the election.

Butler failed to answer the main question which needed answering - how the 45-minute claim came to be present in the September dossier. Apparently this claim originally:
came from "an established and reliable source ... a senior Iraqi military officer". Yet intelligence officials now admit there was little new in the claim and that it was "not surprising". They say the 45-minute claim could have been deduced from what was known about Iraqi military capabilities in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. -- Guardian report during Hutton enquiry

The Labour government knew that without this claim, the Labour party & public could not have been persuaded of the case for war.  Butler said that the claim should never have appeared without caveats, but failed to mention who made that decision.

It's worth pointing out that John Scarlett (the Head of the JIC when it produced the report) has since been promoted to be the head of MI6. It is obvious that Blair himself knew that this deceptive claim was necessary to make his case for war. Blair himself wrote a foreword in the September dossier which highlighted the claim:
[the dossier] discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. -- Butler report.

It is a surprisingly good read, especially for those interested in what the intelligence services knew and believed about WMD around the world.

Posted by Dave at 08:04 PM | Permalink

The Butler Report is due tomorrow. Doesn't take a genius to predict that Blair will miraculously avoid any mud-slinging.

Posted by Dave at 03:30 AM | Permalink