I don’t want to get into a debate as to the rights and wrongs of whether people should agree to donate their organs, although I am willing to state, for the record, that I support the organ donor programme. What concerns me is when government, in spite of advice to the contrary, determines that it knows best.

The UK Organ Donation Taskforce have stated that they do not believe that ‘presumed consent’ would boost organ donation rates. In fact chair of the taskforce, Elisabeth Buggins said: “We found from recipient families and donor families that the concept of gift was very important to them and presumed consent would undermine that concept.” This was not what the government wanted to hear and Alan Johnson was said to be disappointed by their findings, Gordon Brown was a little more forthright. He has threatened, that if the current recruitment campaign is not successful, he would not rule our a change of the law to provide for presumed consent.

Just who the hell does Gordon Brown think he is? He has no right to determine that he knows better than 65m people. For some, the desecration of the body of a loved one would only add to the suffering and for others, they may see organ donation as a positive consequence of a tragic circumstance. Either way, the choice cannot be the governments, they do not own us, nor do they own our bodies. This is yet another example of Big Brother Britain, another way in which the state tells us who is in charge and how little control we have over our own lives.

As we all know, this government cannot be trusted to keep its word, whatever assurances they may provide in public regarding presumed consent, we just know the small print will provide them with the real power. For example, the government may and probably will state that relatives must be able to provide demonstrable proof that a loved one did not want their organs to be donated, otherwise presumed consent would apply. If they don’t do this, then there is a very real possibility that the government will have to defend thousands of legal actions from relatives that are not willing to see the bodies of their loved ones desecrated on the whim of a doctor.

I do not believe the answer lies with legislation. Instead, the poor organ donor rates are as a direct consequence of poor advertising and recruitment campaigns. For example, press and TV advertising, whilst expensive, does not have a call to action, it only imparts information. What is needed is a programme that creates debate, for example but not exclusively, educating children at school, not in a negative way, but in a positive, uplifting manner, because this would encourage children to discuss the issue with their parents and then families can determine how they feel about this emotive issue.

Once governments start to legislate on such emotional issues, there will be a backlash, the negative connotations surrounding of organ donor-ship will come to the fore, people will resist and the programme will fail miserably. I can tell you for nothing, that if the government bring in presumed consent, then I will personally opt out, because I will not be dictated to by a government that is so willing to disregard my right to choose. This is the thin edge of the wedge, it really is, what is to stop the government to determine that we must all, for example give blood? Giving blood is an excellent and commendable contribution made by individuals but it is voluntary, there is also a shortage of blood, what is to stop the government from introducing legislation requiring everyone to donate blood, for example, twice a year? Answer, nothing.

As I stated at the outset, this has nothing to do with whether or not organ donation is a good or a bad thing, it is about our right to choose. No government should introduce legislation that removes that fundamental right. This government has consistently driven through legislation that has eroded, removed or virtually destroyed our civil liberties, our freedoms and our right to privacy and they have been allowed to do so, by an incapable opposition party and complacent people. Bouyed by this, the government now threatens to demonstrate how we have all sleep walked into Big Brother Britain, by introducing legislation that will confirm, that not only does the government control everything we do, say, think and write in life, they now control our bodies after death.

As Big Brother Britain gathers pace, news is released that more than 12,000 people had Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks completed on them, which indicated that they had a criminal record, when in fact that was not the case. That is not a statistic, but 12,000 individuals that have incorrectly been branded a thief, fraudster, paedophile etc. In each case, it is for the individual to pursue the authorities to have the records amended by the CRB. It would appear that this was, in effect, a clerical error, for example when a criminal record has been incorrectly allocated to the wrong person. Now lets turn it on its head, if 12,000 people have had someone else’s misdeed attached to them, what of the people that were guilty, do they have a clean sheet?

This brings me to my point, well nearly. Assuming a database itself is flawless, unlikely, but we will assume so so for the sake of this example, the information contained within the database can only be as good as the individual entering the data. The industry jargon being “crap in, crap out”. Human error, as in the case in point, can, will and does happen. If innocent individuals can be incorrectly branded criminals today, where will we be tomorrow? As this government moves endlessly and relentlessly to collect and record every piece of information on every man, woman and child in this country, then enters it into a database, how long before we see further serious errors.

Could we be innocently be accused of consorting with criminals or terrorists because someone had incorrectly attached the wrong file? How long before someone dies because some idiot put the wrong information on their health service file? Surely, it is not beyond the intelligence level of our politicians to recognise that people are human, with the obvious exception of MP’s and they will make mistakes. They could also, potentially destroy another individual deliberately or inadvertently with a few clicks of a mouse? Another point here, is that if you ask any IT expert, he will tell you that the challenge is not building the database and entering the database, it is how to use and analyse that information.

This is precisely what is wrong with Big Brother Britain and the politicians that believe it is the only way forward. You try and block off one threat with a heavy handed, ill-considered approach and another threat comes in from a completely different direction. By focusing on every single person in this country and then recording everything they say, do, write, as well as where they go, their medical history, who they consort with and so on, you end up with so much information is is completely useless. In addition, there is so much data, that it will be virtually impossible to verify each detail, which will conceivably, perhaps inevitably, lead to a situation where we are all guilty until proven innocent. Think about it, this is the only way the state could make the thing work.

This government, senior civil servants and their advisers need to understand the basics and that is, they are better off putting their resources into targeting known criminals and terrorists and their cohorts, rather than assuming everyone must, or could be guilty of some offence or misdemeanor. This government is guilty of acting like a child in a sweetie shop, using a distraction method to allow them to fill their pockets with goodies.

