Two Fingers To School Fingerprinting

I see that another school has opted to join Nanny's "Take Children's Fingerprints" scheme:

"Apparently my kids' school is introducing thumb-print readers in the dinner queue, as a means of checking who's entitled to a dinner and who isn't. The deal is that you send a cheque up front to pay for your children's dinners, and the school takes your child's thumb print. Wrong thumb print --> no dinner.

Why do I get the nasty feeling that this is the start of something really sinister, and a back-door way of getting everyone's dabs onto some sort of national database ? Why do I worry about the security of the data? Why do I worry what else about my children the State will be demanding?

Have I been living too long under ZaNu Labour?"

Source Wombleontour

Given Nanny's "ability" to lose data, I wonder quite how safe the database of prints really is?

I also wonder what Nanny will try to do with them, aside from merely checking to see if the kid has paid for his/her lunch?

Parents who are concerned about the fingerprinting of pupils in this manner should at the very least ask the school to prove that the database is secure, that the prints will only be used to verify lunch payments and to confirm that the prints are deleted as and when the kid stops having lunches.

The bottom line is that the state cannot be trusted, and the more information (seemingly harmless) that it collects about us the more it will be tempted to use it against us.

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

Knobheads of The Year - BAA II

Hearty congratulations to BAA for thoroughly screwing up the first day of operations of Terminal 5 Thiefrow (sorry I mean Heathrow).

Chaos reigned supreme yesterday as check ins, baggage belts and lifts failed. I understand that today is pretty shambolic too.

How ironic that I gave them the "Knobheads of The Year" Award yesterday!

Now let me see, what have I said on several occasions about BAA's competence...errmmm???

Oh yes, this is what I said:

"BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities."

The words "brewery", "piss up", "couldn't" and "organise" spring to mind...if someone could please arrange them in the correct order for me...

Suffice to say, given the dismal performance of BAA wrt terminal 5 Thiefrow, how on earth can they be trusted with our fingerprint data?

I am absolutely certain that BAA, in it current form, will cease to exist in the not too distant future. Let us hope that whatever rises from the ashes is an improvement.

BAA, well deserving knobheads of the year.

corporateresponsibility@baa.com

Knobheads of The Year - BAA

Today, in hour of the opening of Terminal 5 Thiefrow, I was going to award BAA my prestigious "Prats of The Week" Award, for their truly appalling scheme to fingerprint everyone (including domestic travellers) at Terminal 5 Thiefrow.

I now have to state publicly, and on the record, that this award would have been a grave mistake.

I formally and unreservedly apologise to BAA for almost besmirching their "fine" name, by thinking of giving them this award, and herewith and immediately withdraw the award.

What?!!!!!! I hear you ejaculate (can I say ejaculate here?).

Have you lost your cajones Ken?

Fear not loyal readers and anti Nannyers everywhere, I have not lost my cajones. BAA are in fact to be awarded my ultra prestigious "Knobheads of The Year" Award.

For why?

Well, it seems that their idiotic and badly thought through scheme to fingerprint everyone at Thiefrow Terminal 5, which is being investigated by the Information Commissioner's Orifice (ICO) as it is illegal, has been put on hold.

A spokesman for BAA slimed:

"Following a meeting with all relevant parties, including the Information Commissioner and the Border and Immigration Agency, the introduction of fingerprinting for domestic passengers and international passengers transferring on to domestic flights at Heathrow will be temporarily delayed."

BAA said that it will hold further talks with both the Information Commissioner and the Border and Immigration Agency before deciding its next move.

For the time being instead of leaving a fingerprint before passing through security, passengers will be photographed.

BE WARNED

This measure is only "on hold", BAA have spent a lot of money on installing the fingerprint scanners and are as keen as mustard to use them; they will try every trick in the book to implement this.

Here's why thier scheme is a load of old bollocks:

• BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities



• BAA are on the point of bankruptcy, what happens to this system when they collapse?



