Pulling apart ID cards - 17/11/05

Banning the Flag! - 11/10/05

The recent case of the Afghan hijackers allowed to stay in the UK, has again demonstrated the legal mess created by the Human Rights Act and its parent law, the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act was brought before Parliament by the new Labour Government on a wave of moral self righteousness and passed in 1998, this was despite the fact that British citizens rights were already well protected by many laws both ancient and modern.

Under the Act, it is unlawful for any public authority (or private company employed on public business) to behave in a way incompatible with the rights set out in the Convention. The rights set out in the Convention are wide ranging and in themselves are fine principles by which people should be treated . Few could argue that people have the right to life, that they shouldn't be tortured, forced into slavery or have the right to a fair trial. Unfortunately, this very worthy law has been, to make an unfortunate pun, hi-jacked, by economic migrants seeking to enter the UK. Since the Act applies to all those within the jurisdiction of the UK authorities regardless of citizenship, or their right to enter and remain in the UK it is perfectly tailored to those who have no immediate right to be here. It seems that claiming asylum from potential breaches of their human rights in their native country is a fool proof way for illegal immigrants to stymie the British legal system. Furthermore, the protection from removal from the UK applies regardless of the claimants immigration history or criminal record. Once within the system, the Act provides for an automatic right of appeal when challenging any immigration decision, leave to remain is normally extended.

So, our ancient and modern laws have been usurped on a political whim and an almighty mess created within our legal system. In the face of this outrageous state of affairs what does the government do? Blame the judges! Well, this appears to be a much easier option than the potential embarrassment caused by the UK withdrawing from an international treaty. How would this sit alongside Blair's carefully crafted role as an international statesmen.

Ian Eglin

14 May 2006

Now the artificial sweetener can be found in all our supermarkets, in many food and drinks, the majority of these are diet products but the substance is becoming more frequently used in none diet varieties; even some baby food products now contain this substance.

My experience of Aspartame poisoning begins a few years ago. I decided to substitute an artificial sweetener for sugar; I was on a health kick at the time. I have always had a very sweet tooth and instead of my usual 3 sugars, I added several sweeteners, sometimes as many as five. I had also recently discovered AquaDrop sweets, which I now know are also a source of Aspartame. Little did I know I was being slowly poisoned by this toxic sweetener and within a short time I had become very ill, violent stomach cramps, headaches and problems sleeping where now a part of my life. My doctor put it down to IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome), so I proceeded to analyse my diet, but no matter what food I eliminated my problems persisted and in fact were worsening. Months of hospital tests followed, their conclusion was that nothing could be found and they put it down to a severe case of IBS also. During this time I was drinking lots of natural herbal tea, little did I know that by not adding sugar I was instead contaminating this drink with a very unnatural poison, Aspartame. It was only when I started drinking the same herbal tea minus the sweetener that my stomach cramps and other health problems eased. It probably didn't seem like it at the time, but it seems I was lucky as I had a quick reaction to the substance. The majority of people do not have a quick reaction, instead they are slowly poisoned and their problems are only highlighted when a major physical problem manifests itself, by then it is often too late.

Research has found Aspartame ingestion causes long-term damage, as the chemicals the sweetener breaks down into, do not eliminate from your system and therefore build up until they reach a critical level.

Aspartame (L-Aspartyl-l-phenylalanine methyl ester) breaks down in the body in to the following toxic chemicals:

Methyl Alcohol 67-56-1: Methanol
Methyl Formate 107-31-3: Formic Acid, Methyl Ester
Formaldehyde (embalming fluid): Formalin
DkP: Diketopiperazine

Methanol/wood alcohol is a deadly poison. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounter the enzyme chymotrypsin. Methanol (without ethanol, the natural antidote) breaks down into formic acid (ant-sting poison) and formaldehyde (embalming fluid) in the body, both are toxic and Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. The phenyalalanine breaks down into diketopiperazine (DKP), a known brain tumour agent.

Methanol absorption into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). Therefore any Aspartame products that are heated could well be even more dangerous, quickening the symptoms and damage caused.

Excerpts from Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)

ASPARTAME MSDS

Potential Health Effects
Ingestion:
The toxicological properties of this substance have not been fully
investigated.

(Very strange statement for what is essentially a food product!)

METHYL ALCOHOL MSDS
(Please note the highlighted area!)

