The records will detail the calls made, their time, duration, and the name and address of the registered user of the phone. The files will show where people are at the time they make mobile phone calls and by knowing which mast transmitted the signal officials can pinpoint the source of a call to within a few feet. If you make a call from a moving car it can track your route and also allows police and security services to investigate with or without cause the phone records of British subjects and businesses. Files will also be kept of all sent and received text messages. By 2009 the Government plans to extend the rules to cover internet use: the websites we have visited, the people we have emailed and phone calls made over the net. This was introduced by the decree of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. The new laws will make it a legal requirement for phone companies to keep records for at least a year, and to make them available to the authorities. The measures were implemented after Smith signed a ’statutory instrument’ on July 26 2007 which allows the Government to alter laws without a full act of Parliament. The move was waved through the House of Lords two days earlier without a debate. It puts into UK law a European Directive aimed at the ‘investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime’. Other organizations with access to the data include - the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, the Department of Trade and Industry, NHS Trusts, ambulance and fire services, the Department of Transport and the Department for the Environment.

The Home Office claims there are safeguards as every authority had a nominated senior member of staff who was legally responsible for the use the phone data was put to, ‘the integrity of the process’ and for ‘reporting errors’. A spokesman said: ‘The most detailed level of data can be accessed only by law enforcement agencies such as the police. More basic access is available to local authority bodies such as trading standards and environmental health who can only use these powers to prevent and detect crime.’ It is said that Councils would only use these powers in circumstances such as benefit fraud. They say the powers would only be used against non-payers of council tax or for parking fines as the sums involved are not enough to justify the use of this information or the costs of applying it.

In July 2006 The Observer reported that British children, possibly as young as six, will be subjected to compulsory fingerprinting under European Union rules being drawn up in secret. The prints will be stored on a database which could be shared with countries around the world. Under proposed laws being drawn up secretly by the European Commission’s ‘Article Six’ committee, which is composed of representatives of the European Union’s 25 member states, all children will have to attend a finger-printing centre to obtain an EU passport by June 2009 at the latest. The Home Office wants to include children in its biometric passport scheme in three years’ time, and automatically transfer their details and fingerprints to the new national identity database when they are 16.

Millions of children as young as 11 are to have their fingerprints taken and stored on a Government database, according to leaked Whitehall plans.As it is more than one million people’s genetic fingerprints have been added to the police DNA database. It is biggest in the world and stores details of over 4.5million people and covers one in 13 of the population - around 7.5 per cent. The rapid growth indicates the Government is underhandedly building a universal genetic database. 6.5m people are on the police fingerprint database and a third of 3,000 matches a month with samples taken from crime scenes. Around a third of all the DNA stored is taken from individuals who were not charged with any offence, and have no criminal record. There has been a massive rise in the number of children on the database which includes 150,000 under-16. The DNA records are taken whether a youngster has committed a crime or not and held on file until they die. Data has been used for genetic research without consent, including attempts to predict “ethnic appearance” from DNA profiles.

Government agencies could use the database to track political activists, find out who they are related to, or to refuse jobs to any classified “undesirable” or just business people or the unemployed. The Government built this database in their own interests and without public or Parliamentary debate. In the past, police could take a DNA sample only from suspects who were charged with a criminal offence, and it was destroyed if they were subsequently cleared or a prosecution dropped. But under reforms introduced in 2000 officers no longer have to erase innocent people’s entries. In 2004 police were given the power to take DNA swabs from anyone placed under arrest.

War criminal Tony Blair insisted there should be “no limit” to the number on the database even innocent people not accused of an offence should be listed. The Government will eventually link the database to its plans for ID cards, and then make DNA sampling universal. The latest published figures show 4,523,154 entries are held. A third are from those with no convictions or criminal record, suggesting that 1.5 million innocent people have their DNA stored. At this rate the database will have nearly 10 million profiles by 2011. There are 150,000 children aged 16 or under stored, 334,000 between 16 and 18 and about 50 under-tens on the database. The DNA of a seven-month-old girl was added. Police can take DNA samples from anyone who is arrested. Regardless of whether the suspect is accused of a serious offence or a trivial one like dropping litter. They use a swab to scrape a few cells from the inside of the suspect’s cheek, and lab workers extract the unique DNA gene sequence which is then uploaded to the database. Even if the case is dropped, the samples are kept on file. Police also take DNA from arrested children without parents permission. One can write to a chief constable asking for an entry to be deleted if they can prove they are an “exceptional case”. But this is very difficult.

A proposed law giving unelected bureaucrats powers to punish people for offences instead of going to court will give civil servants the power to issue fines, was unjust and oppressive and could cause untold misery for businesses. Anyone affected would have to appeal to a tribunal to challenge a ruling ” and pay their own legal bills. The legislation returns to the House of Lords today for a final day of debate before it moves to the Commons.

In typical political jargon, ministers say the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill is designed to take further important steps towards modern and effective regulatory enforcement. It will enable bureaucrats to issue fixed penalties to businesses of any size, as well as to individuals. The fines will range up to £3,500 ” but could also include so-called unlimited variable penalties running into millions for big businesses and will harm businesses already struggling from 178 different Acts of Parliament. Like the other totalitarian states I have mentioned bureaucrats will be operating the law. Such regimes already exist with police cautions, (any crime which is thought possible to issue a caution for), on the spot fines for drunkeness; the Inland Revenue (penalties); Customs and Excise (now part of the combined Revenue and Customs department, HMRC ) penalties; penalties for speeding, parking, littering etc.

