The reason why people don't feel concerned

Gesh · **Posted:** Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:54:44 +0000

Guest wrote:

We already register our places of residence

Do we? With central government? Not I.

Stephen · **Posted:** Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:05:53 +0000

Gesh wrote:

Guest wrote:

We already register our places of residence

Do we? With central government? Not I.

I concur. I've never had to, as a British citizen, register my place of residence with the government.

Stephen

Carol Ann · **Posted:** Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:56:29 +0000

Guest wrote:

We already register our places of residence, our cars and our guns, what's 1 more?

You register your place of residence? Why? As far as I am aware there is no law to do so in UK.

As for registering your car, well that is kind of a "grey area". Sure, theoretically you have to, but you have to get caught.....

As for registering your guns. Well I've got to say that that was the most amazing thing I've heard in a long time. Did you know that people often say to me things like "well what do you expect from a country who armed their police and disarmed their civil population, and then gave us 'gingerbread women'"? Again not my statement, but something someone said to me, so please don't think I am insulting you. Personally I can't believe how you people rolled over on that one though. History has shown us that if a government is planning something horrible it is always preceded by gun registration. This id card proposal bears that out.

Stephen · **Posted:** Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:44:26 +0000

Carol Ann wrote:

History has shown us that if a government is planning something horrible it is always preceded by gun registration.

Gun registration? In the UK? What guns? There's only three classes of people in Blair's Britain who own or have access to guns: farmers (many of whom have licenced/registered shotguns), armed police - who make up an increasingly significant proportion of the British police as a whole - because of the surge in armed criminals - ranging from the young thug with something to prove up to his peers up to the organised criminal who routinely 'eliminates' his underworld competition.

The average decent, honest law-abiding middle-classer doesn't even know what a gun looks like anymore - and the government is currently working on legislation making immitation weapons illegal, which will make water pistols and other children's toys illegal. It might be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Stephen

Carol Ann · **Posted:** Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:40:33 +0000

Stephen wrote:

Carol Ann wrote:

History has shown us that if a government is planning something horrible it is always preceded by gun registration.

Gun registration? In the UK? What guns? There's only three classes of people in Blair's Britain who own or have access to guns: farmers (many of whom have licenced/registered shotguns), armed police - who make up an increasingly significant proportion of the British police as a whole - because of the surge in armed criminals - ranging from the young thug with something to prove up to his peers up to the organised criminal who routinely 'eliminates' his underworld competition.

The average decent, honest law-abiding middle-classer doesn't even know what a gun looks like anymore - and the government is currently working on legislation making immitation weapons illegal, which will make water pistols and other children's toys illegal. It might be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
Stephen

I have found it incredible how, over recent years, the weirdest ideas - ideas we would have not long ago considered too way-out and totally strange to ever be accepted as mainstream - become legislation.

That kind of bears out the saying: " For evil to triumph all it takes is for good men to do nothing" (or actually words to that effect, I can't remember the exact quote, but I'm sure you get the gist). I believe that the average person is sensible and wouldn't normally cowtow to a person who had an irrational fear of toy guns. But people are really lazy and will continue to humour any weirdo lobby group thinking that nobody would take notice of such idiocy and it will go away if they ignore them. Then all of a sudden, the proposal has not gone away but is now law. All of a sudden police are pounding on your door at 3 in the morning and they kick down the door, burst in yelling at your terrified family and drag you off to the police station in handcuffs and shackles, where you are informed that you are charged with "inciting your child to use a toy water pistol" (a yellow one too, made of obvious plastic, that couldn't possibly be mistaken for a real pistol). Any Bill to "ban" replica or toy guns or pistols is social engineering. It is to socially engineer the generation who are now young children to grow up to be absolute wimps who will cower in a corner screaming when/if they are ever confronted by anything resembling a gun.

If government gets away with this ban next will come a ban on sharp objects (including long fingernails and all kitchen equipment), fireworks, matches, cars, bicycles, and the list could go on and on. You realise that, don't you?

History is a remarkable teacher. We should learn from history, but we never do. Reading about the history of the 20th century has taught me that if a government, any government, is planning to introduce "unpopular" legislation (or legislation that will become unpopular once people realise what it is) they first have to disarm their people.

In Germany in 1938 Adolf Hitler disarmed the entire civilian population (he had been doing it long before that with "selected groups" but by 1938 people hardly remembered what a firearm looked like). It was then that he had free reign to make the German population do anything he wanted them to do, including marching onto trains that they probably knew had a 50/50 chance of taking them to certain death. It was a theory, but now it is beginning to look more and more certain, that Tony Blair has a similar agenda - he has got most of the population believing that it is "not their place" to have weapons of defence "as the police will do that for them" and now that you have nothing to fight back with and will be easily subdued by an armed police, he can make you all have an id card and surrender your biometrics to government.