The citizens of this country are quite rightly concerning themselves with the economy, jobs and so on. We are also constantly drip fed with the risk of some new terrorist threat, which often coincides with this government trying to pursue another liberty crushing piece of legislation, funny that! Not that we haven’t lived with both the threat and actions of terrorists for years! I digress. Whilst the public’s attention is directed elsewhere, this government is steadily and relentlessly introducing more and more, draconian legislation designed to permit the state to spy on the lives and activity of every single individual in this country. We are sleep walking into a police state.

In my view, it is tantamount to state terrorism, control and intrusion of the individual. Something that was supposed to have been protected with the Magna Carta. In this governments quest for ever more control of the individual, this government is systematically destroying everything we hold dear, our freedom, right to privacy and our civil liberties. This government and the members of parliament that have allowed this to happen should hang their heads in shame. As indeed should the people who choose to ignore, or perhaps indulge this government’s perverted obsession with voyeurism and spying, because they too, as surely as night follows day, will one day fall victim to this governments permitted excesses, as could their children and their children’s children.

Every voter should be writing to their MP’s and asking where they stand on this issue and if it is for state control and intrusion, then they must be voted out. We have a responsibility to ourselves, our neighbours, our friends and of course future generations. To fail them is akin to turning our backs on those that have sacrificed their lives over generations in order that we could benefit from a democracy and be free from state control. Rant over..until the next time!

Originally written for the Big Brother Britain & Civil Liberties Blog

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have a real bee in my bonnet over the way our civil liberties are being eroded by a government completely obsessed with turning our country into Big Brother Britain. I have also made public my concern over the general apathetic views of the majority of British citizens to this massive infringement on our right to privacy and to get on with our lives without state interference.

The announcement that this government wanted to spend £12bn on a ’super’ database which would collate information on every call, text message, email and the browsing habits of every individual in this country, in spite of our dire economic position, had me raging. I wrote a number of posts on this topic and then decided that it was such an important issue it really needed its own dedicated blog, so I set up Big Brother Britain.

However, this blog is not about me, if it is to have any value whatsoever, particularly in terms of educating and informing those who do not understand the implications of this governments inteference in our everyday lives, then it needs unique content and as many contributors or supporters as possible. I am delighted that we have already had a number of respected political bloggers that have agreed to support the Big Brother Britain blog and these include, Will Rhodes, Shrewd Mammal, The Secret Person, British Politics and David David from The Libertarian Alliance. This is a none partisan blog, it really doesn’t matter what your political persuasion is, Big Brother Britain affects us all.

I am also very pleased and would like to thank David Davis from The Libertarian Alliance who has kindly agreed to post articles on this topic, some of which are already on the site. He is actively encouraging people to visit regularly and comment. It is great to know that I am not having to try and do this all on my own! 

I would respectfully ask anyone else who has a shared interest on this subject to offer their support using any of the following initiatives; become one of our supporters and allow us to add your site to the Big Brother Britain blogroll, add Big Brother Britain to your blogroll, write a post similar to this one announcing the launch of the Big Brother Britain blog, include the tag ‘big brother britain’ in your on topic posts, add some of your own articles on this subject to BBB and/or offer to provide unique content as an author. You could also reference any Big Brother Britain posts on related issues on your own future postings of course. I am not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, I am just indicating that all offers of assistance, no matter how small will be gratefully received.

Posts on the Big Brother Britain site can also be further publicised by adding articles to Digg, Technorati, Reddit and so on. All articles from Big Brother Britain will also be added to Big Brother Britain at Google Groups and Big Brother Britain at Reddit.

In addition to my own efforts, Shrewd Mammal has introduced a similar campaign, headlined and identified by the tag RESIST. His concerns and issues identify closely with the Big Brother Britain campaign site and I would urge fellow political bloggers to also consider using this tag in any posts on this subject.

Thanks for taking the time to read this post and if you get a moment please visit Big Brother Britain, we know that Hazel Blears has a real problem with people like us, so why not antagonise her further?

I ask this question because I have to confess, my understanding of what a Bill of Rights should be, seems to differ from that of the current Labour administration and I suspect, those views held by the other political parties.

I understood that the new British Bill of Rights was going to be based loosely on the classic Bills of Rights, from Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, or perhaps the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789 or the American Bill of Rights of 1791. Which was principally the protection of an individual’s liberty against the intrusive and interfering power of an overbearingstate. I figured that the government may seek to include some general  human rights issues. Such as those included in the “Four Freedoms” speech by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his State of the Union address to Congress in 1941. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of every person to worship, freedom from want and, of course, freedom from fear.

Instead, as I understand it, the intention is to bring in something of a ‘nanny state’ Bill of Rights. That is to say, that an individual shall have the right to, for example, a job, food, clothing & recreation. The right to a home, as well as economic support through old age, sickness or accidents. To education and medical care. As a quid pro quo, the government intend, as I understand it, to include “citizens responsibilities”. I simply cannot see how any government can guarantee these particular social and economic ”rights”. In my view, it can only ever be a statement of intent by the government, perhaps a modern day ‘mission statement’ if you will, but they cannot be legally enforceable rights? 

As it is proposed, the whole thing is farcical, but not funny. This is because vast sections of the proposed new British Bill of Rights are unnecessary, in light of the fact that ’rights’, such as benefits payments and the minimum wage are already legally enforceable.

