NO2ID

If you've something to hide then be fearful, very fearful.

Justin.

Just a quickie: You require a TV license to own a video recorder, a PC TV card, or any machine that is capable of "recieving television services", to use the words on the license. Retailers have to provide information on buyers of TV equipment to the TV licensing authority under threat of a £1000 fine.

And I'll happily put your name down as Mr X, as long as it's not a TV card you're buying.

(Guess where in the world I work)

...and when Eclipse resolves the postcode to somewhere in Hemel Hempstead, you'll get an odd look from the cashier. Better to just say "no thanks". Trust me.

If you hear someone saying "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" then just ask them to give you their bank card PIN number or computer password.

When they rightfully object to this, then ask them if they've ever had any homosexual thoughts or homoerotic fantasies. What is their opinion on anal sex?

Et cetera.

Every time they protest, then look at them baffled: "But you said 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'. What are you afraid of?"

You should also sprinkle a little bit of "guilty until proven innocent". When they don't answer the question about homosexual thoughts, instantly dismiss them as "gay".

If they protest to this mistreatment then ignore it: There is no right to appeal. You asked them a question, they hid the answer, so therefore they must always and immutably be guilty automatically. Doesn't matter what they say afterwards, it's too late: They tried to hide the answer so that means they are automatically a deviant criminal.


There's an old joke which captures the principle:

A conservative is a liberal who's had their house broken into.
A liberal is a conservative who's been given a speeding ticket.


Put the shoe on the other foot and everyone becomes a liberal.


"Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison solely because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilization."
- Sir Winston Churchill


This is the irony of it all:

Society finds it intolerable to live under the rule of tyrant and dictators. So there is revolution and the people win themselves liberty.

By liberty, they are able to better themselves. They become rich, surround themselves in luxuries and fineries and live like Kings.

So much so, that they start to act like Kings and the cruelest of them become new dictators and tyrants (their richest supporters, the new aristocracy. Liteterally with "cash for peerages").

Then we're right back to square one.

"The King is dead; Long live the King"


"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."
- Abraham Lincoln

When ever I hear any silly person say "nothing to hide nothing to fear" I ask them what the 6 million Jews had to hide, what the 60 million victims of Stalin were doing wrong, what the victims of Pol Pot, Mao, Ataturk and Idi Amin had to hide...
they soon shut up and realise how idiotic they have been.

We may have things to hide

You say about strip searching people, have you noticed how happy people to let kids be randomly drug tested in schools. If I had a child at school I would be up in arms if they were randomly drug tested. This is a major flaw of the British they just accept everything (unlike the French, who seem to have a strike, march, protest at the drop of a hat)
erdie

And then there's the fingerprinting in schools, the CCTVs in schools and various other "nothing to fear nothing to hide" situations, some of which are not new.
Why are the French so much better than us when it comes to saying "we're not having this, we refuse"?

Fingerprinting in a school has made the news again. Children in Ilkley Grammar School, near Leeds have had their fingerprints taken to save staff 'wasting time' filling in forms! The children will be identified by touching a scanner which will then highlight their personal details.

Allegedly this is to save staff from having to keep written records of various school activities, though some parents have apparently expressed concern about it.

Doesn't this school have any admin staff to keep these sort of records? Isn't just keeping records on a computer sufficient?
Why does a school consider it necessary to fingerprint its pupils as a means of record keeping?

I think the parents are entitled to an explanation from the head teacher/governors as to why the decision was taken to do this.

I wonder how much the scanner cost and who took the fingerprints.

My question is about who 'owns' that kind of information. Does the school? Does the Local Authority? Do the parents?

If that kind of information is taken about a child, then I can't see how explicit parental consent isn't required. Maybe it's all part of the drive toward people forgetting that their fingerprints and secrets used to belong to themselves....

Exactly! These children have forgotten before they were even aware. In a few years they will be used to having to ask permission to do things that they can do now without asking. Think of all the things we are used to now, and how many of them are actually beneficial and how many of them are restrictive. This hasn't just started in the last 9 years, but it has accelerated since then.

Think of what we'll be used to by, I don't know, 2012.