Even the United Nations (which itself has a pretty shoddy human rights record) will tell you that a civil population must always bear arms to be used as a last resort against the tyranny of government. And the UK government is certainly being tyrannical with regard to this proposed id card/NIR legislation.

lenoiranne · **Joined:** Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:24:59 +0000 **Posts:** 90

We don't need guns or violence to fight back.We have got something stronger than guns, we have got our voice and we should use it.

We all seem to forget that the law can also be used in people's interests.

Stephen · **Posted:** Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:10:27 +0000

Carol Ann wrote:

If government gets away with this ban next will come a ban on sharp objects (including long fingernails and all kitchen equipment), fireworks, matches, cars, bicycles, and the list could go on and on. You realise that, don't you?

It's already in the works.

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

It's already illegal to carry a knife on your person in a public place or any one of a number of sharp implements meeting the government's criteria for an 'offensive weapon'. In fact, I believe it's illegal to carry a sharp-pointed pen on your person in a public place if it can be demonstrated that you intended to stab someone with it.

Stephen

Guest · **Posted:** Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:14:14 +0000

Soon they will regulate if we can fart, sneeze, cough... This crazy tendency to try to regulate almost every aspect of our life, like if the world will become a safer place! This big brother government that knows no limits...

N.

Bill · **Posted:** Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:27:03 +0000

Quote:

Soon they will regulate if we can fart, sneeze, cough...

Techically these are Chemical, Biological and Sonic weapons of mass destruction.
:lol:

Guest · **Posted:** Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:27:52 +0000

Well I'm all for it, bring them in asap if you ask me, and before you slate me, I am NOT the only who wants them.

Carol Ann · **Posted:** Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:42:28 +0000

lenoiranne wrote:

We don't need guns or violence to fight back.We have got something stronger than guns, we have got our voice and we should use it.

We all seem to forget that the law can also be used in people's interests.

Hmm, fight back with our voices. This is assuming that politicians, bureaucrats and government employees in general (including, of course, the police) can, and want to, understand your words.

From reading all this I get the distinct impression that these people (the ones with the power to "enforce") have selective hearing, believe what they want to believe - or at least pretend that they do - and have a stronger desire (stronger, that is, than any desire to appear rational) to enforce and justify their agenda.

You seem to be forgetting that 'they' (I'm sure you know what I mean by 'they') have the POWER TO IGNORE! Ignore figures, ignore public opinion, ignore facts, ignore logic and reason altogether, and most of all to ignore the beliefs, hardships and suffering of people.

Politicians, bureaucrats and government employees in general are mostly like toddlers and small children. If a toddler is playing with something dangerous you don't try to talk them out of it, you physically remove them from the danger. The consequences of this are far too important to merely use words and assume that they are understood. The time for that has long since passed.

As for "the law can also be used in peoples' interests". It would seem that the law has been carefully constructed, or modified at least, to prevent anybody using it 'in their interests'. "The dice is definitely loaded on the government's side" wouldn't you say?

Tony Blair's government has created a state where people don't have access to anything that they can use as a weapon, they have become a meek and inconsequential people who have no idea of how to resist, or "fight back". Yeah, I would say ripe for "picking off one by one" and being lead, like cattle, to the slaughter.

Carol Ann · **Posted:** Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:49:49 +0000

Anonymous wrote:

Well I'm all for it, bring them in asap if you ask me, and before you slate me, I am NOT the only who wants them.

I assume you're talking about control-freak laws banning 'everything'.

Spoken like a true control-freak member of a weirdo lobby group that I referred to above.

Sure, you might WANT them, but don't you dare impose them on me, or anybody else.

Guest · **Posted:** Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:19:44 +0000

Anonymous wrote:

Well I'm all for it, bring them in asap if you ask me, and before you slate me, I am NOT the only who wants them.

Tell us why you want them then... What will ID cards offer you that you don't have now? More security? Better access to government services? Less illegal migrants? Single secure identification?

Whichever way you look at it ultimately - if we have compulsory ID cards - none of the above will be resolved, some things may even turn for the worse, you will still have to pay for the damn thing, and on top of it the government has a permanent tag on you. So what exactly are the benefits that you are prepared to waste £5 billion plus of taxpayers money?

Most of you that want them have not articulated any descent argument for them beyond two very boring and 'cliche' slogans: 'if you have nothing to hide...', 'the others have them, why not us?'

