Uponnothing.co.uk

Tony Blair, complete and utter nonsensical twat (abbreviated to CUNT), continues to push the boundaries of unbelievable hypocrisy, and continues to smugly grin in ignorance. The subject is becoming a favourite for the international messiah: Iran. Blair’s comments basically assert that Iran is responsible for preventing progress in the Middle East because:

the regime is doing things that are completely unacceptable in the international community — like supporting terrorism, like meddling in Iraq, like trying to have a nuclear weapons program…

Sorry? ‘meddling in Iraq’, ’supporting terrorism’, having a ‘nuclear weapons program’? Is it me or is this exactly the same thing that America and Britain are guilty of? What is the difference Tony? Is it that Iran are trying to get nuclear weapons, whilst we are simply in the progress of upgrading them, is it that Iran may be sending small arms into Iraq, whilst we send in the heavy bombers, is it that they support the wrong kind of terrorism?

Surely there must be some kind of distinction between Iran and the UK for you to make that statement. But there is not, you made the statement because you are a joke, you live in a fantasy world, a world that simply does not exist.

That in this world you somehow run a country is an even bigger joke.

[Hon. Members: “Give way!”] I have made it clear that I will not give way—[Hon. Members: “Why not?”] It is because we have only a short time for this Third Reading and I intend to set out the argument.—[Interruption.]

So said Charles Clarke as he worked his way through his 309 MP’s voting in favour of the government’s bill, 284 against.

Once again Charles Clarke’s arguments were simply statements, without evidence, against all reason, and soaked in the lies of the New Labour terror-regime, where any utterance becomes fact if repeated often enough by the sychophantic Blairites:

Let me reassert the benefits of the scheme. First, ID cards will help to tackle identity fraud, which now costs the UK economy and society more than £1.3 billion a year. Secondly, a secure identity system will help to prevent terrorist activity, more than a third of which makes use of false identities. Thirdly, identity cards will make it far easier to control immigration and illegal working, and British citizens will be able to use their identity cards instead of a passport to travel in Europe. Fourthly, ID cards will secure the more efficient and effective provision of public services.

This is the government’s four main ‘reasons’ for adopting ID cards, but in reality it is simply four meaningless statements, each of them easily destroyed by reasoned argument and honest intellect, each of them dripping with lies, half-truths, and exaggerations. However, government is ruled by the mob, not by the people, truth is determined by those in charge of the mob, and handed down to the masses whether they like it or not. This bill - if passed - as an enabling act will continue the determined attack on civil liberties waged by Blair since he took office. For Blair the state is all, the people are nothing, Blair convinces himself he is fighting for ideals, when all he is really doing is fighting for power, for complete control. Like any good state heading towards totalitarinism, the first battle the state must win is the battle against it’s people, and this is a battle that New Labour will now fight in the House of Lords.

People are against ID cards, and people will refuse to be issued with them, this is without doubt, and maybe with success. During the 45 minute ‘debate’ I was heartened by the eloquent speech of Edward Garnier, a Conservative MP, a speech I shall quote in full:

Where I depart from the Home Secretary is in the analysis of the Bill that he made during the 15 minutes that he occupied of this 45-minute debate. Indeed, is not there something rather obscene about a Home Secretary complaining about lack of time to debate his Bill because his Government have curtailed the time for debate? On Report, I pointed out that his Under-Secretary, with whom he is now conversing, was cut off in his prime in Committee. I believe that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality was also cut off during Report this evening. All those things would be welcome in some circumstances, but if the Government say that their own motions prevent them from debating their legislation, who are we to complain?

We need to be clear about the fact that during this debate the Government’s majority was cut to 32 and 33, and I encourage all Members who are interested in democracy and civil liberties and who have read the Bill to vote with us this evening against the Third Reading. The Bill is economically illiterate and politically inept, and will prove socially divisive.

The Government began the whole sorry process by saying that the Bill would be valuable in the fight against terrorism; yet, to be fair to the Home Secretary—I am occasionally fair to him—on 8 July he said that identity cards would not have prevented the tube attacks on 7 July. We know that 9/11 would not have been prevented by identity cards. The people who committed those crimes had pilots’ licences and passports. Those who committed the crimes on 7 July were perfectly happy to be filmed by the railway station closed circuit television. The problem was not hiding their identity, but hiding their intention—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that Members on the Treasury Bench find the subject so tremendously funny.