*USES:
Industrial solvent; starting material for organic synthesis of formaldehydes,
methyl esters of organic and inorganic acids, methacrylates, methylamines,
methyl anhydrides, ethylene glycol and pesticides; antifreeze for automotive
radiators and air brakes; ingredient of gasoline and diesel oil antifreezes;
octane booster in gasoline; as fuel for picnic stoves and soldering torches;
extractant for animal and vegetable oils; denaturing ethanol; softening agent
for pyroxylin plastics; solvent adjuvant for polymers; solvent in the manu-
facturing of cholesterol, streptomycin, vitamins, hormones and other pharma-
ceuticals; food additive permitted in foods for human consumption;
ingredient in paint, varnish removers, cleaning and dewaxing preparations, spirit
duplicating fluids and embalming fluids; used in the manufacture of photo-
graphic film, celluloid, textile soap, wood stains, coated fabrics, shatter-
proof glass, paper coating, waterproofing formulations, artifical leather,
synthetic indigo and other dyes.

METHYL FORMATE (Formic Acid) MSDS

*INGESTION:
If the victim is conscious and not convulsing, give 1 or 2 glasses of
water to dilute the chemical and IMMEDIATELY call a hospital or poison control
center. IMMEDIATELY transport the victim to a hospital.

FORMALDEHYDE MSDS

THR: Human poison by ingestion. Experimental poison by ingestion, skin
contact, inhalation, intravenous, intraperitoneal and subcutaneous
routes. A suspected human carcinogen. An experimental carcinogen,
tumorigen and teratogen. Human systemic effects by inhalation.
Experimental reproductive effects. Human mutagenic data. A human skin
and eye irritant. A severe experimental eye and skin irritant. An air
concentration of 20 ppm is quickly irritating to eyes.

The Department of Health & Human Services logged all the complaints submitted to the FDA and their reported symptoms, logging reactions by product name. See below:

The evidence of the dangers of Aspartame, have to be honest always been there. As always though our government has failed to respond. This is not entirely surprising, as the UK's Food Safety has now been handed over to the European Union, a EU where large corporations, including large food companies, are increasingly influencing policy.

Jason Smith

2 May 2006

We now have to look forward to a future where we cannot travel, purchase or work without an ID card. All our details and biometric information are going to be stored on one massive government database, which Microsoft described as being a open invitation to hackers, a database that they claim would in itself create “massive fraud”.

ID cards will be compulsory to anyone who applies for a new or renewed passport or driving licence in October 2006, when the price of a passport is going to rise from £51 to at least £93.

The NO2ID group has advised anybody renewing his or her passport, to renew in May 2006. Not only will we avoid being put on the National Identity Register (NIR) and not have to have an ID card, but also we will be making a collective statement against the governments ID card scheme.

The NO2ID group have produced a fact sheet: http://www.renewforfreedom.org/NO2ID_Factsheet1.pdf which gives you advice on ID cards and renewing your passport and have created a information website: http://www.renewforfreedom.org with further information

It’s not too late to say No 2 ID!

Jason Smith

26 April 2006

Massive tax rises and the erosion of our civil liberties, these will be two of the legacies of the government.  With the launch of the new Galileo satellite system the government gets more of both.

The government has proposed that all car licence plates should include spy chips, these chips would be tracked by the European Galileo satellites which the government claims are needed to track car theft.  The main aim of these spy chips is to track vehicles so the government can implement their ‘pay as you drive’ road charges. 

Not only is this a massive infringement on our civil liberties, as it will be compulsory to have chips in your car and thus be tracked.  It is also going to massively increase the tax burden on motorists, we would be charged when we entered new ‘toll roads’, with higher charges for the busiest roads and busiest times of day, unfortunate if you have only one route to work and it is rush hour.

The Galileo satellites will be in orbit by 2008, which gives the government plenty of time to sneak this through parliament, or they may not have to debate it at all, as it is a European project and will probably be made law by our very own big brother, the EU.

Jason Smith

19 April 2006

If world leaders in the fields of business, banking and politics were to meet every year to discuss world affairs then you might expect it to be a big event.  If our prime minister attended a meeting of the most powerful people in Europe and North America then you might expect to hear about it. Every year since 1954 this has happened, but have many people heard about it?  I doubt it.

The annual conference is named after the hotel of it’s initial gathering, the ‘Bilderberg’ hotel in Amsterdam.  Meetings are held at secret locations, the media are banned and an army of secret service personal patrols the venues.  The Bilderberg Group as it is now known claims to have no formal membership as such, but has a list of 120 or so invitees which changes from year to year, reflecting a sort of changing membership.  There are a core group reflected in it’s steering committee.