I am now convinced that only the ill and poorly informed support ID cards.

N.

Guest · **Posted:** Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:22:06 +0000

Stephen wrote:

Carol Ann wrote:

If government gets away with this ban next will come a ban on sharp objects (including long fingernails and all kitchen equipment), fireworks, matches, cars, bicycles, and the list could go on and on. You realise that, don't you?

It's already in the works.

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

It's already illegal to carry a knife on your person in a public place or any one of a number of sharp implements meeting the government's criteria for an 'offensive weapon'. In fact, I believe it's illegal to carry a sharp-pointed pen on your person in a public place if it can be demonstrated that you intended to stab someone with it.

I went to this site and read the article. I was flabergasted. It would seem that your government thinks you are all small children or chimpanzees who cannot be trusted with knives. Because (the excuse anyway) there are "assaults with knives" government wants to take all access to sharp pointed knives away from you.

Quote from the article: "The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all". So how are the public going to carve their meat? Will they have to take it to a government-run meat-carving-centre to have it done for them - just like you might cut up your small child's meat, and you wouldn't give the child a knife.

Another thing I find incredible is that they have the cheek to quote 17th century France as an example of good law. Nobody learns from history, do they?

This is a brilliant example of the "school ma'am mentality". You know, "we think you are all a bunch of morons who don't know what is good for you, so we won't 'allow' you to have access to dangerous objects". The logical conclusion to this is the 'banning' (to the public) of glasses (which will be replaced by plastic), all knives and forks (again replaced by plastic cuttlery), the banning of food packaged in sharp-edged containers (you know like pouches of cat food etc.) and the banning of all household tools (any 'handyman' jobs around the home will now be done by tradesmen who have paid 10,000 pound to government for a permit to carry tools and have a government approved lockable container to keep them in).

And china tea cups should also be banned because I'm sure that someone, sometime, was probably injured when someone else threw a china tea cup at them and it broke. So get used to drinking tea out of plastic mugs.

After that will come legislation to force you to pad all the sharp corners in your house and then there's your car. Now cars have often been used as weapons in the past and injured a lot of people, even killed them. So we have to get rid of cars. And I'm sure someone, sometime, probably injured someone by riding a bicycle into them.

Before cars are banned altogether though, government might look at banning all home car maintenance and modifications. If you want to change a wheel or rotate your tyres or even check your oil, you will have to go to a government approved, permitted to carry (tools that is) garage.
Afterall, think of all the people (I don't actually know of any instances but there must be some) who have been injured by someone using a tyre lever or a spanner or a wheel brace as a weapon.

Then might come legislation to force you to wear steel capped boots everywhere you go, and a scarf and a hat (in case it is cold - afterall people are too stupid to know when to dress against the cold) and carry a raincoat and an umbrella in case it rains (again people cannot be trusted to realise when it is about to rain).

After all this, UK definitely will be a wimped-down society just screaming out to be watched and controlled by government. People will be so fear stricken after reading all the propaganda it will take to convince them that these measures are necessary that they will line up for hours to surrender their fingerprints etc. to government. They won't even be able to hang themselves with their boot-laces beecause government will have banned boot laces.

Am I going too far? Or is this logically on the government agenda?

Stephen

Carol Ann · **Posted:** Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:32:57 +0000

Sorry, the above post was written by me. I forgot to put my name on it.

Carol Ann

lenoiranne · **Joined:** Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:24:59 +0000 **Posts:** 90

I think it is not only politicians, bureaucrats ect...that have selective hearing, believe what they want to believe - or pretend that they do.
Pressure groups too seem to have the POWER TO IGNORE! ignore suggestions, public opinion, facts which could easily answer some of today's problems.
Pressure groups' attitude is perceived by many as foolish and out of touch with reality. People's fears and concern over ID theft, terrorism and fraud have to be answered.Today's problems are real and must be dealt with.

Anyway, even if pressure groups were to succeed and the ID scheme was dropped, the government would implement it through the back door. This means that unless we do something about it now, all our personal data, biometrics and non-biometrics, are going to be indexed and 'centralised'.

What I meant by "the law can also be used in peoples' interests" is that we can fill the gaps by campaigning for an alternative. That is the way most minority groups have gained new rights (single dad, women rights ect...)

In our case, we should look at the Data Protection Act 1998 and fill the gap so as to balance the interests of both government and people. By doing so, we could save billions of taxpayers money which are and could be wasted on organised crime and unworkable schemes ( ID theft, ID cards, databases )

NO2ID

The reason why people don't feel concerned

Who is online