It is these docile idiotic thick as pig **** parents that enrage me, they are concerned about their kids fingerprints being taken. They should calling for the headmasters head, there should be mass demonstrations. Instead they are just voicing concern it makes me sick to see what our country is becoming.

I agree that it IS frustrating that people don't do more, as you say, Virtuoso.

Sometimes though I think that to some extent people have been taught to go along with things like that. When my son was born I did as I was told, when I was told if the advice came from anyone 'professional' (Health Visitors, nursery workers, teachers...). I would never have questioned their motive for telling me what to do. 'Professionals' in this sense have power, whether they recognise it or not, and you want to make sure that your child gets the best from any service offered.

It was only in the last couple of years that I'd say that I've learned to question the decisions that other people are paid to make for me.

I hear what you are saying shelly but the docs and all other staff were doing and recommending things which you thought were in your best interests. However at least there was some purpose a reason for what they were doing, something as scandalous as this has no rhyme or reason and yet I bet a lot of these parents are saying to themselves well its only a few fingerprints, its not like my child is being targeted. Completely forgetting that they never had to endure such things but suddenly for their kids to have to is somehow normal or harmless. i really want to bang some of these parents heads together or maybe they are beyond that even, so trapped in their tiny minds that they can't actually see beyond what they are having for their next meal or what to do at the weekend.

I am ranting and raving right now and I do the same thing at work and I am sure I am not held in the highest of characters because I am so outspoken but when I have kids and they try and pull something like this I will be in the teachers faces week in week out. I would go so far as to say I would threaten the headmaster also and thats regretable since I am not a violent person by nature.

Simple answer: The French Revolution.


Whereas, in the UK, our revolution was tarnished because Cromwell set himself up as "Lord Protector" - which was the same as "King" in all but name - and when his disasterous son inherited the title, he was so bad that the old King was asked back.

Leading ultimately to the strange situation we have today, where we have a Parliamentary Representative Democracy - which, in reality, practically rules the country - but still retain a Monarch as mostly ceremonial Head of State.


The basic idea, in a nutshell, is that if we keep the Monarch - but strip them of any real power - then no-one else can declare themselves "King" (or "Queen") when there's already one there sitting on the throne, with very clear rules about "royal blood" that no-one can steal the position and stripped of any real powers that the title is mostly ceremonial and quite harmless.


Churchill once remarked that the most amazingly unique attribute of the British is that we actually like to be told the worst. That we are a cynical people to the core to prefer an honest frown to an insincere smile.

It's remarkable how cultural memory works.

The French really do still remember the revolution in their hearts.

While we British really do still remember being betrayed by those who sold themselves as being our "saviours" to forever distrust anyone who claims that for themselves.

In exactly the same way, I suppose, that when England play Scotland or Wales, then that other ancient cultural memory of conflicts and injustices past refuses to die.

We are far more a product of our histories than we care to admit.

These things really do define a culture and a people.


Simple answer: It's the French Revolutionary Spirit.


p.s. There's also the class system to consider here in the UK too. The idea that a "plub" should always listen blindly to whatever a "professional" tells them. Going to university makes you an inherently better class of person.

Also an edge of the Victorian attitude of rejecting admitting publicly that you're working class and insulting those who are - see the current "chav" stereotypes and there's always one "the plebs are inferior retarded animals" stereotype doing the rounds at some point - because, in the Victorian age, such confessions would have you ostrichised and alienated from "high society".

Another case of where the reasons died long ago - does Braveheart really have any significance after all these centuries? But its memory is resurrected every time England play Scotland - but that the attitudes take centuries to fade and, in one sense, they never die.

This attitude is endemic of society as the saying goes if you don't stand for something you fall for anything. That is exactly what this particular case highlights straight away it is almost like people have no moral compass anymore and so they will follow any direction they are told to.

It's not that people don't have a moral compass. It's just an electronic one that's been tampered with and set off course....

I do find it frustrating that people just take what they're given, but teachers do hold sway over parents. Some parents aren't assertive enough to tell a teacher what day it is, let alone that they disagree.

