Silent
Majority Speaks
Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the
Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people
are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which
throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might
reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and
not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell
the truth.
Ann
Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair
wants to leave his mark on history - looks more like a stain
to me.
Peter
Thorndyke, Diss, Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I
know I'm me - why do I need an ID card?
"Sorry,
officers, I don't have an ID card. I never applied for one.
It seemed a bit steep at 300 quid. I do have my free passport,
my driving licence and my London freedom travel pass, each
with my photograph. I have my NHS medical card, with its
lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF service book with
my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to wear
a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya
bar, for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country,
or so they told me.
"I've
also got various credit cards and store cards, all with
my signature on the back, generally good for buying the
everyday requrements for life as well as the odd luxury.
If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be photographed
and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm
afraid I haven't got a pension book; it was taken away."
"By
thieves, sir?"
"No
... well, not exactly. By the Government. By the way, may
I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh
dear, they've disappeared.
E. Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO
means NO
When
does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants.
With
the courageous French NON resounding
in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested leaders
of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious constitution
that requires ratification by all members and continuing
without one of the biggest founder members to prevent derailing
the gravy train.
As
in Ireland, they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring
the will of the people, and re-stage votes until they can
engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly, Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a string.
With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe
the EU has our interests at heart.
Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth,
Kent - Daily Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently
spent on a treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature
and extravagant. Letter from
Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail, June1, 2005
|
May
11, 2005 (741 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,610 US - 88 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
May
31, 2005 (761 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
June
3 , 2005 (765 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,670 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
June
17, 2005 (779 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,716 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians
- 25 media
June
26, 2005 (788 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,737 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians
- 25 media
Britain
has traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors
to the EU because we do not get as much money back from
Brussels in farm and regional subsidies as our rivals.
According
to Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average
contribution taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion,
or £43.55 per head of population.
The
French - the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed
£1billion a year or £16.08 per head of their
population.
|
ID
cards are a 'Dog's dinner'
Home
Secretary Charles Clarke tries to bully LSE academics back into
line over the cost of ID cards
By
James Slack - Home Affairs Correspondent, Daily Mail, June 29,
2005
Charles
Clarke was accused yesterday of running a 'disgraceful' smear
campaign against the top university which criticised his ID cards
plans. The Home Secretary was condemned as a bully for the attack
on the highly respected London School of Economics, which warned
that the scheme would cost up to £19.2 billion and may not
even work.
Charles
Clarke's identity crisis
Comment
- Daily Mail, June 29, 2005
Does
Charles Clarke thin we are all children? His blustering
attempt at justifying ID cards on the TODAY programme
yesterday was an insult to the intelligence and an example
of New Labour's patronising arrogance at its worst.
And
his brutish attack on academics at the London School of
Economics for daring to challenge his castings was counter-productive
as most people in this country have far more trust in
the LSE than in any politician.
According
to the Home Secretary ID cards will actually counter the
Big Brother state. Quite how he was gloriously incapable
of explaining. If he'd had the courage to say the cards
are a necessary evil, this paper might have some respect
for his position. Instead, his blather about the battle
against illegal immigration and terrorism doesn't bear
examination.
People
will have no option but to possess an ID card - yet they
will not be required to carry it. The 26million short-term
visitors to this country each year will not have one.
Nor will asylum seekers. So much for curbing illegal immigrants.
As
for deterring terrorism, Mr Clarke is as aware as all
of us that Spain's ID cards did not prevent 191 people
being killed by terrorists in the Madrid train bombings.
Significantly, security-obsessed USA, despite the horrors
of 9/11, has no plans to introduce ID cards. So what exactly
is the point of a scheme the LSE says could cost over
£19billion, with each card costing £300.
This
is where it gets sinister. The cards - and more important
the database on which all details will be stored - will
carry a staggering amount of personal detail. More than
50 separate items, including second home addresses, driving
licence details, National Insurance numbers, fingerprints,
iris scans (both based on untested technology) & photographs,
will be collected with each application.