In my view, we need to go back to basics. The reason we need a new British Bill of Rights, is to protect us all from repressive, intrusive and unnecessary government sponsored legislation which seeks to treat every citizen as a potential suspect. The Big Brother Britain that has become our lot in life! The British public desperately and urgently need protection from the state itself. This is what I said a few months ago;

This Labour government and the European laws they have introduced into this country has slowly eroded our rights, diluted our ability to hold ministers to account and moved us towards a Police state. If ever there was a need to protect the public it is now. A Bill of Rights should be drawn up, it must then be put to the people of this country through a referendum and once accepted by the public, introduced immediately. Moreover, once introduced, it must take precedence over any other legislation intended to be brought into law, European or otherwise. Once these laws have been introduced, a Law Lord should be placed ‘in charge’ who’s duty should be to ensure that the Bill of Rights is upheld, that is to say, no new laws are introduced by successive governments or European ministers which would dilute the rights entrenched in our Bill of Rights, without a further referendum.

 News that Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have been told by cabinet colleagues that their proposal, as it stands, is unworkable, comes as no surprise to me. This government has completely missed the point and so have many members of parliament who support a statement as opposed to an enforceable bill of rights. The people of this country have had to endure an increasing level of state interference in their everyday lives, from 4.2m CCTV cameras, to chips in rubbish bins. With proposals that include a massive Big Brother Britain database which would store information on calls, text messages, locations, emails and internet browsing habits. Airport scanners which see though clothes, identity cards which include our most private and intimate details. Our children from the age of 5, will be monitored by the state to include their most private details such as details on their mental health, sexual health or any substance abuse treatment. The list is endless, as is the number of ‘agencies’ that will have access to this information, some 700 as last count!.

I don’t know whether Gordon Brown and Jack Straw are being deliberately obtuse, or whether power has gone to their heads, but what is clear, is that the biggest danger to the citizens of this country is him, his government and their policy of systematically repressing the people of this country, to the extent that Privacy International were moved to say of us ”The worst ranking EU country is the United Kingdom, which again fell into the “black” category along with Russia and Singapore.” And that our “identity scheme is still planned to be the most invasive in the world, highly centralised and biometrics-driven“.

New Labour need to stop, listen to what WE want and then provide a British Bill of Rights that entrenches those values and freedoms. A Bill of Rights does not need to include mission statements, nor any statements of intent. Moreover, there is no need for it to attempt to provide unenforceable, wish-washy promises on economic or social issues, these are covered elsewhere. Instead, the British Bill of Rights needs to be a solid, unbreakable commitment by the government of the day to treat each if its citizens as individuals. It must reinforce the notion of ’innocent until proven guilty’ and not seek to do anything that would remove an innocent individuals right to privacy, self-respect and liberty.

Clearly this is sensitive issues and a personal perspective, so I do not expect everyone to agree with me. Perhaps some will believe that it should include social and economic commitments, my fear however, is as soon as you make something so all encompassing, it becomes a fully-fledged legal document rather that a unambiguous, bulleted statement of rights. Legal documents are a lawyers dream and a litigants worst nightmare, because the fuller the statements, the more opportunity to interpret, wriggle and overturn. We need, clear unambiguous statements!

We must not allow this opportunity to pass or turn into a typical New Labour fudge, all spin and no substance.

Since I was sufficiently outraged to write an article about the goverment’s latest move to increase its powers to spy on the its own citizens, there has been a healthy and, for the most part, positive response. It is clear that there are many people out there that share most, if not all of my sentiments and are able, and willing to add their voice, or blog, to the cause by reproducing the article with their own comments or thoughts. For all of those people that have done this, I would like to offer my thanks and I would also urge those who have not, that believe the state is gaining too much power, to do likewise and reprint my article, or a version of their own, based on the same theme. Please feel free to use as much of the content of my article as you wish.

Over at ShrewMammal.com, the author has introduced his own way of indicating his disgust at the was in which this government is steadily increasing its ability to spy on the public by stealth. He is urging people to include the tag ‘RESIST‘ in all like minded posts and has included a logo which I have included on the front of my own blog. Several people have also suggested that I join NO2ID and the Open Rights Group. I think this was good advice and I will act on these suggestions. However, there is a caveat to all this, because I remain convinced that we all need to act as individuals as well as groups.

There is a real risk that if we leave the arguments to dedicated and well-meaning groups, that we do, by default, pass our individual responsibility for doing something tangible to others. I know it is possible to participate in these groups and have your personal views considered and taken into account. That said, surely it is better to join and support these groups as well as making a noise on our own? Part of the reason that government’s are able to introduce such draconian laws is because we are represented as groups and not individuals. It is much easier for government to target and rubbish groups, than it is the entire electorate, they do it all of the time. At least that is my view.

I shall live by my own argument, I will support groups that have similar values to my own, whilst continuing to disseminate my own views and I will try garner as much support for these arguments as I can with other like minded people. That way we get the best of both worlds!

With the level of information that is gathered on every single individual in this country and the government’s powers to access it, there is little or nothing that we can do or say which cannot be accessed by government through the introduction of new legislation. In fact, it is not just government’s that has access, to this information, but tools of government, the police, security services, local authorities, customs and excise, even commercial organisations, such as insurance companies, parking companies and so on. Many of the laws that have been introduced have been brought about by the risk of terrorism and the need to combat it. But lets be honest, there is no rhyme or reason why everyone of us, all 65m, should become ’suspects’ for the sake of tracking a few thousand individuals with questionable or even life-threatening motives. I can only speak from a personal perspective, but I would sooner face the minute risk of becoming a victim, rather than see so much state control and interference in my everyday life.

