NO2ID

look at the following website.....Now our children are being targeted under the pretense of nhs looking after our children.
What a joke...They cannot do it now with all the delinquints running amok.

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/1874

So "......a file on every child in England...." This adds weight to the theory that birth will be the "major event" that will trigger "registration".

Every child will be on this database and have an "id card in waiting" until their 16th birthday when they will be automatically transferred to the NIR and issued with an id card. Although information about the childrens' database doesn't specifically mention biometric information, it would be an easy matter to "just slip that requirement into the legislation" or take copies of the child's biometric information shortly after birth and enter them into the NIR waiting for that child to turn 16 so that it can all be "activated".

Just as cattle (the bovine ones) are ear-tagged shortly after birth, so will human-cattle. Makes a lot of sense.

(Personal opinion)

I really don't think that biometrics are that big a deal, compared with the registration and denumeration. They just amount to one more fact to be registered for bureaucratic tidiness. Like the fuss about the card, we need to be cautious about reproducing the Government's obsession with the magic of biometrics, which again are more pretext and misdirection than threat in themselves.

It is the institutionalisation of official monitoring and control via IT -- "the database state" -- that's the real threat here, regardless of the exact details. On that score, the Children's Database, like the Children's Crusade, is more horrific and misguided that the grown up version. The safeguards in the Identity Cards Bill may be feeble, but the Children's Act 2004 rejoices in the abandonment of confidentiality, the broadest possible data-sharing, and the recording--and instantiation in permanent, context-light, multivalent files--of fact, half truth, rumour and allegation, about children about anybody who may be associated with a child.

The one comforting thing in the picture is that the Children's Database is as yet another figment of the imagination of the witchfinders general in child protection. The powers exist but the actual project is much more like vapourware than even the ID system.

Births are already registered and numbered by the registrar. Failing to register a child's birth is a criminal offence. Regitrations are now computerised and birth certificates are numbered.

And has been for many years. Why do we need birth certificates?

You got a birth certificate? All I got was a warranty :p

But ya have to admire the government spin on this one. I thought from some of the statements from Clarke et al that they were mebbe getting soft on ID.

But then I realised the sheer genius of this & the EU presidency. Figure us grown ups are maybe not going to agree to being treated like cattle, so skip a generation & start on the children. Think of the PR spin of Citizenship Ceremonies where our kids can 'graduate' from being junior members of society to full, adult consum.. members. Think citizenship classes from Starship Troopers..

Then there's this-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4677241.stm

"Forcing European companies to store phone and internet records is among anti-terror measures agreed by EU interior ministers.

UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke chaired an emergency summit on terror measures after the London bombs...
...Ensuring common standards for those countries with identity card schemes"

Which is genius!. HMG says we need ID cards to avoid needing a US Visa, which may be a consideration for a dad visiting his kid in Washington, but not for me. Public support at home is waning, so now we'll have to have ID cards because the EU says so, and all their cards will have to be like ours so we can have our sexy database.

Or hopefully there'll be a resounding round of non, nein etc & we'll end up with a commonly standard photo stapled to a bit of cardboard. We live in interesting times.

Have you ever wondered why all official documents from the government and its associates write your name in capitals? It is becuase from the issuing of your birth certificate you are technically classed as a corporation which is a franchise of the British Crown. Not the queen but the temple bar in the City of London. This makes you (as a corparation) liable for the crowns debts. Apparently the British crown stll owns the deeds to North America.

I believe Gesh's "Why do we need birth certificates?" was a rhetorical question implying we don't.



Rubbish. They don't. It is not. The what? Not true. It couldn't, because they couldn't exist.

Look, before kicking sand in my face do some research of your own. Why deny it? Is it because it seems too far fetched? Well it isn't when you open your mind.

I wouldn't know where to do such research.

[Evidently I have spent too much time in Law Libraries and as a consultant in too narrow a field of commercial law, and this has blinded me to to the truth about the legal definition of a corporation and the nature and function of deeds. I should probably throw out half a ton of books on the subject, too, because plainly they have done me no good whatsoever. And pay my clients back their money.]

Enlighten me. O wise and learned one.

Guy Herbert
(in a personal capacity)

I am merely secondary educated and don't have access to Law Libraries. I quote from David Icke's new book.

'[your name] is a corporation set up by the government through the treasury department at your birth. Every time a child is born a corporation /trust is created using his or her name in all upper case. They do this because governments are corporations and they operate under commercial law, the law of contracts. The laws passed by governments only apply to corporations and not the living, breathing , flesh and blood soveriegn-free men and women spelt in upper-lower or all lower case.'

