NO2ID

Are you Sion Simon? He is consistently unfunny as well.

Oh you silly sausage.

Are you a criminal - you talk like one.

Give me your name and address and I will pass them onto the chief of police chappy when next I see him.

As I said you really should learn to relax, lighten up and enjoy yourself, you young upstart.

Women didn't win the vote through peaceful protest.

Soon it will be illegal to walk down the street without an Id card. NO2Id does good work in preventing that but this battle will be won by people chaining themselves to the front of processing centres and destroying their cards on mass in public.

Unjust laws need to be challanged and in the lack of a working democracy sometimes people need to take risks if they value their freedoms.

Actually women won the vote due to the impact of the First World War and the demographic shift that occurred combined with a shortage of men for work in manufacturing and other areas.

Also from 1918 only women aged over 21 got the vote the same year as women MPs were allowed.

It wasnt until 1928 that women got the same rights as men to vote age 18.

without proportional representation voting counts for nothing anyway

Italy have this sytem and I would not say they are any better than the uk.

However Scotland has a much better system than England which I would not mind seeing installed in our Parliament.

And fewer MPs and also a new ergonomically designed Parliament building somewhere in central England.

The Green Party got 250,000 votes in the last election which if taken as a percentage of the total number of votes cast multiplied by the total number of seats available in parliament would have given them 5 seats. At least then we would live in a democracy.

The voting age wasn't reduced to 18, for all voters, until the early seveties.

It just goes to show that the word democracy, which has consistency been used as a synonym for the word freedom in recent years, does not have a fixed definition. Originally, only the nobility were allowed to vote.

It is only a means of control, in which people are encouraged to believe that they are not being controlled.

OK for those who talk about democracy, answer this question if you can. Since they must have known ID cards would not be popular then why did they risk it at the last election? Indeed out of any election the last one could have swing to the Tories if there was a swing of just a few percent. This demonstrates conclusively to me that our democracy is no longer functional. Labour only has to appeal to big business and Rupert Murdoch to win. So we have got to the point where if big business wants one thing and the public want the opposite then the party that chooses big business is more likely to win.

This is a fundamental breakdown in the system and is symptomatic of a weak and compliant public who thinks that peaceful protest is the rightway to go. It means they have swallowed the doublethink. Someone did a video a short while back interviewing a woman in central London about the government. It went something like "I think we have to accept that we need to give up some of our rights in order to protect our freedoms" Herein lies the problem; we have a nation of people inviting the Nazis into power. (For freedom!)

Yes I think the quote was "I think we have to accept that we need to give up some of our liberties in order to protect our freedoms". It was a woman working at a flower stall in a London tube station. In case you missed it, Liberty and freedom are practically the same thing so yes this is doublethink; It containes an implicit contradiction (You can not give up something to defend it)

If you look at every politicial debate on tv or the radio or in the news papers without hardly an exception they are full of doublethink. The reason for this is speakers and commentators are heavily imbued with irrational beliefs that nearly always contradict the self-ownership axiom. The level of insanity is striking.

An axiom is a premise that cannot be denied.

The self-ownership axiom is self evidently true and this can be proven. If we attempt to deny that we own ourselves by saying "I do not own myself", we prove that we do, by opening our mouths. If the axiom were false then who is that scoundrel to speak without permission and who then owns him or her?

Even if it were possible to have a democracy and if such a thing existed in this country it would by definition be a gross afront to freedom. The two are direct opposites. In a Democracy a minority selects an authority to rule over everyone in a community. Everyone in that community including those that selected the authority have their freedom and liberty withdrawn under force by that authority which then has the power to systematically increase it's power over that community. The role that the media plays in this game is extremely important as Baron Von Lostov has said.

Democacy is the biggest threat to freedom and the most powerful tool of the ciminal elite. For the language hides the truth, and that truth were the media to report it would reveal that we live in an authoritarian dictatorship. If a dictator shows no emotion at the deaths of babies, women and men that have resulted from the decisons that he has taken then what would be wrong in saying the truth? Black is black. This behavior is psycopathic behaviour, therefore is the dictator a psycopath?

The only rational way in which a community can arrange itself is in that of a true free market. This would by definition exculde a governing body (not even limited government). The self-ownership axiom is the key.

Well, I will leave this post here as I have likely pushed the boat a little further out then some might like.