When the Government lost their first argument they said, “Oh, perhaps we’ll try benefit fraud”. However, we know that benefit fraud will not be dealt with by the possession of identity cards or by the information in the national identity register. Then they said, “Well, let’s try immigration, that’s bound to help”. The Home Secretary is trying that again this evening, but the problem is that one does not have to register on the national identity register or hold an identity card if one is in the country for less than three months. When a person enters the country as a tourist, how are the Government to know that they have not remained beyond the permitted time?

There is the problem of the free travel area between the UK and the Irish Republic and the free travel area in the European Union. What will that do? Far from preventing immigration illegalities, it will exacerbate ethnic problems and cultural division in the UK. Do the Government want to give a free hand to the British National party? Anybody who thinks that is a good idea should vote for this sordid Government this evening.

The Government then said, and the Home Secretary repeated this evening, that the measure would deal with identity fraud. When the Bill began its passage in the summer, identity fraud cost the economy £50 million, but during the summer months the cost rose to £1.5 billion. I do not know why, and the Government have produced no evidence to support that fact. Indeed, we are having a Third Reading by assertion with an absence of proof. We cannot have legislation that is created in this form or pushed through in such a way, and we cannot tolerate a Government who have absolutely no understanding of the constitution of this country.

The Government moved on to say that the scheme would prevent other forms of serious crime. As the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out on Second Reading, no serious criminal will be too bothered about whether he is required to register for, or have, an identity card. The money would be far better spent on police officers, gaining intelligence about the activities of criminals and producing a proper border control police.

The Government have blustered and demanded that we agree with all their assertions, despite the lack of evidence to prove them. Eventually, they have ended up saying that it would be more convenient for us all if we had identity cards and information was stored away on the national identity register. If the Government want to see the population of this country wandering around with a form of barcode across our foreheads, or with a mark to allow us to come out of our houses, they are not the sort of Government whom this country needs. We should certainly not be promoting such a society.

The Bill is obscene and absurd and it will do nothing but damage the country’s interests as a whole. It will do nothing to advance the causes that we all share: defeating terrorism; doing away with benefit fraud; and tightening up our immigration rules, which the Government have randomly let fall apart. Of course we want to deal with identity fraud and serious crime, but the Bill will not do that in its present form and would not have done that in its first form. It is a ridiculous and stupid Bill.

What will the scheme cost the citizen? All of us over the age of 16 will have to pay not only the £30 cost of buying the wretched card, but the travel costs of getting from the outer isles to the Glasgow centre at which one will be processed, as though one were in some gulag, or from rural parts of the country to other cities.

What will the scheme cost the country as a whole? We all know that the cost will be somewhere between £8 billion and £19 billion, but the Government say that the cost of a card will be only £30. The whole thing is utterly absurd, and the more one examines what the Secretary of State has to say, the more absurd it becomes and the more absurd the Government are.

Let us step aside from the practical arguments against the Bill and consider a matter of principle: the relationship between the citizen and state, about which the Government care little and know nothing. They have forgotten about constitutional history—if they knew anything about it—and the proper relationship between the Government, Parliament and the judiciary. All that is swept aside with great windy bluster from the Home Secretary and his junior Ministers. It is time for Parliament to stand up for what it is supposed to and to defend the liberties of the citizen, not to kowtow to this appalling Government and go down on bended knee and grovel as they pass more and more appalling legislation to destroy the rights of the citizen. It is no good for the Government to say that this is all exaggeration—just look at what they have done already and what they intend to do through this Bill and other legislation to eat into the liberties of the citizen.

This is a bad Bill from a sad Government. It is legislation by statutory instrument. The Government are providing 61 separate powers to enable the Home Secretary or his successor to produce secondary legislation. The Bill contains very little detail. It increases the penalty for misbehaviour. One could easily be fined up to £2,500 for what the Government politely call a “civil penalty”, and if one does not pay that, off one goes to prison.

The Bill amounts to little more than a denial of democracy. The House should be ashamed of it, and I trust that all people of honour in the House will increase the Government’s embarrassment by reducing their majority to way below 32—indeed, we should kill this Bill.

The Excellent Tim Ireland has this warning for the rest of us, time to take heed…

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

A link has duly been added to Stumbling and Mumbling.