From Infinite love is the only truth everything else is illusion, pages 18-19.

Destroy me at your pleasure

I don't know about "registering births makes the issue of the birth into a corporation" because, what about us foreigners? And the giant lizzards on David Icke's page put me off reading further.

However, I do believe that governments have, for centuries, conned people into believing that they must register their children, as their motor vehicles and animals. This is so as to transfer the ownership of that child, motor vehicle or animal to the government.

Have you ever noticed that government talks about "we have (so many) cars". I believe that this is because government literally owns the cars, the people are only using them and government can, at any time it wishes, demand that you hand your motor vehicle over to them. It works the same way for land and houses that you think you own. "Rates" are basically "rent to the state".

It is the same with your animals, this is how they are able to make demands that you brand, or eartag the animals or "chip" your pets and that the pets wear a collar with their registration/ownership tag - which you've had to pay for - visible at all times while the pet is in public.

And as for your children. "Registration" makes them literally slaves of the state. That is why we need birth certificates, not so that we can prove that we are over 18 and buy alcohol, but to prove that we belong to the government.

This is how parliament will ultimately get its way with the id/car/NIR Bill. It will assert, in disguised words perhaps, that it has every right to "brand its own property.

A theory, anyway. Don't necessarily believe it, but do consider it.

I have considerable sympathy for that viewpoint.

...

I knew David Icke when he was merely flaky, not utterly barmy. I would never have considered him an authority on anything, except football. His books are works of fantasy.

Oh, well if David Icke says it; it must be true...

At the risk of becoming even more irrelevant - but I was merely following Mr Herbert - I think Mr Icke is probably referring to American law.

Returning to relevancy, though, David predicted the strong push for universal ID cards (to be closely followed by microchipping) around 15 years ago.

Not difficult maybe, if one was following trends. But he was one of the first to bring the ID card issue to prominence for a large number of people.

It's an idea that crops up every few years. Fifteen years ago would have been about the time of the Australia card's defeat. As a prediction, it was always a pretty safe bet.

Yes, this is also my theory. "skip a generation and concentrate on the children". Children are particularly vulnerable to indoctrination and it would seem that history (that is the ACTUAL version as opposed to the STATE SANCTIONED version) is not taught in schools.

I found a quote in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf". It sums up the (what I think is anyway) the attitude of the present government and other governing bodies throughout the world, in a nut shell. I posted this comment before on another thread, but I fear somebody might have missed it and as it is so relevant, I think it should be at the forefront of peoples' minds so that they can get all bitter and twisted about it and try to get their children to realise that they do have options. Here we go:

"When an opponent declares 'I will not come over to your side' I calmly say 'your child belongs to us already......What are you? You will pass on. Your descendents, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community'".

Another quote I saw in the same book, which sums up how opponents of the id card/NIR scheme will be classified, is:

"The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category".

Although some might laugh at the idea of quotations from Adolf Hitler with regard to modern day Britain, I think these ones are particularly apt. I just hope that any politicians or bureaucrats who are tempted to base their policies on these things remember where the ideas and words came from and what happened as a result

Also we must remember that everything is "on our heads" as our children will never get a chance to debate these issues. They will grow up thinking that a surveillence state is perfectly natural, ordinary and necessary. And they will automatically join it.

Hitler also once said "What luck for leaders that men do not think". I think it's very useful to dig up the things that Hitler and his cronies said and did: how else can we prevent these things happening again?

History in schools in England doesn't teach this kind of thing properly. I think pupils can do "Germany 1919-1939" as an optional module in GCSE History (itself an optional subject), but that's about all. This is rubbish.. learning about the rise of 20th century dictatorships should be considered essential. People need to understand the methods used so that they can spot them being applied today, as they increasingly appear to be.

Anyone wanting a useful historical example of the police / surveillance state only has to study England in the latter half of Queen Elizabeth I's reign - or England under Cromwell.

Guy Herbert wrote on Wed, 13 Jul 2005 07:02:57 +0000:



For once, I don't actually think I agree with Guy.

Biometrics (assuming they themselves work well enough) are the thing that will make the proposed National Identity Scheme actually work.

This will take the UK NIR/IDcard scheme beyond the equivalent systems currently operated in several other countries. Those schemes don't work well enough, as they are much more vulnerable to cloned cards, improper registration, misuse of stolen cards, etc. In the same way, UK passports and driving licences are somewhat deficient in their ability to reliably support identity claims.