I am also, personally, sick and tired of the vocal, perhaps even well-meaning individuals, that insist that anyone who objects to this level of surveillance and government intrusion must have something to hide. This is utter bullshit. I have nothing to hide, in fact, I am quite willing to publicise my views on this blog, come what may. Government’s throughout the years have relied on a sheep mentality, they indoctrinate through the media, everyone’s thoughts in terms of the risks of terrorist attack, in order to justify their latest attack on our civil liberties and entrenched right to privacy. The sheep take it hook line and sinker. The sheep show no sign of being able to think as individuals, they think if something is published in the press, then it must be true, if something is said by a politician, then it must be accurate, that if someone is wearing a suit…available for under a £100 at Matalan, then they must know better. What a sad, sad state of affairs.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own point of view, but this must be based on considering both sides of the case. I have considered carefully the views held by the sheep, but I remain to be convinced that 65m people should be spied on for the sake of catching a handful of people that may wish us harm. Throughout the ages, the masses have always been under threat, from war, terrorism, facism and so on. This Government has made no attempt to tell us precisely why they need so much information, instead, they just tell us that is is “necessary to combat terrorism and serious crime”. So next time I buy a car, if they salesman says it is a great car and he is wearing a suit, I should just buy it?

This is by no means exhaustive, but it is worth looking at how many databases are out there that contain information on our everyday habits and lives, not just government controlled, many are commercial, but of course, government bodies can have access to anything that is contained on a database, often without any court order, simply with the authorisation of a senior member of management. Some of these databases are essential, others and I mean the majority, highly controversial, particularly given the level detail held and the easy access by anyone with a suit!

Transport:

·     The DVLA hold a massive database on the cars that we own, or have owned in the past. Whether they have insurance, an MOT and the details of the registered owner. This information is even on sale to commercial companies.

·     ANPR and CCTV cameras monitor our every move, there are some 4.2m CCTV cameras in the UK, many on the road networks, so our journeys can literally be tracked from camera to camera. ANPR can be used to track individual cars using number plate recognition

·     Oyster cards, both in their current format and that proposed, can track our movements on any form of public transport.

·     Many vehicles now has SatNav fitted or trackers, this is a further instrument allowing the authorities to track movements with reverse engineering.

Health

·     More and more of our records are now held on a database and once the current multi-billion pound project is completed, we can expect everything, our full health history to be held on a database. Authorities, or maybe even commercial organisations, can access this information at will. They could find out when we have had colds, if we have suffered from any communicable diseases, if we have terminal ilnnesses, how many children we have, if we have ever suffered from depression, you name it, they know it. Often our most intimate details, that have been entrusted to someone that has signed the Hippocratic oath.

Shopping

·     The advent of loyalty cards allows commercial companies, such as supermarkets and other consumer goods stores to track what we buy, how often, what we pay and so on. In fact, from this information alone, you can get a very accurate picture of an individuals life. If it is on a database, the authorities can access it.

Travelling

·     Government’s now insist of exchanging information on passengers incuded on their manifest, air, sea etc. So now they know where we travel, what for, what method of transport we prefer, how much we paid, how long we stayed etc.

·     Passports will soon include more and more information, including, if the government gets its way, an iris scan, maybe even our DNA. There has also been a suggestion that passports include a microchip, which can be used to track movements (RFID).

Communications

·     Governments and its agencies have long had the right to tap telephones, albeit this had to be authorised at a very senior level within government or the judiciary. Not any more, already, government agencies routinely monitor telephone calls, internet traffic, email, mobile phone calls and text messages. Now they wish to include this on a massive database, information that will have to be held for 2 years. Before, there was the option for a ’service provider’ to request an independent review, to determine whether the information being requested was legitimate, lawful and reasonable. Now the government even wants to remove that right. Why, if they have nothing to hide? Government is now also insisting that passports are used when a prepaid phone is purchased.

·     Mobile phones can also be tracked via cell site analysis, so our every move can be tracked for the past 2 years, it is not entirely accurate, but it can provide a pretty good picture. With more and more phones now having GPS installed as standard, this information will be accurate to a few feet.

 ID Cards

·     I won’t go into the level of information that is being proposed to be held on ID cards, because it has been covered in many articles on the internet. Suffice to say, the chip on the ID cards will be a sort of chip, with access to so much information it is truly frightening, especially when you consider that whatever form of encryption they use, someone smarter than they, will be able to break the code.

DNA Database

·     Many people support a DNA database and I have to say, I have some sympathy for these views, this technology has been used to solve some very old crimes. However, we are so wrapped up in how DNA is as accurate as it is possible to be, we are prone to forget that it could be misused by anyone wanting to ‘frame’ someone, because a jury, may be so convinced of its accuracy, that they may not consider the possibility that the evidence could have been planted. Yes, call be paranoid, but how many times have we seen miscarriages of justice, because a ‘well meaning’ police officer “knew” that the person was guilty? A government intent on dealing with detractors could quite easily frame an individual with DNA evidence and with so many prone to lie to us, I would not trust them. Is this a database too far?

·     Where anything that is supposed to offer irrefutable proof of guilt (or I accept innocence), there needs to be very powerful oversight, given most people are inclined to believe DNA evidence.

·     Another issue with DNA, is the fact that the taking of this is now routine for any arrest, no matter how minor. We have the largest DNA database in the world. It is no longer used just to track offenders, but as a way to tell us about our futures, our genetic disposition to certain ailments, diseases, life spans etc. The more information they have on the DNA database, the more they can compare, which means that very soon, government will be able to forecast our futures, certainly from a health perspective.

The list goes on and this post could end up exceeding 10,000 words if I were to add each one and provide a details explanation. We are all able to complete our research online into any or all of these tools of government, therefore I will not seek to do it on this post. My intention is only to highlight just how much of our personal lives and how many of our civil liberties are already at risk, let alone what we will lose with the additional powers the government is seeking. Any government that wanted to know how its citizens were intending to vote, could access any number of these tools and get a pretty good idea, how democratic is that?