So the home office have today published a list of ‘unacceptable behaviours’ relating to terrorism. The non-exhaustive list so far:

Terrorist violence

Cannot foment, justify, glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs

Terrorist acts

Cannot seek to provoke others to terrorist acts

Criminal acts

Cannot foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts

Inter-community violence

Cannot foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

Method

Individuals who do the above by any means or medium are caught by the legislation, including:

- writing, producing, publishing or distributing material;

- public speaking including preaching

- running a website

- using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader

So writing material and running a website I wonder if many blog sites will be looked into, as the government - in particular Herr Blair- seem to think that attempting to understand terrorism is akin to justifying it, and logic dictates then that you must be a supporter of terrorism. The subjects of the United Kingdom have never had true free speech - legally - which makes it easier for the New Labour media machine to enforce repression of what is in many cases dissent, labelled as terrorism.

Is it an offence to write that I understand why 4 men decided to detonate themselves in London, taking the lives of innocent people? They wanted to express their anger and disgust at a world that condones the state terror perpertrated by many ‘civilised’ nations, a world in which a few powerful nuclear states can terrorise nations at will, and any peaceful protest will never make any difference to this state of affairs. This is not condoning the act of killing innocent people in London, this is simply saying that violence breeds violence, they wanted to do to London what we did to Baghdad.

However, this is the real crux of the matter, Tony Blair and George Bush cannot understand that the acts of the London bombers are no different to the act of illegally invading Iraq. Both acts were carried out by a small group of people pursuing an agenda through violence, Blair and Bush mobilised a massive military force, whilst the suicide bombers turned themselves into human bombs.

Both acts resulted in the deaths of innocent people, except Blair and Bush managed a far higher body count (although of course America ‘Don’t do body counts’), however, whilst the London bombers have been rightly condemned worldwide, the invasion of Iraq has not been(and when Blair repeats his claims that terrorism can ‘never be justified’, he seems to forget how frequently he justifies this terrorism).

I was sickened by the London bombings, and cannot have any idea what it is like to lose a loved-one to a random act of terror, but likewise, I am equally sickened by the actions of Tony Blair and George Bush, for although they may not have strapped the explosives to themselves, they are no less guilty. Nor can I hope to understand what it must be like to be an Iraqi who has lost a loved one due to the terrorism of the UK and US.

It is about time we started condemning all terror, and the next time Tony Blair makes a speech defending the war in Iraq, and America’s role in the world, perhaps he will be arrested for breaching these new rules - because he has done more to further the cause of terrorism than any other person in the UK.

It was shortly before the London bombings that I scribbled a few lines on the lowering of security levels in the UK, so I’ll scribble a few lines now. The last time I focused on the falsity of the terror-levels, post-9/11, when the UK was not high on the terrorist agenda. And how lowering them after the UK had invaded Iraq, and was now involved in an illegal and bloody occupation, proved how little sense is behind the terror-levels, as the UK was surely in far more danger now.

Now of course, the inevitable attack has sadly happened, and is of course now just another part of history, and the terror-levels are back to the fore.

Now, it strikes me that the terror-level indicators are a bit silly, and don’t really mean a thing. For example, the terror-levels have now been reduced from ‘”critical” or Level 1 — its highest state — to “severe general” or Level 2G’ because ‘intelligence sources do not have any specific information relating to imminent attacks.’ Well, at no stage since 9/11 has there been any evidence that the government has gained any reliable intelligence on the likelyhood of a terrorist attack - as was demonstrated by lowering the security level prior to the London bombings. So why have security levels based on intelligence, as the government is extremely unlikely to gain any real intelligence on bomb attacks?

Now the actual terror-level seems to be a pointless indicator that the government uses to maintain the illusion that we are under attack, that a threat is always very close to being imminent; whereas in reality real threat is determined by ‘”alert” level, which runs in parallel and is also decided by JTAC, remains at its highest rating.’ It is the alert level that determines police resourcing and public security, so why have the terror-level indicator, if not to stir-up fear in the general public?

The terror-level is nothing but a New labour media device, designed to convince the doubting public that we are under attack; you can almost picture Blair dealing with people who do not believe the constant threat of terror: ‘Look, of course we are in danger, the terror-alert says “severe-general” for god’s sake’.

Should you be tempted to dismiss all this as esoteric or merely mad, travel to any Muslim community in Britain, especially in the northwest, and sense the state of siege and fear. On July 15, Blair’s Britain of the future was glimpsed when the police raided the Iqra Learning Center and bookstore near Leeds. The Iqra Trust is a well-known charity that promotes Islam worldwide as “a peaceful religion which covers every walk of life.” The police smashed down the door, wrecked the shop and took away antiwar literature which they described as “anti-Western.”