Laws to protect people are being removed. A consequence of the Macpherson report is the reduction in legal protection for those under suspicion. Ostensibly, the repeal of Double Jeopardy in 2005 followed a marathon campaign by Ann Ming, after her daughter was murdered in 1989. Her killer, a violent alcoholic and acquitted in 1991, but later admitted his guilt, believing he would get away with the crime because of the traditional safeguard against tyrants charging people several times. Mrs.Ming, lobbied several Home Secretaries and won because the Macpherson report suggested double jeopardy should be abolished where there was “fresh and viable” new evidence. That happened in 2005, and in 2006 Dunlop was convicted. This was a convenient case to use because the removal of Double Jeopardy was a recommendation of the Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and would enable the state to repeatedly try “racists” until they get a conviction.

The Pulborough Parish Council magazine reported that police were asking residents to report other residents for ‘tailgating’ or driving too close to another vehicle. What type of society calls on friends and neighbours to watch each other and report each other to the police apart from ours?- Mao’s China, Stalinist Russia, the Eastern bloc ‘Stasi’ societies, and Nazi Germany. The police are being used to control people not to protect the public by stopping burglars, thieves, muggers, vandals, street beggars and drunkenness in public. They have given up on fighting crime to police our thoughts.

In Orwellian Doublethink, inequality is called equality; state control, freedom; persecution of the politically incorrect, tolerance; gender quotas equal opportunity and bigoted anti-racism that persecutes one race, whites! Language is the medium for transmitting thought and an embryonic totalitarian state gives words new meanings to shape thought for the new state. They believe reality is a social construct and if we can only think in the correct way reality will change. It is like the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis in linguistics which holds that without the word we cannot have the idea. But what about feelings? Without a wide and adequate grammar people become frustrated and angry as intelligent but inarticulate people do. We must do all in our power to expand our vocabularies and make sure our children are not denied the fullest English lexicon.

In an article “They also change the language, ” the Daily Express of July 3,2007 reported on moves towards totalitarian control of what we think through language. “Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word “Muslim” in connection with Muslim terrorism. The Prime Minister has told his ministers that the phrase “war on -terror” is to be dropped. This is part of an attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims by adopting a more “consensual” tone than Blair. It is to mould our thinking. Home Secretary Smith is trying the old con of pretending political terrorists are criminals, “Let us be clear – terrorists are criminals, whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religions. Terrorists attack the values shared by all law-abiding citizens. As a Government, as communities, as individuals, we need to ensure that the message of the terrorists is rejected.” How, by changing their descriptions?

The Television companies are a vehicle of subtle tyranny and employees follow the movement or be put out of work. Vacancies in television were only ever advertised in the Guardian to make sure they only employed liberals and socialists. It helps ensure the right attitude in employees. Teaching posts were also advertised there too.

Following on the Religous Hatred Law which carries a 7 year penalty the totalitarian “Ideological Caste” is introducing anti homophobic laws that also has a 7 year penalty. If this is not tyranny I do not know what is. This is the counter culture of the 1960s making its moral values the basis of our law and oppressing the members of the public who are individual or think for themselves. As Christians once shaped society when sodomy was a crime, not a “lifestyle,” the “lifestyle” view is now being enshrined in law and replacing the traditional view. As a judge put it “The Truth is no Defence.” Just keep repeating the lie and prevent others from expressing opposition and soon there is a new reality supported by invented British history. Trevor Phillips openly called for British history to be rewritten at the 2007 Labour Party conference. The Commission for Equality and Human Rights has powers to impose their policies and the justification is upholding European Union laws on xenophobia and hate. To assert our identity is xenophobia – a criminal offence!

The Daily telegraph of 17 march 2008 reported that Harriet Harman, the Minister for Women, is considering scrapping current laws that stop employers from taking race or sex into consideration when interviewing candidates for jobs. White men could be stopped from getting jobs under government plans to allow employers to give ethnic minority and female candidates preferential treatment. The “doublespeak” is “positive action” and prevents applicants with better job credentials getting the job if they are the wrong sex or race. They are changing our morality from Traditional to a universal one based on equality but imposing Equality of Outcome. Their aim is the eradication of racism, sexism, class elitism the nation and the creation of pools of global cheap labour in a one-world or global state to be created in stages like the E.U.

Spin doctoring is to manipulate people into accepting what the elites are introducing. One of the origins of Cultural Marxism was Anthony Crossland who destroyed Grammar Schools to turn the Working Classes into a Lumpenproletariat or Underclass. Comprehensive schooling, by depriving people in the middle levels, of a proper historical and political education, has made manipulation easier as has teaching only small areas of history. Children are taught to equate nationalism with Nazism. Our ancestors fought against tyranny and we must too! John Hampden’s stand against King Charles I was heroic and he died in battle for his beliefs. The struggle for trial by jury and Habeas Corpus, for the Right to Bear Arms for protection against the billeting of soldiers or searches of our houses must not be lost now to deception. Macaulay’s history tells of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which a courageous jury saved us from despotism - is inspirational. The politicians then were cowardly and deceitful like the present lot but the core of the English people opposed tyranny as English men and women and defended national independence.

Sites of groups opposed to the new tyranny:

Statewatch : http://www.statewatch.org

Civitas http://www.civitas.org.uk

no2id http://www.no2id.net