If You Don't Control the Borders, Then the Only Way to Control the Population is ID Cards.

 The British People have for a long time rejected the idea of ID cards. The last attempt to get us to accept this form of control was back during the Blair government.

We told the powers that would like to control us to rightly fuck right off.

Then the Blair political project started accepting mass immigration by rejecting the control on Eastern European immigration the majority of EU countries implemented. 

It appears there's a train of thought on the halls of power that ID cards would solve everything: from anti-social behaviour, to benefit fraud, to everything really. Apart from health tourism it seems: that appears not to be an issue in the halls of power.

Successive governments after that accepted ever increasing numbers of immigrants into the UK. So much so, that back in the noughties we started to see multiple language safety signs on certain premises.

Now we have the unabated illegal entry of people from France. I say people, because they are not refugees, they are not oppressed, they are coming here from a variety of countries, very few of which are war ravaged. Yeah, that awful war in Albania eh? The government has done very little positive action to stop people in dinghies.

Now the cynic in me thinks there is an ulterior motive for this and the motive is ID cards and control of the population.

After all, if you don't control the borders, then what option is there left than to control the population directly?

I mean, all those calls to remove illegals? "can't do it without ID cards mate".

Stopping immigrants from working without a permit? "can't do it unless we make ID card checks mandatory for employers".

Stopping Anti-Social behaviour? "Can't do it unless we can ID the people in the area so we can ban them or issue ASBOs".

Want to buy alcohol or cigarettes? "No sale with no ID card mate. Sorry, Driving licences and passports are no longer a valid ID.

I can see where this is going: ID cards will be the solution to everything.

Weeeellll, they were, until the Government had the bright idea of a Digital ID. 

Now you'd be "required" to have an app on your phone that holds all your information and be "required" to show or share that ID at any point. 

I put required in inverted comments, because initially I doubt there would be any mandatory requirement or enforcement by law, but eventually I assume there will be. Mission creep, the excuse of tyrants everywhere. Initially it's being touted to "help" you, but of course those of us that are awakened adults know what the real reason is behind digital IDs. Control. Inescapable, tyrannical, control.

With digital IDs, there's really no need to produce it for ASBOSs. They will know exactly who was where and when they were there remotely. Records will be kept and they will be able to look at historical records to pinpoint who was at the scene of a crime, or who joined a protest, or who helped a person evade the authorities. 

They will argue they are only collecting metadata, top level data that doesn't identify you. Well, a citizen ID is metadata. On it's own it does not identify you, but look that ID up and all your information: name, address, medical records, known associates (gathered from social media data and historical geographical metadata) will be available with just a few keypresses.

So, if you wonder why successive governments prefer open borders, and then come up with an idea of "not ID cards" which sound very much like an ID card but just in some other form, then wonder no more.

Conspiracy theorist? I've been proven right on multiple occasions.

Terror legislation? It's been used more often than I can remember in instances that are not terror related.

Violent Porn legislation? Ditto on that too. 

Strange that child pornography laws aren't being used as widely as they may be, but I assume that the powers that be have an ulterior motive there. Maybe too many people in power have predilections in that direction and it's useful for blackmail?

Boris Kangaroo Court Misses the Point.

 I'm sorry for those that didn't get to say goodbye to relatives in hospital during the pandemic. I sympathise with people that could not attend funerals as well.

But to compare those emotive scenarios with the Boris Partygate scandal is factually incorrect.

During the Pandemic, essential workers were allowed to continue working. In our office of three people we kept working all the way through. We were allowed, by law to continue working. In fact we also had close contact with the other 5 workers in the warehouse. So that's eight of us in close contact all the way through. Acceptable by law.

Had someone in the office left during the pandemic and we cared enough to turn up with wine and nibbles on the day, then that was also allowed. We were not inviting anyone outside our working environment into our office space.

And so it is with Boris. As much as you want to compare apples with eggs, the fact is that Boris was at work, with co-workers. They were I hope classified as essential workers, so were entitled to be working together. Those were the rules on the day and the addition of wine and nibbles does not alter that fact.

Boris is not making up rules for himself, those were the rules on the day: essential workers were allowed to work together all the way through the pandemic. They could be on the premises working just as much as being on the premises to chug wine and eat cheesy crackers.

Now, we get on to Kier Starmer: I believe he was having a beer in a constituency office during the pandemic. An office that was not his normal place of work. He successfully argued that he was allowed to work in that office and have a beer during a break for food. 

If that's the case, then Boris is more than entitled to enjoy a glass of wine in work with his co-workers.

It's not piss-taking, it's not taking the Mick, it wasn't illegal, it wasn't immoral either. It was legal, moral and correct, but of course the left's morality police will be wheeling out tales of missed funerals, relatives dying unattended in hospital. All irrelevant. 

If the left want a hill to plant their flag on, what about the thousands of DNR notices placed on vulnerable people in the hands of the care sector? You know, the attempts by the NHS to avoid treating people they deemed not worthy because they were old, infirm, disabled or had learning difficulties.

Any word on that from the left? No? 

The Discredited "Liverpool Care Pathway" is Still Killing People.

I've already blogged about how many people were given secret DNR notices on their medical record during the pandemic, something else that I knew was still being used has hit the news.

In this report an 88-year old lady was put on an "end of life pathway" after suffering a stroke, despite being otherwise healthy. So healthy, it took over 25 days for her carers to terminate her life by starving her to death.

For the unaware, the "Liverpool Care Pathway" (LCP) was introduced as a way to end the suffering of a patient that was already close to the end of their life. For many reasons, continuing to feed a person in the late stages of cancer for instance, could only prolong their suffering. The LCP was introduced as a "humane" way of allowing those people to slip away. They would already be on large doses of painkillers, so withdrawing food and fluid would not add much if anything to their suffering.

But it was found the LCP was being applied to ill but otherwise healthy patients who were inconveniently staying alive, or possibly labour-intensive, as a way to shorten the burden to the organisation. It was found that patients that would have recovered from their illness were being put on the pathway and it was the pathway, not the illness that then ended their life.

In these cases, the LCP was rightly deemed inhumane. Not only for the person being effectively starved to death, but also for the families, having to watch their loved one go through up to and sometimes over a month without food or fluid.

It was supposedly removed as a "treatment" back in 2014. However, in the NHS and the Social Care Sector, the LCP appears to be alive and well, it's just not called the Liverpool Care Pathway. Patients are still being prematurely denied food and fluid for a number of reasons, in an effort to end their life early.

I will leave it up to the reader as to why that may be, but I have my suspicions. But the one reason that it isn't, is to humanely end the life of an otherwise end-of--life terminal patient. 

It was recognised as a scandal back in 2014 and it's still a scandal. The Liverpool Care Pathway must be banned. It's unlawful to starve an otherwise healthy person to death and the medical setting should not offer protection from prosecution. 

It's only because of the protection afforded by the medical or care setting and the unwillingness of the Police to investigate that prevents a manslaughter by gross negligence charge being brought.