This is from the front page of today's UK Daily Mail

Travellers face price hikes and confusion after the Government unveiled plans to take up to 53 pieces of information from anyone entering or leaving Britain.

For every journey, security officials will want credit card details, holiday contact numbers, travel plans, email addresses, car numbers and even any previous missed flights. The information, taken when a ticket is bought, will be shared among police, customs, immigration and the security services for at least 24 hours before a journey is due to take place.

Anybody about whom the authorities are dubious can be turned away when they arrive at the airport or station with their baggage. Those with outstanding court fines, such as a speeding penalty, could also be barred from leaving the country, even if they pose no security risk.

The information is equired under the "e-borders" system to be introduced, beginning in earnest from mid-2009. By 2014 every one of the predicted 305million passenger journeys in and out of the UK will be logged, with details stored about the passenger on every trip.

The scheme will apply to every way of leaving the country, whether by ferry, plane, or small aircraft. It would apply to a family having a day out in France by Eurotunnel, and even to a yachtsman leaving British waters during the day and returning to shore. The measure applies equally to UK residents going abroad and foreigners travelling here.

A pilot of the "e-borders" technology, known as Project Semaphore, has already screened 29million passengers. Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said: "Successful trials of the new system have already led to more than 1,000 criminals being caught and more than 15,000 people of concern being checked out by immigration, customs or the police."

Comments anyone?

They learned a lot from the East German Stasi! That's awful. Security concerns are one thing, but this is spying on mostly innocent people, to find a few to have an excuse for this measure.

I really should reconsider any plans of visiting the UK after 2008

---

Account frozen...

This is from the front page of today's UK Daily Mail

Comments anyone?

You read the Daily Mail?

---

I really should reconsider any plans of visiting the UK after 2008

I don't think so!

It will eventually cover all 27 Nations in the EU!

---

This is from the front page of today's UK Daily Mail

Travellers face price hikes and confusion after the Government unveiled plans to take up to 53 pieces of information from anyone entering or leaving Britain. ...." SNIP....

Comments anyone?

Well I kind of feel slightly relieved as this story has been doing the rounds in the newspapers for a couple of days.

Only yesterday 'The Telegraph' said we were to "be forced to hand over more than 90 pieces of personal information".....


Today only 53! .. Next week no doubt we will be back down to normality and just require a passport and a face that doesn't look alien..


I know the sentiment of the news articles but most of this arguement at the moment is about the next election...


I think our UK newspapers ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Isn't it enough for our politicians to try and score hate and fear points from us without having journalists jump in on the act...


However. Even 5 of these crude restrictions would damage us.

If those in power (and I'm not just talking about politicians) wish to watch the vitality of our societies die and see us implode then of course they should impose every fearful barrier to life.


In a perverse way those who are threatening or creating restrictions may actually be aiding those few who want to harm us.


It's strange. I can't remember this level of fear mongering when my city (and country) was threatened and bombed by the IRA.

See sig... 'nuff said... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

See sig... 'nuff said... ;)

SIG: It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .


OK I'm going to be very naughty...


1984 was 23 years ago.

Orwell actually called the book "1948" but his publisher objected because Orwell's vision of the future was too close to the present (then..)

The original and now sub-title of the book was "Last Man In Europe".


"Big Brother" in the book actually has little to do with government cameras or technology..

It's all to do with a process in which we delude ourselves to believe we should self report to the powers that be.... sometimes without even realising it.

More than that it's about how we even fear, report and control each other.


In the book 1984 "Victory Cafe" was the cool place for radicles to be... but in the end we realised it was just a place for those radicles who were caught and processed by the state.


If Orwell was alive today he might even argue that his book (1984) was a little like "Victory Cafe" in that it allows people to exist and argue without ever engaging the world outside.


No disrespect meant Ant.... but I just think if we want to talk about "Big Brother" then how do we know whether even what we talk about isn't also controlled by him...


Unless of course Big Brother only affects 'others'...


That was Winston's thought too until he was siping warm Victory Gin flavoured with cloves on the other side of the window in the cafe.. ('Victory Cafe' that is. :o))


1948 and 59 years later... If quality of life and longevity mean anything then 59 years of Orwells 'Big Brother' has actually done millions upon millions in Western societies quite well.

