Do You Want To Be Required to Own a Biometric ID Card? You will be if Labour wins next Election.

According to Home Office papers from 2004 one third will NOT cooperate with ID card checks. The Home Office claims these figures were incredibly out of date. Labour says ID cards will have a wide range of benefits and plans. If they win the next election they will bring in new legislation to make it compulsory to own, but not necessarily carry, a card. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives both oppose the identity card scheme. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Jeremy Browne said: "A major failing of ID cards is that it will cost billions of pounds to coerce law-abiding people into providing their details while those with genuinely malign intentions will strive to avoid complying with the authorities." I don't often agree with Liberal Democrats but I am with Browne 100%. As with the talking cameras and airport eye scans, this takes Big Brother to a whole new level. Browne correctly stated that the people who will get the ID's, simply because it is the law and not because they have any desire to have their personal biometric information stored on a card , are the law abiding citizens who should not have to. If Labour seriously believes criminals will line up on day one, or at any other time, they need a reality check. The next question is, when ID cards do not achieve the desired results what is next? Microchips implanted under our skin? It may sound far fetched but so did biometric ID cards 20 years ago. We can only hope Labour does not win the next election. I enjoy my freedom. Well, what's left of it anyway.
Visit www.no2ID.net for more on this very concerning scheme.

Government Votes for Complete Ban on Smoking

The Government has voted for a complete ban on smoking in pubs, clubs, restaurants and work places from summer 2007. I am a smoker. Should I dodge all the stones being thrown now? It is very popular in this day and age to vehemently state how awful smoking is and how it should be banned. But, have you considered what effect the ban will have? First, the financial effect. Smokers pay enormous taxes on every pack of cigarettes they buy. The government is already having a "cash crisis" so much so that they are suggesting untrained maternity support workers to deliver babies. What effect will the loss of the revenue from cigarette taxes have? At the very best the government will raise our taxes to compensate. Next, The British Medical Journal study of over 30,000 people over a period of 40 years showed zero incidence of higher incidence of lung or heart related disease in families of smokers. The cancer society objects to this study. Not surprising as it would invalidate every other study with regard to second hand smoke. And even assuming the British Medical Journal was wrong it is a violation of our personal liberties to ban public smoking as one could avoid smokers much the same way one avoids perfume if they are allergic. Should an office building in which one person is allergic to nuts ban all nuts? No, the person allergic to nuts should be responsible for avoiding them. Much the same way that a person who does not wish to be around smoke should not sit in the smoking section.