I wish I had been there, a few comments on Mr Wills statements, although I do clearly state that I believe Mr Wills to be a person of integrity. However grab
and enjoy:
Mr Wills assertion that the Government only legislates when it is necessary is an incorrect statement. This stance is exemplified when observing the ludicrous legislation brought in to restrict demonstrations that the Government don't want, specifically we may observe the arrests of ladies reading out the names of war dead within earshot of number 10, arrested under serious crime legislation. The serious crime act was given an extensive amount of time in both houses incurring a lot of parliamentary time and a vast amount of taxpayers cash and in reality it's main objective was seemingly to reduce or remove the demonstration of one single man. However, perhaps Mr Wills has missed the proposals for such critically needed legislation as that of the legal requirement for cyclists to ring their bell every time they see a pedestrian. Or indeed the legislation that creates £45K a year jobs as "Smoking cessation officers" whose job is to tell people that smoking is bad for them and they should stop. So let's be clear that the idea that the current government's stance on responsible legislation is little more than farce.
Mr Wills also highlights the fact that terrorists currently move freely around the world, this may well be the truth but at no stage has it ever been clearly demonstrated that the UK population being held on a database is in any way a solution to terrorism. Again this is best demonstrated by understanding that all of the London Bombers could legitimately held ID cards. Mr Wills states correctly that the ID system will not stop terrorism but then goes on to make the unsupportable claim that it will add inconvenience and so hinder further terrorism, Mr Wills if you are reading this then please do excuse the following appraisal:
bollocks.
Mr Wills states that identity theft is increasing, indeed I have heard that in 2005 Charles Clarke was pushing figures of 600 percent increase, whether or not you believe that fool is a matter of personal prefference. However, even then Mr Clark acknowledged that the threat to the benefit system was not due to people lying about who they were, rather it was their personal circumstances that they were lying about. There may well be an increase of identity theft but this is without doubt clearly attributable to individual people failing to understand the threat and act accordingly, furthermore it is also a clear indication of the complete failure of commercial and public institutions to tackle the issue correctly and certainly it in no way offers any legitimate argument for creating a massive, unmanageable system.
Mr Wills states that this is a cost effective solution and that the Government have stated that if it looks like the public are going to regard this scheme as not cost effective then it will be shelved. I get the impression that Mr Wills has a lot more faith in the Government than I, but given that the Government illegally withheld the publication of the costs recently I feel that my cynical stance of regarding the Government hiding information that may show that the scheme is in fact not cost effective is a clear indication of their regard for the public's opinion. Perhaps Mr Wills could reappraise that statement.
Mr Wills's only comment that rings true is that he believes that the people of this country are not truly free, I personally do not find that an argument for handing over more freedom.
Finally it is worth noting that Mr Wills puts forward an argument expressing that if the people have such scepticism regarding the ability of the Government to successfully implement IT projects specifically referring to IT security, and that if this is the only concern then we should not be concerned because we all use computers and are open to hacking. Mr Wills could do well with reading the draft contact point guidance documentation with an information technology information security (IT infosec) person available to point out that the physical operating system of the NIR will have very little to do with how our entrusted information will get out.
Mr Wills is my MP, and in all honesty I do believe that he has personal integrity, a rare statement for me to make regarding a politician I assure you. It is then a sad shame that, if indeed he has good personal integrity, I cannot offer him my support because his stance on this single issue is so at odds with reality.
I seriously ask him to reconsider his position and understand that we the people who care to look are not so easily swayed by mainstream Government advertising rhetoric when it is so obviously covered in obscuration, deceit, unwillingness to engage, and outright ineptitude.
is not something I am