This
is data collection by the state on a huge scale. You don't
have to be a civil liberties fanatic to worry that such
information, all centrally controlled, could in unscrupulous
hands dramatically enhance the power of the state and
threaten freedom of the individual. And as this Government
has shown with its dirt-digging on those who dare cross
it, from the Paddington rail crash survivors to 94-year-old
Rose Addis whose family dared complain about poor hospital
treatment, it is perfectly capable of being utterly unscrupulous.
There
is, thankfully, some reassurance to be had - though it
doesn't come from the Tories who have flip-flopped pathetically
on the issue. NO. It comes from this Government's own
rank incompetence when managing costly hi-tech projects:
the shambles of the Child Support Agency, the Passports
fiasco, the Air Traffic control debacle, the tax credit
farce - the list is endless.
That
will be scant consolation for the hard-pressed British
taxpayers who should now brace themselves for their money
to be wasted on an epic scale.
|
In
an extraordinary tirade, Mr Clarke labelled the report, compiled
by 14 LSE professors, 'technically incompetent' and a 'fabrication'.
He singled out one of its authors, a visiting fellow, for a personal
attack. Simon Davies, he claimed, was 'highly partisan' and had
compiled a set of 'very questionable assumptions'.
Aides
said the basis for the Home Secretary's attack was Mr Davies's
publicly -declared position as a director of Privacy International,
a pressure group which warns against ID cards. But the onslaught
provoked an angry response from senior MPs and academics at the
LSE, who were described as 'livid'. The LSE said: "Any attempt
to bully the LSE and caricature the motives of its staff is resented."
It
stood by its estimates, revealed in yesterday's Daily Mail, that
ID cards will cost between £10.6 billion and £19.2
billion - compared to a Government estimate of only £5.85
billion. Howard Davies, the university's director and former deputy
governor of the Bank of England, said: "Simon
Davies has never denied his involvement with Privacy International.
His role here was primarily coordination and support. This is
not a report based on one person's views. This is a six-month
300-page study guided by a steering group of 14 LSE professors,
involving extensive consultations with more than 100 industry
representatives, experts and researchers from the UK and around
the world.
"The
costings were based largely on UK government statistics and documentation.
We would be happy to talk through the figures with Home Office
staff, as we have made efforts to do through-out the last six
months, to no avail."
A
senior research fellow at LSE added: "Charles Clarke has
attacked not just ourselves but the whole principle of academic
independence."
Shadow
Home Secretary David Davis condemned Mr Clarke's 'savage' attack
during a stormy second reading of the ID Cards Bill. He compared
the abuse of Mr Davies - who has worked in 20 countries in a distinguished
career - with Labour's smearing of Paddington rail disaster survivor
Pam Warren and 94-year-old pensioner Rose Addis.
Mr
Davis said: "As usual, if this Government doesn't like the
message it shoots the messenger. We've seen it time and again.
It is a disgrace the way this Government treats people who disagree
with it."
Liberal
Democrat spokesman Mark Oaten said: "Government should listen
to the academics, not mock them. People will rightly listen to
the LSE as long as the government covers up the true costs."
Mr
Clarke made his attack on BBC Radio Four's Today programme. The
Home Secretary said: "I think the report does discredit to
the LSE and is a mistake from their point of view. It is a technically
incompetent piece of work. What they have done is deliberately
leak it in order to influence the public debate. I deplore that
and that is why I say what I do."
Close
friends of Mr Davies said he could not understand the basis for
the attack, since he had always been open about his views and
role with Privacy International. Mr Davies, a computer security
fellow at LSE, is also a law fellow at the University of Essex.
His LSE biography says his expertise includes identity systems,
biometrics, CCTV, national security systems, methods of policing,
terrorism law and consumer rights.
If you have suggestions
for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked
to the subjects listed, please contact
the webmaster.
|