There are many conspiracy theories surrounding this gathering, as you might expect with the virtual media blackout of the event.  Insiders claim that virtually all the European institutions today were conceived, designed and bought in to existence from the people involved in Bilderberg, including the EU itself. Former US ambassador to West Germany, George McGhee has been quoted as saying 'The Treaty of Rome [1957], which brought the Common Market into being, was nurtured at Bilderberg meetings.'

You might think this sounds rather fanciful that this group could have so much influence; that is until you begin to examine the previous attendees and it’s own steering committee.

At the last Bilderberg conference in 2005, among the many political figures were current European commissioners: Joaquín Almunia (European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs), Neelie Kroes (European Commissioner for Competition) and non other than the European Commission President himself, José Manuel Barroso. 

Mario Monti (EU Commissioner for competition between from 1999 to 2004) has now formally declared that he was a former Steering Committee member of Bilderberg between 1983-1993.  Former EU Commission President Romano Prodi (1999-2004) was also a Steering Committee Member of the Bilderberg Group in the 80s.  It was interesting that he was responsible for limiting the declarations of his Commissioners to 10 years, something not done in the previous Commission, which has allowed him not to declare his former highly sensitive role in Bilderberg.  Another steering committee name that will be familiar to us in the UK is the conservatives most pro-EU MP, Kenneth Clarke.

These people have one obvious connection, that being they are very pro-European Union.  In fact, Romano Prodi was recently quoted as saying he wanted to revive the European Constitution even before his running mate had even conceded defeat in the Italian election.

It all looks extremely suspect, as it seems there is a deliberate policy on the part of the Bilderberg group to install more of their members as European Commissioners, at the policy-making heart of Europe. 

It doesn’t stop there though, the current Bilderberg chairman, Etienne Davignon, who incidentally was a former EU Industry Commissioner was closely involved in the setting up of The European Round Table of Industrialists, an influential interest group in the European Union consisting of some 40 European industrial leaders, this un-elected group feeds policy in to the EU which our MEP’s rubber stamp.

Jason Smith

1. This constitution shall have primacy over the laws of the member states (Article 1-6)

2. The European Commission will be given power over Britain's economic and employment policies, making the question of whether we keep the Pound largely redundant (Article 1-14)

3. The constitution creates a European foreign policy, complete with an E.U. Foreign Minister and diplomatic corps (Article 1-15)

4. Member states shall support the E.U.'s common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity (Article 1-15)

5. The constitution creates a European criminal justice system, with a European Public Prosecutor and an E.U. legal code; this runs directly counter to our own common law tradition (Articles 1-41, 3-161, 3-177, 3-174, 3-165, 3-158)

6. 43 national vetoes will be abolished, and the powers of MEP's extended to 36 new areas (Articles 1-12, 1-13)

7. Brussels jurisdiction is specified in virtually every area of government policy; transport, energy, public health, trade, employment, social policy, competition, agriculture, fisheries, defence, foreign affairs, asylum and immigration, space exploration, criminal justice (Articles 1-12, 1-13)

8. Member states shall exercise their competence to the extent that the E.U. ceases to exercise, or chooses no longer to exercise, its competence's (Article 1-11)

9. The day that the constitution enters into force all previous E.U. treaties will be dissolved; the Union will cease to be an association of states bound by international treaties, and become a state in its own right (Article 4-2)

10. The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to carry through it policies and pursue its objectives (Article 1-53)

Jason Smith

Jason Smith

Jason Smith

Most people do not support our alignment and continued integration in to the European Union, yet few people believe it actually has much affect on their everyday life.

How many people would agree that an extra £60 per week for their family would have a positive effect on their lives, well that is how much money each family would save were we to leave the EU.

The below calculations are based on figures on Lord Pearson of Rannoch's paper 'What is the point of the European Union?' (see UKIP Bradford resources >>>)

(We generously have rounded the figure down to £60)

Jason Smith

26 March 2006

The EU continues to champion the cause of Genetically Modified crops and foods while at the same time has no interest in analysing their potential health consequences. They assume a GM crop to be safe if their toxins and allergens are judged to be similar to a non-GM crop, this does not take in to consideration the modification of a plant and the possible mutilation of it, in to something different and potentially hazardous.