Once again this is a must read article.

The Rise of the Democratic Police State - by John Pilger

So, Britain will never surrender or buckle in the face of terrorism? I think they will, and I think they have, Blair condemns the London bombings one minute, saying that terrorism would never suceed, and then meets ‘former’ terrorists the next, bowing to their demands.

Makes you wonder if he should start negotiations with terrorists sooner, cut out all the ‘we will not give in’ etc etc crap, and continued attacks on civilian, as in the end a peace will have to be sought anyway?

Bloggerheads (UK) - The Thick Blue Line

Tim Ireland has provided a detailed report on the Parliament Square protest, protesting the banning of protests in such a ’sensitive’ area - i.e. a place where those in charge don’t want to be reminded that they have an electorate to represent.

Well, we all knew it, but now a government minister finally admits they added a few layers of spin - i.e. they lied - regarding the effectiveness of the proposed ID cards.

Staggeringly, even in the light of this admission, New labour still plan to go ahead with the scheme as planned. This is against all criticism of cost, effectiveness, and moral problems that have blighted the scheme.

Learn more about ID cards by visiting No2id.co.uk

perfect.co.uk / On Iraq, 7/7 and the truth

An interesting look at how Phoney Tony is partially backtracking over his denials of 7/7 being linked to his invasion of Iraq.

More lies and spin from the New Labour machine, but they are getting desperate now.

The Australian: UK to increase power to ban

Charles Clarke:

“In the circumstances we now face, I decided that it is right to broaden the use of these powers to deal with those who foment terrorism or seek to provoke others to terrorist acts,” Mr Clarke said in a statement on the follow-up to the July 7 attacks.

“To this end, I intend to draw up a list of unacceptable behaviour which would fall within this, for example preaching, running websites, or writing articles which are intended to foment or provoke terrorism.”

So I guess that George Bush will be banned from visiting the UK now, in case he has any further intentions to lead Tony Blair and Britain into any further terrorist actions like Iraq…

BBC NEWS | Politics | Ministers reject Iraq terror link

Mr Straw told reporters ahead of a meeting of European Foreign Ministers in Brussels that “the time for excuses for terrorism are over”.

“The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq, and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq.

“They struck in Kenya, in Tanzania, in Indonesia, in the Yemen, they struck this weekend in Turkey which was not supporting our action in Iraq.

“It is the terrorists who will seek any excuse whatsoever for their action and it is the responsibility of people in the civilised world to stand up to that terrorism and not provide them with any excuse whatsoever.”

A rather pointless denial Mr Straw, the bombings in those other countries had different triggers than Iraq, but triggers nontheless. A very New Labour denial though.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Two-thirds believe London bombings are linked to Iraq war

So of course, living in a democracy Tony Blair will take on board this concern and give the matter some serious thought…

…sorry, drifted off into a fantasy world for a second, Tony Blair will as usual ridicule the stupid public for even harbouring such crazy notions, and will be making sure such freedom of thought is cracked down on in new legislation. The new legislation is going to make it an offence to have any thoughts that contradict with the beliefs of Tony and his loyal cronies. Anyone daring to write down such thoughts could face deportation - as terrorist sympathisers.

On a more serious note, I despise the lack of accountability that the government has in this country, how New Labour can simply deny any link between terrorism against the UK, and their terrorist foreign policy. This just demonstrates how little influence the electorate have over the elected. The ultimate irony is that the current war in Iraq is being justified as a war to spread democracy and freedom, yet democracy does not exist in either the UK or the US, it is simply a fraud.

American ‘democracy’ requires $115 million to run for presidency - so just reserved for the elite then. Whereas in the UK, we have 2 real choices of whom we want to take executive control of an unnacountable and unchanging system - both choices being as bad as the other. As proved in Iraq, and in countless acts since election, once a party has power they can pursue any policy they like, without any way of being held to account for it.

All this is made easier by politics being one of the few professions in which systematic lying is not only expected, but actually a desired trait. Remember, each time Tony Blair denies any link between the London bombings and Britains continuation of a terrorist foreign policy in the Middle East, he is lying. He knows as well as we do why 56 people died in London, but he does not have to confront the truth, that is left to the powerless.

Independent Online Edition: Role in Iraq war ‘has made Britain a target for attacks’

And it took a ‘think tank’ to work this out?

Still, good to see Tony Blair and New Labour denying any link as absurd…