 You can call me paranoid, but I cannot be accused of nothing to hide, because quite clearly, by life is already an open book for any government officer with the authority to delve into my affairs. They will be wasting their time and our money. But as my life is an open book, so is yours. Everyone, everywhere must have something that they would not want other to know, not because it is illegal, but because it is in the past, embarassing, or could be easily misunderstood. It is our very right to close the door when we go to the toilet or do our most intimate things, we should not have to be concerned about Big Brother, the state watching our every move. The ballot box will not remove existing laws, the ballot box cannot stop this government from introducing unreasonable acts against the will of the majority, but we can, if we are motivated to do so, push our case, publicise our views. So why not write your own version of my article, draft your own letter and make your point on the blogosphere. Let us all see how democratic this country really is, because I suspect, we have been so indoctrinated to take government ministers at face value, that we will, soon find that our opinions don’t matter any longer.

RESIST!

“I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery”

Subscribe to Big Brother Britain

Email:

Visit this group

Transport Secretary, Geoff Hoon, also know as Geoff the Buffoon has indicated that he is prepared to ignore our civil liberties in support of the proposed database that Jacqi Smith wants to bring in.

When asked on BBC’s question time by Lib Dems’ communities spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy “How much more control can they have. How far is he prepared to go to undermine civil liberties?”. Geoff Hoon interupted with the following response “To stop terrorists killing people in our society, quite a long way actually. “If they are going to use the internet to communicate with each other and we don’t have the power to deal with that, then you are giving a licence to terrorists to kill people.”

This is further evidence if any were needed that this government and it’s minister will go to any lengths to further pry into the private affairs of its citizins, in the complete knowledge that this will infringe our civil liberties as was actually knowledged by Hoon’s statement. This government continues to use fear as a weapon to increase their hold over the public and it has got to stop. The majority of people shrug their shoulders, but they shouldn’t, they must sit up and take notice. We are already the most spied nation on earth with some 4.2m CCTV cameras, but do you feel any safer..No!

This is what I said in my article yesterday (Public must call time on Big Brother Britain):

It is expected that plans to collect more data on people’s phone, e-mail and web-browsing habits will be included in the innocuously sounding ”Communications Data Bill”, due to be introduced in the Queen’s Speech in November. By all accounts, these proposals are supported by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Gordon Brown and much of the Labour government. Once again, the government is expected to justify this gross intrusion into the personal lives of 65m people under the auspices of ‘counter-terrorism’, this is utter garbage, they know it and we know it. Yes, there are terrorists out there and they don’t wear badges, but this country has faced terrorism before and the security forces managed to investigate and prosecute without such laws.

There is a radio advert doing the rounds at the moment which claims that some 6 plumbers per week, die from asbestos related diseases. That is over 300 per year. In 2007, some 2940 people were killed on our roads. In spite of these appalling numbers, we have not witnessed a massive increase in legislation to prevent these deaths, or a massive erosion of our civil liberties. As attrocious and upsetting as the July bombings were, in the 3 years since, 3 times as many farmers were killed in farm accidents. Police and security forces have received a significant increase in budgets for front-line personnel in name name of combatting terrorism and I have no criticsm of this extra money, but it is time we put it into perspective.

How many people have been killed over the years to protect the civil liberties and freedoms we used to enjoy until New Labour came to power? How many people have died to protect us from tyranny? The answer is millions. For 30 years we endured terrorism on the mainland, yet no government sought to remove our rights and freedoms, this has been left to New Labour. It is fear that ensures public compliance, but this is actually manipulation. This government, your government wants to read your emails, monitor your telephone calls and texts and look over your shoulder as you read this article. How is that going to stop terrorists?

Whenever the government wants to get legislation through that seeks to remove our rights as citizens and our liberties, they come up with another “plot”, take your mind back. In fact, they did the same thing only a few days ago, this time when they wanted to extend the detention without trial from 28 to 42 days. Our own government is manipulating it’s people, it is raising the stakes by trying to promote fear, yet, if you are a farmer, you are more likely to be killed at work that my a terrorist, you are more likely in fact, to die in a plane accident, than die at the hands of a terrorist. Knowledge is power and this government is obsessed with power. they know that is they have knowledge of it’s citizens, then they have ultimate power. Yet, we are supposed to be in charge, not them.

We must tell our elected member of parliament that enough is enough, we must instruct them not to vote for this draconan piece of legislation. This is what I proposed in my article yesterday.

We must demonstrate to our MP’s that they should be more in fear of the wrath of the British public that the Chief Whip of their own parties. Opposition MP’s should do their jobs and oppose this draconian piece of legislation. We must also warn our local members of parliament that if they vote for this Act, that we will not vote for them, we must make it clear, that we have a voice, not once every 5 years, but throughout their tenure and that we will have it heard. Everyone that feels this Act is a direct infringement of our civil liberties, right to privacy and an attack on the very fabric of our society, should write to their MP and tell them so. I have provided a ‘draft letter’ which can be viewed, personalised and sent to your MP. Draft Letter to MP

I would also invite all fellow bloggers that feel as strongly as I do on this issue to reproduce this article in part or full, topped and tailed if they wish, to publicise this issue to as many people as possible. Let us all stand up and fight in this issue, and remind this government who is actually in charge.

RESIST!