Not only is the proliferation of GM crops a possible health hazard but it could also spell the end of organic farming as cross contamination could 'infect' organic crops, this has indeed been the case in Canada whose farms are considerably more scattered than UK farms. This would effectively eliminate consumer choice, as there would only be one choice, that being a GM product.

As usual our government is powerless to stop their EU overlords as our government has handed over all competence to the EU in the areas of agriculture, food production and food safety.

Having bypassed the UK government, the next hurdle for the EU is the UK's consumer whose increasing trend is towards organic foods. It seems few people in the UK trust GM foods and the feeling is it will never take a hold in their food cupboards and pantries. The Biotech companies and their EU spokesperson had already anticipated this resistance and have unveiled their latest draft directive to combat our freedom of choice.

This draft directive by the European Commission proposes that GM contamination of organic crops should be allowed up to a threshold of 0.9% (which will no doubt will be increased in time) and any crops and subsequent foods under this threshold should be classed as organic rather than GM food. To me the GM argument is black and white, a crop is either genetically modified or it isn't, it doesn't matter how much of a plants makeup has been altered, it has still been 'modified'.

The EU is unsurprisingly sacrificing the well being of the people they are allegedly supposed to serve in return for securing increased profits and a monopoly for the already massive Biotech companies.

A European law amendment was put before the European Parliament, the amendment proposed that:
o Producers of GM organisms would be legally responsible for any damage caused by their products to public health or the environment
o Certain marker genes used to give resistance to antibiotics would be banned as there are fears that antibiotic resistance could transfer to bacteria in cattle, potentially leading to untreatable 'super bugs'.
o National governments would be responsible for preventing the accidental transfer of modified genes to other crops by cross-pollination.
All make good sense; needless to say the European Parliament rejected the amendments after the Biotech companies claimed the proposals would saddle them with intolerable financial and regulatory burden.

So to sum up where we are with GM crops/foods:

• The long-term health effects of GM crops/foods are unknown, but the EU 'assumes' they are safe. We are the guinea pigs!
• GM crop proliferation, if continued will almost certainly spell the end of all organic crops due to cross contamination.
• GM crop producers by law cannot be held accountable for any adverse effects their crops might cause to people or the environment.

Like most things EU, the GM road is a one-way street. Once organic crops have been contaminated, they are lost and changed forever; we will not have the opportunity to turn back the clock.

Only a UK Independence Party government free from EU control can realistically ban GM foods, every other party, including the Greens are pro-EU and are bound by their laws.

Jason Smith

People often site politics as boring, and it often is… the same old faces with the same old policies. It has to be said, that over the last few years' politics has really began to change, and even connect with the average man on the street.

In 2003 Tony Blair's illegal war got people on the streets, in 2004 UKIP emerged as a real political alternative becoming the 3rd biggest party in the European Elections.

2005 though might have possibly shaped politics like no other year, following the Tories years in hibernation, they re-emerged bewildered to find all their policies had been hijacked, and discovered a true Tory as prime minister, unfortunately for them he was batting for Labour. This of course created a real dilemma; New Labour had moved in to their political territory embracing their Tory values. With nowhere to go the Tories have reinvented themselves under a new leader… just like Labour did when Blair took their reigns, sound familiar?

So what are we left with? In all but name, they are virtually identical parties. Commons debates have now degenerated in to nit picking over small details and personal jibes between the two old parties.

People would say this was a great political ploy by New Labour, to move in the Tories church. It could be. I would tend to believe that it was a joint decision between the two parties. Look at the facts; day-by-day, year-by-year, the British parliament becomes less powerful as powers are handed one by one to the EU… Tony Blair once championed the 'third way' but in reality in the UK and most of Europe there is now only 'one' way, the EU's way. Parties in the British parliament can no longer really disagree on anything because they have no power to make policy in most areas; they just serve as administrators for EU legislation and a British face to appease the British people.

What I believe has been created by the Labour-Tory coalition is a new style, not of government but politics… a US style politics where both candidates believe in the same basic principles. What we are now seeing is personality politics, after all when you agree with both parties you'll probably go with the chap you like best.

New Labour and the New Tories will try to create the illusion of difference, of course, that way they can maintain their monopoly. Continuing to feed the country their 'two party politics' line, ensuring the other parties are frozen out of political debate.

This is the challenge we face. We are the only party with an alternative message, the only party that can in reality have a different message free from the EU's shackles.

It's time for a realisation…

New Labour is not Labour, that party died sometime ago. Like them or loathe them, Labour used to stand for the working class man.

