ID Cards - C Says No

They only make sense if you have to carry them at all times and are immediately arrested if you can't produce yours at frequent check points. The current proposals don't say this, I don't think even this governemtn would dare, so what's the point?

The reasons given are largely bogus, we know that -(even without David Davis telling us so). So, we have ID cards, and we have a system for keeping track of the movements of cars, as mentioned previously. These perhaps represent gaps in terms of current data collected. They know where we live. They know which cars we own. They know where we shop, and what we buy. They can monitor our phone calls, our e-mails, our internet use. They can increasingly use CCTV to watch what we are up to, on foot and in cars, while we are in towns. Travel between towns is clearly a gap that needs to be filled. ID cards - so that they know we are who we say we are - assuming we were in the first place...??

Once they are in a position to collect data about every aspect of our lives, they can put anyone under surveillance. They can analyse the patterns that represent the normality of our lives, and find out when things change from the expected pattern.

Big, Big Brother is watching you.

and Downing Street Says
becomes more and more like Newspeak!

wiggles

I love these things..

Journalist: Will the Government spokesman confirm that white phosphorous was used, along with something very similar to napalm, depleted uranium, cluster bombs, swiss army knives...etc etc:

Government Spokesman: First of all we should think about all the good stuff. Birds and bees, flowers and trees, the smiles on little babies faces, etc etc. That's the sort of thing you should be asking us about. Not this other bad stuff.

FFS!

Just caught a comment on the radio, a government spokesman suggesting that we shouldn't take any notice of Dame Stella's opinion, because she is only a private citizen...

Strange, I've never heard them be so quick to put her down when she is speaking in support of government policy...

Daft isn't it? She is indeed a private citizen NOW; but as former MI5 chief, I think she knows a thing or two about security. If her opinion wasn't relevant it would hardly warrant an inch high column in the Bexhill-on-Sea Observer, never mind good coverage in the national media..

Typical, isn't it? As soon as someone steps out of line, the smears start.

Expect her to be labelled as "psychologically flawed" any day now...

Didn't mean to be anonymous there, sorry.

Mr Eugenides

If she'd spoken out in favour of them Blair would be using it as professional advice: 'The security services are demanding them! who are we to disagree?'

Just for accuracy - "C" is the head of SIS, not MI5.

Well spotted Ian.