Witterings from Witney writes about a new website has been published which allows you to very easily change your name by deed poll, at the staggering minimal cost of £13.50 a time – when done on-line.

Oh what fun could be had for the forthcoming 2011 Census! (As an aside, it is difficult to understand why the 2011 Census cannot be prevented immediately – it only takes two words: ‘Stop It’; but hey ho, politicians never take the easy method.) Anyway, what if we were all to change our name prior to the Census and then change it back again afterwards.

Consider, we could all change our name to David Cameron or Nick Clegg and classify our sexuality as ‘Lesbian’ and religion as ‘Jedi’, for example. Consider all the work involved for our bureaucrats in local and national government changing all the data they hold on us and then about two or three weeks later having to repeat the exercise. For anyone with the financial means, it would be tempting to do it 52 times during the next year.

H/T Witterings from Witney

, , ,

The Telegraph is reporting today huge losses of laptops, USB sticks and other equipment which contains personal and government data.

The MoD had the worst record of 11 government departments surveyed in Freedom of Information requests made by technology consultants Lewis Communications.

In total the ministries reported the loss of 518 laptops, 131 BlackBerrys or iPhones, 104 mobile devices and 932 electronic storage devices over the past two years.

Every week in the UK there reports of data losses from government databases, banks, corporate bodies and public services resulting over the past few years of literally hundreds of thousands of personal details lost.

We have no way of knowing where most of these personal details end up, but many are sold on to criminal gangs who use these details to enact identity fraud, scam banks and empty bank accounts. This can cause chaos to many innocent victims, sometimes lasting many years.

One effective way to combat such data losses and fraud is to simply change your name. Done at a minimal cost by using companies such as PDPS, you can legally change your name quickly and efficiently, and by informing the relevant authorities and financial institutions of that name change it will instantly make any criminal use of your previous details useless.

To put this into perspective the figures suggest the MoD’s record has not improved significantly since July 2008, when it admitted that 658 laptops had been stolen and 89 lost in the previous four years.

Other ministries include the Department for Transport, which said it lost or had stolen 38 laptops, 39 PDAs including BlackBerrys, 21 mobile phones and two USB memory sticks.

The Department for Work and Pensions suffered the loss of 71 laptops, 48 mobile phones and 27 BlackBerrys.

There were also significant losses reported at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, where 11 laptops and 13 BlackBerrys went missing, and the Department for Education, which lost or had stolen 11 laptops, 34 BlackBerrys, one PDA and four memory sticks.

The financial implications aside, these departments deal with a great deal of your personal information, and its clear from the figures above that they are not putting the interests of you, the individual, at the forefront of their operations.  Some would say that Government has been the biggest enabler of identify fraud through losses of equipment and data over the past decade.

If you want to protect your identity, don’t rely on the government departments to stop losing your details, take the steps yourself and change your name, make that stolen or lost data worthless wherever it may end up.

Related Reading:

, , , , ,

Today Douglas Carswell attempts to put the blame of our woes and troubles firmly onto the shoulders of the Civil Service.

I am certainly no fan of big government, exactly the opposite, however one should be aware that Civil Servants, and the departments and Quangos that they occupy are created and staffed by Acts of Parliament and the permissions of various Secretaries of State.

To blame them alone seems rather crass, although the underlying theme of the article is to ensure that their numbers and functions are reduced, so to that element there is common cause.

However, the biggest and by far the most important omission from the TalkCarswell article today is the ever present elephant in the room, the EU.

Douglas specifically asks:

The reality is that the British state is dysfunctional. It cannot administer its own Byzantine tax and benefits system fairly. Cannot control who settles here. Is unable or unwilling to convert £ tax into military equipment competently. Won’t contemplate the desperately overdue reforms needed to trade, agricultural and fishery policy. Is incapable of reducing, let alone reversing, the flow of red tape regulation that stifles enterprise.

Why is the British state so incompetent?

The simple answer is this: It is so incompetent, or appears to be incompetent, because it is also impotent. Successive British governments have allowed the unelected European Commission to impose over 120,000 Directives, Opinions and Decisions that British politicians then have to ask our civil service to manage and regulate.

We are effectively paying for 2 levels of civil & public servants, those who manage the work of our real government in Brussels both central and regional via the Committee of the Regions, and those who create the front of British decision making, and it is this mix of roles EU & British, diametrically opposed roles, that causes the huge incompetence that Carswell speaks of.