And Virtuoso, I have plenty of issues with my son's school (not least because they seem to think that the best way to tackle his delayed language acquisition is to 'diagnose' him with some disability and maintain even tighter contol over his behaviour than they do the other five-year-olds...). Sometimes I tackle them head-on, sometimes I tackle them tactically, and sometimes I let things go because my son seems to have had more 'naughty' days when I've been complaining. He doesn't understand that his teachers are control freaks and don't like being told they're wrong....

I suppose what I'm saying is that fingerprinting kids is shocking, absolutely. And schools have abused their positions to do so. But school can be a daily battle-ground, with parents feeling that schools don't listen, they don't have a say in changing anything, that schools abuse their position often....

To parents with bad experiences of their children's schools, sadly, fingerprinting might not sound shocking at all.

Hi Shelly I wasn't pointing the finger at all parents so if you took it as a personal jibe then don't. I think there are a lot of good people out there but equally i think there is a sizeable proportion of people who couldn't give 2 ***** as long as it doesnt affect them. Even when the people it does affect are their own children. It just defies belief that people can be so selfish and so narrow minded they couldnt see the big picture if it was presented to them on a projection screen

Don't worry, V. I know it's not personal. I'm explaining my experience becasue it's easier to, but I'm not alone in it. I'd say that around 80% of the parents at my son's school don't like to complain to teachers.

Kids change the game slightly: it's OK for me to challenge things and be outspoken, for example, but not when it will have a deterimental effect on my child because he doesn't understand. Maybe when my kids are older and more able to understand the reasons that I challenge things I won't worry about it so much...

Bob, I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head with your insight on this nausiating mantra. I've always felt there was something deeply sinister and disturbing about it that I just couldn't put my finger on. I'm sick and tired of hearing this bollocks from f***wit parrots who are incapable of formulating a free thought for themselves!
Cheers for posting it

########

SHEEPLE ! .............I like it ..........a new word .............. mmmmmm

I dont think that the stores who sell the equipment can access the TV Licensing database.

When I moved address, I notifed TV licensing by telephone to update my licence details. Months later I found out that my licence had been incorrectly registered to a nearby property sharing the same postcode as mine. During this time I bought a Freeview box (giving correct name and address) with no problems?

Some guest left the following trail:
>I dont think that the stores who sell the equipment can access the TV Licensing database.

Well, I can't.

Something you may wish to hide is a visit to a friend who has been banged up for some fairytale terrorist offence. It seems that was the crime of the two brothers from Forest Gate who were warmly greeted one fine morning by 250 of the Mets finest. It seems that the simple expedient of being innocent is no longer sufficent to ensure that you don't become some sort of plaything for our highly trained marksmen.

The friend they visited was given six years for dreaming up some improbable plot and having an ex soldiers address in his wallet. He is reckoned to have an IQ of 69 and was locally regarded as odd or sub normal. Local cops on the beat would have picked up on this no doubt, but in our world of remote and robotic policing common sense is a total stranger. Of course the NIR will be so wonderful that HMG will in future recognise the poor fellows lack of intelligence because after this sort of fiasco we will all be taking compulsory IQ tests, only to protect ourselves of course. Now what on earth could be wrong with that?

Justin.

Hmm. A short story I first read when I was about 9 sums up what is wrong with that: weeding out the intelligent.

Précis: Young happy family, mum dad, kid. Kid is pretty normal and asks questions, the usual stuff; "Why is the sky blue?" (that one was recently used in a 'go on be a teacher' advert), "How far away is the sun?", except the answers were not just wrong, but fundamentally wrong; the slightest rational thought would tell you it was a wrong answer, even if you didn't knwo what the right one was. They have a peaceful existence until Junior's 11th birthday, when two MiBs pop by from the local testing centre. Junior looks forward to the testing as he can show how clever he is (effort -> reward, standard behaviour pattern). Junior goes off with them, has a slightly minty milky drink that ensures he answers truthfully and the test begins. Parents get a phone call a few hours later telling them that Junior's intelligence was in excess of government regulations, and would they like the body or should they just bury it for them on their behalf?

I'm not telling you what my IQ is...