Was that what your 'Sig meant when he predicted the future?


59 years of ecconomic development and social freedoms :o)


Sorry...


I'm being naughty.

[snip!] [snip!] [snip!] [snip!] [snip!] I'm being naughty.

Stop that! You're making my head hurt... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

It's strange. I can't remember this level of fear mongering when my city (and country) was threatened and bombed by the IRA.

There's an entire economy built around security and fear.

Since Sept 11 it has exploded (pardon the pun) and they have a financial interest in keeping us quaking in our basements. Fear sells.

Notice that the media will go to great lengths in describing the need for fences on borders or cameras in public spaces. We are also being told that governments need to listen to our phone calls and read our emails.

While all of this is being pounded into our heads, how much coverage is there over the nuclear weapons security in Pakistan right now?
The same thing happened when the Soviet Union collapsed with the help of the jackals from the Chicago School of Economics.
Nothing in the media about who had control of the launch codes.

They don't want us thinking about those issues, instead, they have us afraid of the guy wearing a backpack at the bus stop.

A camera focussed on that bus stop will capture video of anything that might happen but is as much use against a terrorist as it would be against an ICBM coming in.

It's not about security.

A camera focussed on that bus stop will capture video of anything that might happen but is as much use against a terrorist as it would be against an ICBM coming in.

It's not about security.

Tell us how useless bus stop camera's are when your grandmother gets mugged, put in the hospital, and filled with an uncontrollable fear of being mugged by the same guy every time she leaves the house because she was unable to ID the perp.

I suppose people with set agendas just aren't capable of seeing things outside of the little box they've created for themselves...

---

A camera focussed on that bus stop will capture video of anything that might happen but is as much use against a terrorist as it would be against an ICBM coming in.

It's not about security.

Tell us how useless bus stop camera's are when your grandmother gets mugged, put in the hospital, and filled with an uncontrollable fear of being mugged by the same guy every time she leaves the house because she was unable to ID the perp.

I suppose people with set agendas just aren't capable of seeing things outside of the little box they've created for themselves...

Did the cameras keep any muggers from mugging, any thieves from stealing, any burglars from breaking into houses? No. They still do it, just more decent. They even use the same technology for their tricks (see the copying of credit cards right at the ATMs, see hacking into on-line bank accounts etc). Some criminal minds even admit, that they especially go into houses where there are cameras and visible security stuff because that SHOWS that there is something to pick in there.

These cameras watching the streets everywhere are not at all about security, they're just about controlling the people.

---

Account frozen...

These cameras watching the streets everywhere are not at all about security, they're just about controlling the people.

Orwell referred to them as telescreens... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

A camera focussed on that bus stop will capture video of anything that might happen but is as much use against a terrorist as it would be against an ICBM coming in.

It's not about security.

Tell us how useless bus stop camera's are when your grandmother gets mugged, put in the hospital, and filled with an uncontrollable fear of being mugged by the same guy every time she leaves the house because she was unable to ID the perp.

I suppose people with set agendas just aren't capable of seeing things outside of the little box they've created for themselves...

Did the cameras keep any muggers from mugging, any thieves from stealing, any burglars from breaking into houses? No.

Actually you have no way of knowing if it deterred a potential criminal or not, furthermore, it is a proven fact that video evidence is damning when it comes to convicting criminals.

As I stated on another post, people with agendas are very rarely capable of seeing outside of the little box they've created for themselves.

They still do it, just more decent. They even use the same technology for their tricks (see the copying of credit cards right at the ATMs, see hacking into on-line bank accounts etc). Some criminal minds even admit, that they especially go into houses where there are cameras and visible security stuff because that SHOWS that there is something to pick in there.

These cameras watching the streets everywhere are not at all about security, they're just about controlling the people.

I reiterate, you have no way of knowing if it deterred a potential criminal or not and it's a proven fact that video evidence is damning when it comes to convicting criminals.

