NO2ID

In addition to the destruction of privacy represented by Nu Labor's foisting on us of the database state, one of the concerns expressed on this forum has been the provisions made, either offiicially or not, for the elite to excuse themselves from the provisions they are making for the masses. The ability for an unclearly defined small minority to be excused the need for their offsping to be registered on the new and highly dubious child database is a recent example.

I find it interesting then to see the following comment on the property website firstrung :


I have not checked the veracity of this statement: presumably someone has unsuccessfully attempted to find the entry for Blair's transaction using one of the websites that allow this data to be viewed online.

Does anyone have any further information as to what provisions exist for such an exclusion - either from the Land registry database itself or from the data being viewed?

Don't know about exclusions as such, but anyone can fire off a request to the Land Registry for details of transactions involving a specific address. Or at least they could a couple of years ago, afaik. Gawd knows if the Stalinists running this country have put a kibosh on that too by now.

How do those two old sayings go again "One law for the rich and one law for the poor" ,And dont do as i do Do as i say

yeah... hard to believe some people still don't see the bad all these databases. I mean if they are for added security and if they are oh so good for us then surely the officials etc would be the first in line to be on them. The simple fact that those who can opt out will just proves the point!

Wouldn't we be in favour of less information being available online about private property?

This entire thread appears to be based on an unevidenced comment on a website, and a presumption about how it might have come about.

Why not check if the original claim is true, before wandering off into questions about how it might have come about.
http://www.landregisteronline.gov.uk/lr ... e=advanced

If you have £3, why not just check the price of the former PM's house yourself?

Sure, we'd all be in favour of that, I would think..since we are here on this site. If we have jumped to any conclusions about there being one rule for them and another for us regarding databases I am happy to be corrected. As far as I am aware we are getting little choice what information is uploaded to where, whereas certain officials will not have their information stored in the same way. Will senior government officials have their medical notes available to be read in the same way as ours for instance? If people are starting to be over critical of the officials line on this then there is little wonder. The whole thing has been underhand and a complete mockery of our
basic freedoms and rights.

and I still think people are missing the point that much of the information stored about us can be untrue, whether in error or otherwise and having it corrected is next to impossible under the present systems. There is no guarantee that what people read or write about any of us is even remotely true and we have no rights to stop it. Its ok defending the officials saying oh but that might not be true check this out, but what about all the inaccuracies they are sharing and 'losing' about us?