Subscribe to Big Brother Britain

Email:

Visit this group

Enough is enough, the UK is becoming a police state by our control obsessed government and we are sitting back and allowing it to happen. It makes me angry to see such lethargy. Everytime a new act is brought in, far more sinister aspects are buried in the detail, which further curtail our civil liberties, freedom and privacy. This has got to stop and now, state should not be permitted to control the people, it should be the other way around. As it stands, just 650 members of parliament are pushing some 65m people around, yes, I mean 650, because whilst this government may have a majority, the MP’s from other parties are not making enough noise about this massive intrusion into our lives, they should be fired, the lot of them. We are quick to condemn the bankers (rightly so in many cases), but we do nothing about the MP’s that have consistently introduced or supported Acts of Parliament that intrude into our lives, in a way that will affect us for many years to come. We must put a stop to it.

It is expected that plans to collect more data on people’s phone, e-mail and web-browsing habits will be included in the innocuously sounding ”Communications Data Bill”, due to be introduced in the Queen’s Speech in November. By all accounts, these proposals are supported by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Gordon Brown and much of the Labour government. Once again, the government is expected to justify this gross intrusion into the personal lives of 65m people under the auspices of ‘counter-terrorism’, this is utter garbage, they know it and we know it. Yes, there are terrorists out there and they don’t wear badges, but this country has faced terrorism before and the security forces managed to investigate and prosecute without such laws.

I don’t know how many terrorists are out there, but it is not 65m and is probably less that a couple of thousand, why should the privacy and personal of 65m people be invaded by this government because of a few people that mean us harm? This whole thing needs to be put in perspective, more people in the UK die on the roads than as a result of terrorism, more soldiers are killed abroad, than in the UK as a result of terrorism, in fact, more people are killed in farming accidents than as a consequence of terrorism. This government has invested massively in the security services, allowing them to go on a substantial recruitment drive, there should be no need for a massive Big Brother surveillance operation of the entire population of the UK. Before some smart-arse suggests that it is this surveillance and investment in the security services that has reduced the number of terrorist incidents in the UK, I would ask them to provide further evidence that this is the case and then to put it into perspective. For example, it is well know that the airline industry work out whether safety mechanisms are worth introducing on their planes on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis. In other words, will the costs associated with an accident outweigh the cost of implementing the safety programmes. Fact of life, they all do it, they just rarely tell us!

Of course the government will issue the usual platitudes and assurances that they will not misuse this information, but can we believe them. The Icelandic authorities had their assets frozen using anti-terror laws, in spite of the fact that there were other laws that could have been used and would have been just as effective. A local council used anti-terror legislation to spy on the parents of a child that they throught was in the wrong ‘catchment area’. This list, trust me, goes on and on. We also know that this government and it’s private sector partners are incapapble of securing data, which means our personal lives could be open to all and sundry. Some will argue that if you have nothing to hide, then there is nothing to hide, these same people probably still believe in Father Christmas. As we know information, any information can be used in different ways, depending on the intepretation of the recipient, how many times have we all said or done something that was completely misrepresented?

I have nothing to hide, but I object strongly to my personal calls, web browsing habits and email being monitored and invaded by the state. Government’s could even misuse this information to find out how we intend to vote! It is an appalling proposal and it is high time the British public called time on this control obsessed government and it’s supporters, irrespective of which party they represent. This goes beyond party politics, it is a direct attack on the very fabric of our society and no-one will be safe from government interference if it is allowed to pass into law. If the government believe that this act is so important, then they should allow the British people to vote on it through a referendum, I believe they will get a resounding No…and they know it!

People often tell me that there is “not much we can do”, but there is. Our members of parliament are worried sick that they may lose their seat at the next election, we must emphasise to them that if they support this attack on our civil liberties that we guarantee they will. We must demonstrate to our MP’s that they should be more in fear of the wrath of the British public that the Chief Whip of their own parties. Opposition MP’s should do their jobs and oppose this draconian piece of legislation. We must also warn our local members of parliament that if they vote for this Act, then we will not vote for them, we must make it clear, that we have a voice, not once every 5 years, but throughout their tenure and that we will have it heard. Everyone that feels this Act is a direct infringement of our civil liberties, right to privacy and an attack on the very fabric of our society, should write to their MP and tell them so. I have provided a ‘draft letter’ which can be viewed, personalised and sent to your MP. Draft Letter to MP

I would also invite all fellow bloggers that feel as strongly as I do on this issue to reproduce this article in part or full, topped and tailed if they wish, to publicise this issue to as many people as possible. Let us all stand up and fight in this issue, and remind this government who is actually in charge.

RESIST!

For more information on how the UK government is steadily eroding our rights to privacy and our civil liberties, I would recommend that you take a look at these articles. Privacy Controls - Nothing to Hide

Subscribe to Big Brother Britain

Email:

Visit this group

A few weeks ago I argued that the British government treatment of Gurkha’s who had left the army prior to 1997 was immoral and unfair: http://www.power-to-the-people.co.uk/2008/09/immigration-policy-farce/ In effect, the government argued that Gurkha’s that had retired from the army prior to 1997 would not have an automatic right to stay in the UK.

Today, instead of the government acting with honour, it was left to the judiciary, The judge, Mr Justice Blake, said the Gurkhas’ long service, conspicuous acts of bravery and loyalty to the Crown all pointed to a “moral debt of honour” and gratitude felt by British people. I could not have put it better myself. He went on to say that the advice given by the Home Office to the immigration department was unlawful and required urgent revision.

I cannot but wonder, in light of Jacqui Smith’s statement, why it was necessary for this to go to court. Jacqui Smith said in a statement “I have always been clear that where there is a compelling case, soldiers and their families should be considered for settlement,” she said. “We will honour our commitment to the Gurkha’s by reviewing all cases by the end of the year.” Actions speak louder than words, but this type of response and intransigence has become typical of this particular government. The public will be watching to ensure that the government does not attempt to get out of this commitment.