[Note. I have not forgotten that biometrics contribute nothing to detection of an invented identity. They would, however, restrict one to a single claimed identity.]

Now, whether you are yes2id or NO2ID, an identity scheme that works is more likely to realise you dream/nightmare than yet another identity scheme that does not work.

Also, a very large proportion of the cost of such a scheme comes from the use of biometrics, which (to work properly) does require personal attendance for supervised enrolment.

Thus, biometrics are key to the success of any National Identity Scheme. If they don't work well enough, neither will the whole scheme; their impact on cost-effectiveness is dominant.

Guy has my full agreement when he says that the NIR is much more important than the ID cards themselves. He also, in the above-referenced posting, goes on to make good points on the topic issue of child registration.

Best regards

I agree with Nigel Sedgwick above; it seems to me that the biometric aspect of not only our proposed NIR/ID scheme, but of similar plans around the world, is crucial to the construction of the kind of pervasive surveillance system Big Government wants.

With just the use of fingerprints, for example, once the technology is widely used, the need of carrying any identification documents whatsoever is eliminated, and it is just this fact that brings the State right into the center of all of our lives, and takes the concept of "barcoded slaves" to a level never previously attained (except on very small scales).

It is one thing to be given a number, but it is altogether another thing to have that number made a part of your body, to be carried at all times.

I do however agree with Guy where he refers to the databases behind such schemes, and the associated acceptance of State monitoring via IT systems.

My opinion, and I stress that it is only my opinion, is that "biometrics" is the main horrible thing that is associated with this (I hope) ill-fated scheme.

It was the word "biometric" that first "jumped off the page" and made me "sit up and take notice" when first reading of this idea.

The NIR is particularly dangerous. But without biometrics there is no way to tie the "information" on the nir to a person. Biometrics is why it is important, from the government point of view, that each individual physically attends an interview to spill his life history and surrender copies of his fingerprints, iris scan and face structure to the government to be kept forever on a database and thereby allow the government to assign him an identity. If there was to be no biometrics, but an nir, there is the possibility that those who decline to register would be just entered on the nir anyway and "registered by default". All the information could be collated from existing information on that person and a bureaucrat could decide which information on various databases and files should be discarded as false or inaccurate (or even "put there to be 'misleading' to government).

I just cannot ever believe that anyone would not find it offensive to have their biometrics demanded by a government agency. Biometrics is the most personal thing about an individual, any other information is only as good as you are willing to give to the state. (You could give your last three addresses as "11 Elm St, Outer Mongolia", 4 Crater Street, The Moon" and "in a corner of my mate's garage" and the state would be bound to believe you). The only way the state can "demand" and "get" information out of you is to download your brain directly into their computer - and they can't do that yet! The state can forcibly take your biometrics off you, and in a lot of cases they probably will.

Imagine how a database of UK citizens would be preceived worldwide if it was made up of the most ridiculous information about it's citizens possible. Without biometrics to add to that, people could say "this mythical person whom the register says is the progeny of Oliver Cromwell and Jane Seymour and has a 10,000 character name, is not me". And this might make a laughing stock out of the whole thing, albeit a rather expensive laughing stock.

I think that children could be used as a tool by a future government to "control" their parent into possibly accepting the ID CARD scheme and even worse the implant (still to come).

What reasonable aprent wouldnt bend over backwards if their children was "held hostage" by the government

I think you are probably right about this. Governments throughout the centuries have "got their way" through indoctrinating children. Children are particularly vulnerable to suggestion and governments know this.

I reckon it will be done quite simply (apart from all the "education" about "social policy" the child will have to undergo of course). One day your child will merely come home from school and say: "we got these great id cards, and then subdermal implants, at school today, it didn't even hurt much, and these people took our fingerprints, photograph, and we had to stand at a funny little machine and have our eyes scanned so we can be identified too". If your child is too young to go to school, a "nurse" will suddenly arrive one day with "people from social services" to record your baby's biometrics and (later) implant a microchip. If you object you will be accused of child abuse because you tried to disrupt something that would be of enormous benefit to your child, would allow them to eventually go to school and now to have all the benefits a young child is entitled to from social services.

If you do not capitulate on the spot, you will lose custody of that child and all other children, and probably end up in jail as a child abuser. That is a lot of pressure to resist.

It is true and it is exactly what I was talking about the other day concerning 'The Crown'. As someone who I gather has knowledge of the law you may be interested to look into this further. The issue of capital letters was used successfully with some court case in America and the guy walked after an astounded judge checked it out and found it to be correct.