__________________
TOLFA offers what everyone values most: FREEDOM. http://tolfa.us/

About a month ago I went out in Yeovil to the Beach Cafe Bar (dreadful place before the offending scheme was put into operation)...

The group of us went in (there aren't many places to go in the evening that stay open late) and one knew the girl on the door (you have to pay to get into this place) and she and another one of my friends thought it would be fun to register... I tried to ask them why they felt compelled to give this organisation details for free. I might give my details away for cash if I got desperate but not for free. They weren't even told how their details would be used (how could you in such a loud environment).

Anyhow, it seems to be optional at the moment - unless you get kicked out... I think.

A woman who had just been subjected to a haranguing of "this is an evil government conspiracy isn't it" by a couple of guys shoving a camera in her face.

Her comment was extracted under psychological duress and should not be given any weight.

Come on now, you could easily say the same for 99% of BBC interviews with the public. She didn't come across as harassed in my opinion and is rather typical of a number of people I have met in real life. Victims of brainwashing unfortunately.

Just a thought...

this might be an interesting angle to try to get more students onside, again.

A simple leaflet, distributed by hand.

It's not directly-relevant to the campaign as a whole, but I find it hard to imagine anybody I know who would not be immediately outraged and think "WHAT WHAT??? the government want my fingerprints before i have a wee drink??" which could easily be tied back to the whole issue of the NIR, and creeping biometric use, etc.

penny for yours?

It is not obvious that "ID cards would not be popular", because...

1. They weren't unpopular (ot popular either). Most people neither knew nor cared.

2. In electoral politics, there are more subtle games at work.

2a. Focus groups may well have shown a significant segment of people in target populations who were natural authoritarians, and swing voters, whose vote *for* ID cards was worth therefore worth more than the equivalent number of people put off (most people being highly unlikely to be affected either way).

2b. The entire strategic direction of the government for over 3 years, but particularly in the run up to the election, has been appeal to fear. The function of a manifesto is no longer principally to set out policies but for it (and the policies themselves) to set a tone, to tell a story. All promises of security measures tell a story of increasing menace, that there is something to be afraid of, and therefore better the devil you know...

They actually postponed the debate until after the election - shows they were running scared.

They only got the legislation through Parliament by using the Whips.

They stifled debate and used the Guillotine during debates.

If they had confidence that MPs wanted ID cards why didnt they allow a free vote for MPs.

Yes, that's a good answer. The mass media like the BBC is much like a show or a kind of stage where people are blindly following an act. Never anything of any real consequence is ever 'news' and it is all reported if it fits into this artificial perception. If we are lucky people will eventually come to realise this and then the backlash will be severe for them. I often think some of the fear mongering is real but what fear they are talking about is the fear that eventually people will figure out their game and the tide can turn almost instantly. Even the CIA didn't predict the fall of the Berlin Wall, it was almost instant although there had been much muted opposition building up for a long time, but once it started to fall it was unstoppable. These people who run the system are probably genuinely very scared of this happening over here. That’s what they disguise as terrorism, they fear us ultimately and their entire system is driven by this fear.

Yes I heard a BBC news report the other night on the radio. Apparently the state has identified and are keeping tabs on 14,000 terrorists in this country!!

One has to ask why we aren't getting blown to pieces if this were true? The BBC just reported it matter of factly.

I wonder if my 'dissident' views make me one of the BBC's terrorists?
______________________
"If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself." - Gandhi
http://www.tolfa.us/

Yes. Media organisations that help enslave the population are particularly fearful, because when the unstoppable backlash suddenly occurs they will loose their livelyhoods and all influence. On the other hand those writers, journalists, actors and artists who are seen to be helping; working on the positive pole; helping to free individuals, will inevitably, gain the most, for themselves and their descendents.
______________________
"If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself." - Gandhi
http://www.tolfa.us/

Apparently that’s a bit like what it is in the former Soviet countries. They feel almost reborn and it is pro everything that was once suppressed. People are enjoying themselves, private enterprise is booming from what it once was and it's everything this country is not right now. Unfortunately though they are getting swallowed up by the EU and they of all people should recognise that for what it is.

Any updates on how this is progressing, or not?

Anywhere else other than Aberdeen, yet?

Updates anybody?

I'm managing to get some people agitated about this on dance music forums.

I'm hoping it will push people who otherwise don't give a shit about their privacy over the edge.

You know, every man's right to go out for "a pint" unmolested, etc.