The Tories used to be the patriotic party, the party that always spoke up for British interests. Like her or loathe her, Margaret Thatcher stood up for Britain abroad.

The next few years will see politics like never before with the two old parties conspiring 24-7, desperate to maintain their monopoly and their illusion of A British government with full legislative powers.

The choice is simple:
The New Labour/Tory 'Pro-EU' coalition or
The 'Pro UK' Independence Party

Isn't it about time we put our country first?

Jason Smith

30 December 2005

Until recent times, the Royal Mail has been that agent.

No doubt odd letters among the millions handled went astray, or were delivered late; but the Royal Mail merited and enjoyed, in general, full public confidence.

It would have been unlawful for its work to be contracted out, and beyond belief for letters and parcels to be fork-lifted into skips and dumped ("Bosses who made millions from postage con jailed for two years", Yorkshire Post, November 22).

The European Union issued its Postal Services Directive 97/67 EC, designed to introduce competition into the delivery of mail. Service companies are to be allowed to compete for profitable parts of the Royal Mail's business.
Unprofitable, remote areas may lose their services, or pay more.

Since the EU directive was issued, Royal Mail has lost profits, and has gone through management and labour problems.

For reasons of economy, post offices have been closed in rural areas. In Bradford city centre, near to an area ripe for commercial and retail development, a large post office is, perversely, to be closed.

In order to restore postal services to their former level of efficiency and public trust, under Royal Mail, all interference from Brussels must be ended.

2  December 2005

Following the September the 11th atrocities the government rushed through another terror (or should that be terrible?) bill, the 'Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001'. If you missed it, it included indefinite detention without trial with just a 'suspicion' of being a threat to national security.

Just what is Terrorism? Most people would have a definite idea of what terrorism is. The government's idea though seems somewhat different; their 'Terrorism Act 2000' seeks to define it.

(Excerpt from Terrorism Act 2000)
1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

This definition is, as you can see, very broad indeed. The mere threat of action could be classed as a terrorist act. Actions such as damage to property, although not a law-abiding pastime, could hardly be classes as terrorism.

An anti-GM protestor might try to destroy a GM crop; an animal rights protestor might well damage property while protesting against what they see as animal cruelty. In both these examples the individuals would be trying to 'advance their political cause' and trying to 'influence the government'. Both acts could be unlawful (and should be dealt with under the law) but should not be classed as terrorist activities. If computer operators threatened to strike would they be tried under this terror act for disrupting an electronic system?

The problem is, under this law such people as peace protestors could be classed and tried as terrorists with all the powers the new terror bills bring with them.

People will say,
"These new powers would never be used in this way."
Unfortunately they already have been used against peace protestors.
"These new powers would never be used against me, a law abiding citizen."
They might not be, but they could… that's the point.

The Dictionaries definition of a terrorist is
- 'A radical who employs terror as a political weapon'.
Who currently uses terror as a political weapon? Of course it's our own radical Tony Blair and his even more radical partner in crime, George W. Bush.

Jason Smith

1 December 2005

The government continues its war on civil liberties with its Identity Card Bill.

What does the Bill say?

The bill claims it will deliver the following outcomes (quotes from the bill):

    (i) less illegal migration and illegal working; and better community relations as a result

Illegal migration is exactly that, illegal. Illegal immigrants are unlikely to apply for an ID card when they have been illegally smuggled in to the country, just as the government will be unable to issue ID cards to people if they are not aware they are here in the first place.

Better community relations? This bill would achieve exactly the opposite. What we get instead are communities (all communities) getting harassed and possibly fined if their card is not on their person.

    (ii) an enhancement to the UK's capability to counter terrorism and serious and organised crime;

Lets explore how this would counter terrorism, would it prevent people being smuggled in to this country? No, border controls and an immigration policy would do that. Would it deter a potential suicide bomber? Not really, I think a suicidal terrorist is unlikely to be deterred from blowing himself up with the fear that he might be asked to produce his ID card.

Rather than combat organised crime, ID cards would actually become another weapon for them, as there would become a lucrative market in forged ID cards, don't believe that it will be impossible to forge biometric information (they used to say that about credit cards).

    (iii) reduce identity fraud;

Well according to Microsoft who know their hacking, these cards would lead to, in their words "massive fraud". They warn against putting 'biometrics' (irises, thumb prints etc) on a national government database, which they claim could be an open invitation to hackers and could perpetrate the very problem the system would be intended to prevent, that being mass fraud. If somebody stole your iris or thumb print image, you couldn't get a new one!