If you have heard him say it once, you have heard him repeat it 100 times. Gordon Brown keeps telling is that the UK economic fundamentals are strong. Now I am no economist and that will become self-evident when reading this blog, but I am blessed with a little commonsense and logic. My conclusion, the so called fundamentals don’t look so great from where I am sitting, so common Gordon enlighten us.

At the CBI Scotland Annual Dinner, Gordon Brown outlines what he considered those fundamentals to be, they are;

“First, Bank of England independence has given us low interest rates founded on sound macroeconomic management and so despite increases in the prices of food and fuel - and I understand the impact this is having on families and businesses - the sound framework for monetary policy which we have established means inflation remains far below the double-digit levels we saw in the earlier decades. And this will help ensure that interest rates remain similarly low by historical standards.

Second, the most flexible labour market in Europe means that even though unemployment has risen in recent months, employment remains close to record highs - and wage pressures are subdued, led by our own responsible decisions on public sector pay. And with the investment in the New Deal and our latest welfare reforms there is more support than ever before to help people back into work and to fill the 600,000 vacancies still in our economy. And a balanced approach to migration allows businesses to benefit from the specific skills that economic migrants can bring to our country and improves the responsiveness of our labour market to fluctuating demand.

Third - the underlying financial strength of British business reflects its improved efficiency - driven by your hard work in achieving the fastest growth in average productivity in the past decade across the whole of the G7. Britain remains a magnet for overseas investment and our export performance is improving, with our manufacturing productivity growth strong.

Fourth, low debt. The significant debt repayments we made since 1997 mean we have cut public debt as a share of national income from 43 per cent in 1997 to today’s 37.3 per cent. This means that, unlike in earlier economic slowdowns, we can sustain our ongoing commitment to investment in fixed capital infrastructure - up 58 per cent in real terms in the last decade. In 1997 we invested £144.5 billion. Today it is £229 billion. Even after inflation a 58 per cent rise.

And - while  no government can hope to protect people from the full impact of the global credit crunch or the worldwide spike  in commodity prices - I am determined that we should do what we reasonably can to help families and businesses through this difficult period of adjustment. So we will back up our investment commitments with careful interventions designed to provide targeted support for hard-pressed families - such as this week’s home-owners’ support package and the £120 a year tax cut for basic rate taxpayers that will start to feed into pay packets later this month.

Fifth – we are making all the long term decisions, difficult as they are, to boost our competitiveness; on energy, planning, transport, housing, digital technology, science and skills. And the 2002 Enterprise Act has given us one of the most robust, independent competition regimes anywhere in the world. The support for British enterprise - strengthened over the last decade with the launch of Enterprise Capital Funds, the Small Firms Loan Guarantee and administrative burden reduction targets. Britain today has four and a half million businesses - more than ever before. And the OECD says Britain has the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any OECD country. ”

Now lets have layman’s take on this, as I said, I am no expert on economics, but I am one of the people that is expected to understand what the government is telling us.

Fundamental One

One of the primary movers in determining interest rates is inflation and as we have seen over the past few months, Gordon Brown is limited in what he can do to control inflation. Yes he can keep public sector wage deals low, but he cannot control commodity prices such as fuel and food, which can have, as we have seen, a significant impact on inflation. Furthermore, government borrowing can also affect inflation, but Gordon Brown’s fancy footwork has managed to keep long term debt such as the PFI initiatives off the government balance sheet. This may have the affect of massaging government borrowings, thereby providing a knock-on affect in terms of lower interest rates.

Fundamental Two

Gordon Brown goes on to lecture us that the second part of the fundamentals is a flexible workforce, low unemployment, low wage settlements, economic migrants and welfare reforms. Really? Firstly, there is no explanation of what a flexible workforce is, but whatever it is, the government cannot claim the credit for it. The low unemployment figure doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny either. There are now 1.7, people out of work and on top of that those claiming disability benefits have risen to 2.5m, many of which, under the old system, would have been classed as unemployed. So, once again, this would appear to be a deliberate manipulation of the true jobless total.

Granted, the government can be credited with reaching low wage settlements with the public sector, although their ability to maintain these agreements may be questionable given the increasing militancy of the the public sector unions. But there is something else that Gordon Brown has omitted to include here. Many public sector employees benefit from excellent, final salary pension schemes and, even though many of these have been withdrawn in the private sector, Gordon has not had the courage to likewise in the public sector. Therefore, whether Gordon Brown likes it or not, it is an inconvenient truth that pensions are a cost of employment and it is estimated that our public sector pensions deficit is some £890bn, yet the government does not include this obligation anywhere in their figures.

So what about economic migrants, who do they benefit? Well yes, they benefit private companies that cannot or more likely, will not offer a wage sufficient to get ‘local’ workers to join their business, even though we have 1.7m unemployed. But what about the hidden cost, economic migrants can bring their families if they wish and many do, so when they are here, we must provide them with, at the very least, free education and free healthcare. So, in effect, by offering these benefits free, we, the tax payer are effectively subsidising employers looking for cheap labour. As the government knows only too well, these economic migrants could not possibly pay enough in tax and national insurance to cover the cost of these free benefits. If I was Mr Brown, I would be keeping my mouth shut, unless of course, he thinks we are all too stupid to work it out.

Fundamental Three

Gordon claims that we have the fastest growth in average productivity in the past decade across the whole of the G7. This may be true and therefore I will accept it at face value. But, can he really claim that their is an underlying financial strength in British business? Over the past few months, we have seen a high street bank have to be rescued by the tax payer, we have had a series of profit warnings from major retailers and manufacturers, we have had a number of high profile companies having to go to the stock market for more money to shore up their balance sheets and we have seen the failure of several airlines and the UK’s third largest travel companies. This doesn’t look strong.