This is made very apparent, although not clear in its explanation to the British public when Caroline Spelman said the following, via a twitter post from Politics Home:

Spelman: 87 quangos in DEFRA – “quite possible to rationalise those without compromising front-line services“.

The reality of that statement is this. Why are we paying twice. When we are already obliged to take rulings and decisions from institutions in the EU such as the European Food Standards Agency, why is there any need for a British Food Standards Agency which is literally still only in place to give the impression to the British public that decisions are still made here.

The public is totally unaware that the FSA has to defer all its decision making to the EFSA, or that DEFRA as a whole cannot make its own decisions, it has to defer to the EU, especially in the areas of trade, agricultural and fishery policy.  DEFRA and its 87 Quangos are simply an enforcement tool.

I wrote extensively about this on PJC Journal in October last year. Cameron, and the task of his government will be to dismantle the British element of government bureaucracy whilst retaining fully the EU government structure without letting the British public know. This will become even more apparent at the local and regional levels and is part of the smoke & mirrors policy of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’.

Carswell & Spelman are just 2 of the coalition politicians using ‘Nudge’ to ensure public opinion is channelled down the ‘right’ EU path. Trouble is, the sheeple believe them.

Related Reading:

, , , ,

OK, not quite the same look and feel as the original one, but…

When I closed this site at the end of 2009, I saved all the posts, and have had trouble ever since finding another location where I could upload the 2000+ posts that had been produced in the original Blogware.

There are not many converters about, but finally have managed to get them all uploaded. I have tried to be true to the original file structure, but the file number system I could not replicate, so if you have old URLs, sorry. The posts are all there, you will just have to use the search function to find the one you are looking for.

My other site, IanPJ on Politics will remain active, and now that the EU has been recognised as a State by the UN, there is much work to do, and many words to write.

Thanks for the follows.

Oh, and of course please feel free to donate if you would like to see this stay up as a reference site. Many thanks.

Note: This site may go off air during the 2nd half of the month when it reaches its bandwidth limit. Upgrades have to be paid for unfortunately.

regards

Ian

The EU is to be given similar rights and powers to a fully fledged nation state in the United Nations general assembly.

Baroness Ashton, the EU foreign minister or “High Representative”, will be given a special seat alongside a new European UN ambassador with “the right to speak in a timely manner, the right of reply, the right to circulate documents, the right to make proposals and submit amendments (and) the right to raise points of order”.

Now, before the apologists come steaming in to say ah, but, its only like a state, not really a state, ponder this from Dan Hannan.

What constitutes a state? The accepted definition comes in Article One of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

The EU has qualified for decades on (a), (b) and (c). Now it has ticked the final box. The European Constitution Lisbon Treaty, which came into effect on 1 December 2009, gave the EU “legal personality”: that is, the right to sign treaties. Now, the EU has been formally recognised by the United Nations. To carry out the foreign policy of the new state, we have a European foreign service. Taken together, these things surely amount to “capacity to enter into relations with other states”.

Put bluntly, under international law, the UN has just recognised the EU in every way as a State in all but name.

Where now are the ‘guarantees’ of Nick Clegg at the election that he would never allow the EU to become a state, or the promises of Cameron that there would be no further transfers of power without a referendum.  Statehood for the EU is the ultimate transfer of power.

On 22nd June I twittered the following:

The big question now is: Should David Cameron call an In/Out Referendum on the EU? http://bit.ly/aSNhKQ

Well we DEMAND one now, followed immediately by the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 if its a NO vote.

Irrespective of the views of the UN, I, that is me, do not recognise that the EU has any legitimacy whilst it does not have the authority or permission of the 500m people who make up the member states and I will NEVER bow to it as a state.

I do not recognise its assumed authority, I do not recognise its ‘laws’, and from this point on, the only law I am prepared to recognise is English Common Law until such time that the people of this country in a free vote choose otherwise.

I know that I have been writing about this for years, trying in vain to warn people to the dangers that lie ahead, I only hope that now presented with proof positive you will finally do something….

“The EU is the old Soviet Union dressed in Western clothes” – Gorbachev
Footnote: In his Laudator Temporis Acti, Michael Gilleland blogs references legitimating our use of the famous passive periphrastic (“Carthago delenda est“) of Cato who thought that “Carthage must be destroyed.” Gilleland says further that “Unio Europaea delenda est” (the E.U. must be destroyed — to save Europe) is also fine and a good effort at applying the rules about the gerundive and the “to be” verb.

Powered by ScribeFire.

,