    (iv) more efficient and effective delivery of public services.

There claim here is that ID cards will combat benefit fraud, ID cards might make it slightly more difficult to claim benefits under a false name but 90% of benefit fraud is actually when people use their own name to, for example convince a doctor they are unable to work.

As ID cards would contain all our personal information, how long would it be until the delivery of public services were dependant on our credit rating, health history? Do we really want to go down this road?

What happens to our information?

Ministers have admitted that organisations 'such as banks' will be given access to our personal information to verify identification etc. I just wonder who the other organisations might be?

The government has denied claims that it will sell cardholders details, hands up all those who still trust the government. With the massive costs associated with this scheme, how long can we trust the government to not succumb to this profiteering?

The US Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, has asked the UK to consider chip compatibility in their ID cards in order that the UK's citizen's information can be shared with US authorities.

The figures

The experts at the London School of Economics issued a report to the 27th June 2005 (The Identity Project: an assessment of the UK Identity Cards Bill and it's implications) putting a price tag of £18 billion on the scheme that would equate to £300 per card per person. This is considerably more than that government's original estimate of £85 per card (their own estimate has since risen to £93 per card).

The report also claims card readers, which may well be compulsory for many businesses could be between £3,000 - £4,000 per unit, this is considerably more than the government original estimate of £250 - £750.

The running costs of the scheme over 10 years are estimated at £5.8 billion.

A study by Home Office consultants KPMG concluded that the lifespan of biometric pods (scanners that will be used to take biometric information, electronic scans of fingerprints, irises and facial images) estimated at five years by the government was optimistic; they suggested a three-year life more realistic. This is another example of the government's additional costs.

The Government has set out the below additional charges for ID cards (no doubt to recoup some of their massive losses):

You would require a new card if you:
- Lost your card
- Needed to change any personal details
- Moved house
- Got married

That will be another £95-£300 each time!

If this isn't bad enough, research suggests that cards will have a life of only five years, not ten as the government claims. Researchers claim biometric certainty diminishes over time, for example fingerprints and facial features will need to be rescanned every five years. This is a very costly inconvenience for us, at £300 a card.

The Technology

How does the technology hold up, well the answer is not very well.

A trial of 10,000 volunteers founds the technology:
- failed to recognise every 1 in 25 people
- was at best 96% foolproof if iris scan were used
- even less accurate for black people and the over-59s
- even worse than that for people with disabilities as scans could not recognise them
- had problems recognising fingerprints of people with big fingers!

In summary:
ID cards take away your civil liberties.
ID cards are wide open to massive fraud.
ID cards biometric data is not reliable.
ID cards cost a fortune, for everybody.

Jason Smith

17 November 2005

Prison Officers at Wakefield prison were ticked off by the jails watchdog… the watchdog charging that the prison officers St George's tiepins could be "misinterpreted" as racist. Worn with malicious intent? This couldn't be further from the truth; the badges were in fact in support of a cancer charity!

These poor prisoners being upset by badge wielding prison officers.

Is this just another case of political correctness gone mad? There is an element of that certainly, but I feel it is more sinister than that.

The EU are having a bit of a bad time lately, what with the big NO votes from the French and Dutch. The EU's hearts and minds 'campaign' continues to show the European Union as the only way forward, the EU's head of 'Institutional Relations and Communications' (propaganda) Margot Wallstrom blamed the 2nd World War on nationalistic pride, linking Nazism to the defence of national sovereignty. So it is no surprise then that the EU together with their British government lapdog is trying to destroy symbols of our nation… what better way to start than to 'outlaw' our very flag!

Many schools have now banned their children from the wearing of clothing sporting our English flag; one school even chastised a child for mentioning St Georges Day claiming the child was 'insensitive'.

The government of course will not come out and ban our Flag, it would be political suicide, and instead they rely on and are most pleased to find the British people follow like nice little sheep, to bleat along to the beat of the EU drum. It's a nice psychological tactic by the government, try to make us ashamed of our history and throw it out.

What is coming in the next few months? David Beckham and his English team mates being hauled over the coals for wearing the English colours during international matches?

It's time we fought back. Be proud to be English. Wear your English flag wherever you can… it's that old adage, use it or lose it.

Support our campaign to make St George's Day a national holiday, I can't see it ever happening but it will annoy the government no end!

Jason Smith

11 October 2005