• The security services will of course take these details, no matter what BAA say



• This will add to the delays and frustrations of the hapless passengers who have to endure Heathrow's primitive facilities (note Terminal 5's design was buggered about and ruined, because BAA couldn't afford to build the original design)



• There is no need to fingerprint domestic passengers, this could be done purely for international and transit passengers at their point of arrival (even if there really is a security need for prints...which I doubt)



• The UK is the only country in the world that is going to fingerprint domestic passengers. Why?



• They will photograph everyone anyway, the prints are not needed

Anyhoo, in celebration of today's grand opening of Terminal 5 Thiefrow I am proud, nay honoured, to award BAA "Knobheads of The Year"

Feel free to tell them that they have won, via this email address: corporateresponsibility@baa.com

They had better hurry to pick up the award, given their appalling gearing levels BAA are not going to be around for much longer!

BAA well deserving "Knobheads of The Year"!

BAA Truly is Shite II

Hah!

Further to my article about BAA wanting to fingerprint its hapless passengers who have to endure the shopping mall that is Terminal 5 at Heathrow, it seems that even Nanny is worried that this is a step too far.

The Home Office denies ever having told BAA to use fingerprinting as an extra security measure, and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) says that the plan may be illegal.

The ICO believes that this is another step "on the road to a surveillance society", and has warned BAA that it might breach Data Protection laws.

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner said:

"Our concern is with the surveillance society. Is this another step on the road towards that kind of society? Why do they need fingerprints, and why four? Why are other airports able to operate with just photographs, and is this a proportionate response?"

Good for the ICO!

The ICO have issued the following advice to passenger, when asked for fingerprints passengers should demand to know why they were being taken, what would be done with them and how long would they be kept.

Make the system inoperable by sheer bloody mindedness.

Vent your spleen on BAA via this link corporateresponsibility@baa.com

BAA Truly is Shite

Congratulations to BAA (Britsh Airports Authority) for out "Nannying" Nanny.

How has this historic achievement been effectuated? (Can I say effectuated on a public website?)

I shall tell you...

When Terminal 5 at Heathrow opens on 27th March, all passengers passing through its portals (including British citizens flying on domestic flights) will be fingerprinted and photographed.

For why?

BAA claim that it's because the design of the building mixes transit, international and domestic travellers all in one huge shopping mall.

BAA also claim that the photos and prints will be destroyed after 24 hours, and will not be given to the security services.

Well, here's why this is a load of old bollocks:

• BAA are shite, and regularly manage to screw up simple tasks such as baggage handling. The effective, efficient and secure control of personal data such as prints is way beyond their capabilities



• BAA are on the point of bankruptcy, what happens to this system when they collapse?



• The security services will of course take these details, no matter what BAA say



• This will add to the delays and frustrations of the hapless passengers who have to endure Heathrow's primitive facilities (note Terminal 5's design was buggered about and ruined, because BAA couldn't afford to build the original design)



• There is no need to fingerprint domestic passengers, this could be done purely for international and transit passengers at their point of arrival (even if there really is a security need for prints...which I doubt)



• The UK is the only country in the world that is going to fingerprint domestic passengers. Why?

Just to put this truly in perspective, I have travelled to Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang; I have never had to give my fingerprints at these airports.

All in all BAA are taking actions way above their lowly station in life.

I suggest that people bugger up their new system by spraying plastic skin on their fingers, thus making the system inoperable.

Vent your spleen on BAA via this link corporateresponsibility@baa.com

The Wrong Arm of The Law

I have to say that even my cynical, cold calculating mind was somewhat gobsmacked when I read this story.

It shows just how paranoid the Nanny state has become, and the dangers that we now all face from our own government.

Darren Nixon, a 28 year old mechanic from Stoke on Trent, was listening to his MP3 player whilst waiting for a bus.

Nanny has so managed to instill a sense of fear and panic in some of our fellow citizens that a somewhat hysterical female passer-by saw what she thought was a gun, it was of course the MP3 player.

She called the police, who duly tracked Mr Nixon using CCTV. When he got off the bus home from work he was surrounded by a firearms unit, who bundled him into a van.

He was then put in a cell and his fingerprints, DNA and mugshots were taken before he was released.