In addition, we are now starting to see the highest level of business failures in over a decade, particularly small and medium sized businesses. Gordon Brown would do well to be remember that it is the SME market that has created many of the new jobs that he takes credit for, but also, because they cannot afford to go offshore or look at fancy methods of tax avoidance, they loyally pay their taxes. So what has he done for them?

Despite promised to the contrary, he has saddled them with a mountain of red tape, punitive fines and penalties for even the smallest misdemeanor in respect of tax or VAT returns. He has ensured through legislation that, the SME employer now has to have expensive experts on hand either as employees or consultants to advise on health and safety issues and employment issues as they have become one of the largest burdens on any small or medium sized business. In doing so, Gordon Brown, his cohorts and civil servants have demonstrated that they know nothing about running a business of this size.

Further, as a result of reduced central government funding to local authorities, business are having to pay ever higher business rates, even though they are getting less and less in return. Typically business rates now equate to 50% of the SME’s lease or rental costs. That is not business friendly, it is punishment. Far from taking credit for the business sector success, certainly in terms of the SME’s, he and his penal policies have made it increasingly difficult for them to survive as will be demonstrated over the coming months with a disproportionate number of SME business failures. You mark my words Mr Brown. This government also withdrew tapered tax relief a few short years after it was introduced to encourage entrepreneurship.

Fundamental Four

This takes the biscuit, Gordon Brown claims that government debt, as a percentage of national income has fallen from 43% in 1997, to 37.3%. As I have mentioned before, this is not a true figure, it is massaged. Mr Brown has become adept at using fancy footwork to ensure that government obligations do not end up on the government balance sheet. Now, I am not suggesting that he can’t do this, because he has, but what is the point in kidding himself, unless of course, the plan is to kid us? Between now and 2032, we will have to pay back some £170bn through the various PFI schemes used to pay for our schools, hospitals and other infrastructure projects. This doesn’t appear as a borrowing, so what is it? Then there is the debt from the failed Network Rail project and Northern Rock, as well as countless other obligations, why don’t these show up?

This man, even claimed in his speech, that he is using government intervention to assist families and business, bragging that basic rate tax payers will receive £120 a year in tax cuts. Have I missed something, this is the man that though he could rip us off using a classic trick of smoke and mirrors, got caught out and had to back down, Then he is trying to claim that it is some gift from the government. What an arrogant, deluded little man he is. 

Fundamental Five

This is really a more detailed repetition of Gordon’s ‘Fundamental Three’, but there are many more grandiose claims that do not bear scrutiny, but I haven’t got the time to analyse them one by one, so perhaps Gordon can enlighten as all be telling us how many of the 4.5m businesses he alludes to have actually been able to benefit from the Enterprise Capital Funds and the Small Firms Loan Guarantee? Precisely what red tape burdens has he removed and does this assessment include the new red tape this government has introduced.

I would also be very keen to hear precisely how this government can claim credit for boosting our competitiveness; on energy, planning, transport, housing, digital technology, science and skills. I don’t remember any of the companies operating in this sector thanking the government for their contribution. He also claims that our exports are improving, could this be anything to do with the fact that Sterling has weakened against all of the other major currencies, one of the primary reasons that our bills and inflation is rising, given we are a net importer of goods.

There are also other things that a government should be doing, such as planning. Gordon Brown makes no mention of the fact that as a direct consequence of his government’s prevaricating over nuclear power stations, there is a very real risk that we could suffer major power shortages in  3 or 4 years few years time, as the older power stations are de-commissioned and new one’s which take 10 years to build, are not ready. We could be reduced to third world levels of power shortages, with an estimated reduction of some 35%, affecting every family, every home and every business in the country. There is your legacy Mr Brown.

As I have stated at the outset, I am not a financial or economic expert, but when I analyse what Gordon Brown has said, against what had actually happened, I see a massive gulf. Therefore, this man must be deluding himself, or attempting to hoodwink the public. Either way, it is not good for us or our country. Step aside Mr Brown, before it is too late.

Whilst our immigration policy is prepared to allow in EU citizens, asylum seekers, economic migrants, gangs and people smugglers, we are refusing entry to a handful of Ghurka’s and Iraqui interpreters that have helped us.

For example, since the time of the Empire, the formidable Gurkha’s, have long fought alongside the British Army in campaigns from the two world wars, through to the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. In spite of this we are prepared to refuse entry to these brave soldiers who have risked their lives for our liberty and freedom, such that it is under the Labour government. Although we have allowed Gurkha’s that have left the army recently, to settle in the UK, we are refusing this benefit to those that left more than a decade ago. Surely our appreciation of their efforts and sacrifices is not time limited?

In addition, we are refusing entry to the Iraqi interpreters that have assisted our soldiers in Iraq. The government has decided that if they have “served” the British army for less than 1 year, that they cannot settle in the UK and, in any event, they should be subject to a quota. Why, is the British government claiming that those that have served less than 1 year are in less danger? What total and utter nonsense. It is reprehensible that the government, in our name, would seek to restrict the access of people that have served or supported our armed forces in the theatre of war, whilst allowing in any other Tom, Dick or Harry.

We are only talking abour a handful of Gurkha’s and interpreters, but the message we send by refusing entry is significant, not to mention hypocritical. This government needs to address this issue positively, before they bring shame on all of the people of this country.

I have argued for some time that we should have a much stricter immigration policy particularly given there is a significant impact on our services, such as health, education and housing, which is all too often ignored in favour of the ’cheap labour’ provided by economic migrants. However, I do not believe we should turn our backs on those that have helped us in our time of need, to do so, is quite simply shameful.