Just because there isn't a 100% effective solution, that doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY to deter crime based on the fears of hippy liberals....or is it a fear of getting caught breaking a law you merely disagree with?

---

Just because there isn't a 100% effective solution, that doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY to deter crime based on the fears of hippy liberals....or is it a fear of getting caught breaking a law you merely disagree with?

There was a law against consuming alcohol in your country once.
I've seen your webpage...you seem to enjoy drinking.
Are you going to stop downing beers if the wackos bring back prohibition?

Or will you be a good little automaton and do what you're told?

The erosion of freedom begins with attitudes like the ones you've shown here.

Just because there isn't a 100% effective solution, that doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY to deter crime based on the fears of hippy liberals....or is it a fear of getting caught breaking a law you merely disagree with?

There was a law against consuming alcohol in your country once.
I've seen your webpage...you seem to enjoy drinking.
Are you going to stop downing beers if the wackos bring back prohibition?

Or will you be a good little automaton and do what you're told?

The erosion of freedom begins with attitudes like the ones you've shown here.

I do not have a "right" to consume alcohol, however I DO have an obligation to obey the laws of the country in which I choose to live.

See if you can figure it out, Einstein.

Simply put, I'm not one of those liberal pieces of crap who thinks "freedom" means I am immune to duty and/or obligation and that I can exercise my will as I see fit.

---

(sighs contentedly that he lives in a sleepy little Island far away from such "securities")

I was in the UK and Ireland this year, looks like I timed that well.

---

Take responsibility, or take orders!

Never argue with idiots, they'll always drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I do not have a "right" to consume alcohol, however I DO have an obligation to obey the laws of the country in which I choose to live.

See if you can figure it out, Einstein.

Simply put, I'm not one of those liberal pieces of crap who thinks "freedom" means I am immune to duty and/or obligation and that I can exercise my will as I see fit.

Can you untwist that a little for me please?

It appears to read as though you believe freedom is the right to do as you're told and that anyone who doesn't do as they're told is a "liberal piece of crap".

Are you drinking now? Crack a tube for me. CHEERS

freedom is the right to do as you're told

Orwell referred to that concept as 'FREEDOM IS SLAVERY'...

"liberal piece of crap"

Orwell referred to them as the 'Prolls'...

(I'm REALLY starting to like this thread!)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I do not have a "right" to consume alcohol, however I DO have an obligation to obey the laws of the country in which I choose to live.

See if you can figure it out, Einstein.

Simply put, I'm not one of those liberal pieces of crap who thinks "freedom" means I am immune to duty and/or obligation and that I can exercise my will as I see fit.

Can you untwist that a little for me please?

It appears to read as though you believe freedom is the right to do as you're told and that anyone who doesn't do as they're told is a "liberal piece of crap".

Are you drinking now? Crack a tube for me. CHEERS

You either agree to abide by the laws of the country in which you live or you are a criminal who intentionally breaks the law.

No ifs, ands or buts about it...what's so hard to understand about that, Frenchie?

---

You either agree to abide by the laws of the country in which you live or you are a criminal who intentionally breaks the law.

Kinda 'narrow minded' considering how many laws there are and how often they change... ;)

(Of course, a 'smart cookie' such as yourself must surely understand that.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

You either agree to abide by the laws of the country in which you live or you are a criminal who intentionally breaks the law.

No ifs, ands or buts about it...what's so hard to understand about that, Frenchie?

Frenchie?
That's twice now and I don't get the point. Oh well.

So, Ashtray Mouth, are you claiming that if prohibition came back you would obey the law?
Are you going to sit there, with that huge open orifice under your nose, and tell me that beer will never be dumped into that echo chamber again?

Have you any notion of the concept of civil disobedience?
There's a long tradition of civil disobedience in America (before the Bushtards came to power) and many unjust laws have been stricken because of that.

At one time it was unlawful for races to intermarry. Was that a good law?

At one time it was unlawful for First nation people to vote. Was that a good law?

If the population doesn't fight unjust laws, they are asking for more of the same and you are witnessing the result of unchecked lawmaking within your own government at this very moment in time.

But, like a good Bushtard, you just stay in line and do as you're told.