I would venture to suggest that no more than 30 seconds after arresting him should police have worked out that the "gun" was in fact an MP3 player.

Therefore why did they insist on taking his photo and DNA details?

It should be noted that Mr Nixon's DNA, picture and prints will be forever held on Nanny's nasty little database; leaving him with a "criminal" record.

Nanny's police will also keep on record that he was arrested on suspicion of a firearms offence.

How is that right?

Mr Nixon said:

"It was unreal – I had a completely clean record before this and have always been a law-abiding citizen.

As I got closer, I could see that two of the cops had guns. My heart was racing a mile a minute. One of them was hiding behind a car door, looking down his sight at me, and the other was shouting orders and pointing a gun at me.

I turned the music off and they were telling me to put my hands up in the air."

A spokesman for Nanny said:

"An operation was put in place and a man matching the description was detained."

No hint of an apology, or explanation as to why Nanny will keep his DNA etc on her database.

Yes, the police were right to check out the 999 call. However, as already noted, within 30 seconds of arresting Mr Nixon they could verify he was not in possession of a weapon.

Why did they proceed with taking his prints, photo and DNA?

Something is very seriously wrong in Britain now.

The state should be afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the state!

Big Brother

Why is Nanny actively encouraging to spend £20,000 or more on fingerprinting systems?

Over 6,000 pupils have had their prints taken throughout the country.

Every week another 20 schools join the list.

How safe is this data?

What will Nanny do with it?

Plod

Congratulations to Nanny's state police force, for once again demonstrating how effectively (I am sorry, I meant to say "ineffectively") they prioritise their work.

Derbyshire police, who I believe we have featured on this site before, have clearly solved all their mainstream criminal investigations (eg assault, muggings and robbery); as they have found the time and resources to arrest a grandmother, for stealing a £60 football which landed in her back garden.

Angela Hickling, 56, from Heanor, was arrested on suspicion of theft over the lost ball.

It seems that her neighbour Christopher Salisbury reported her to the police, when he claimed that his sons had kicked the ball into her garden and she refused to return it.

Mrs Hickling told the BBC police arrived at her home in August, and she told officers she had looked for the ball but could not find it.

The police then took time to search her home!

Can you believe this?????

It's a football for fark's sake!!!!

She was then taken into custody, where she underwent a 15 minute interview and had her fingerprints and DNA sample taken.

I assume that Derbyshire has no other crime whatsoever then????

Needless to say, the Crown Prosecution Service has said it is not pursuing the case.

Derbyshire Police said that the complaint, by Mrs Hickling and her husband John, was being investigated and until that inquiry had been completed they would not comment further.

Well done lads.

A Nice Little Legacy

As our "beloved" Prime Minister gears up to leave office, you can see how happy he looks these days, he is planning to leave us with a nice little something to remember him by.

Bliary said the other day that he had "got it wrong" when he first came to office thinking that all you had to do was to throw money (our money not his) at social problems, to sort them out. He claims to have had a revelation that some people, no matter how much you "invest" (he means spend, but can't bring himself to use that "unword"), will still behave like animals. Therefore his "solution" is to apply the stick as well as the carrot.

A nice idea, unfortunately as with all of Bliary's "ideas" they are not thought through; and usually negatively impact the decent law abiding citizen, rather than the detritus of society.

Coming soon to your town, here are a few of Bliary's new "initiatives":

• Tesco jails, short-term "jails" are planned for supermarkets in order to ease the burden on police. Seemingly Nanny is already discussing the construction of a jail inside Selfridges. I wonder if they will allow you to take a Selfridges bag with you when you leave jail? The Metropolitan Police is interested in placing units in other stores, and is planning custody units in every London borough.



• Nanny intends to expand police powers to take fingerprints, DNA and other samples from offenders and store them on national databases. The list of crimes that will give the police the right to take DNA etc will include; speeding, failing to wear a seat belt, allowing dogs to foul the footpath and dropping litter.
  
  Nice eh?
  
  Fortunately we have 100% confidence in the integrity/security of Nanny's databases. We do, don't we?



• Police will be allowed to question suspects after they have been charged. Isn't this kind of back to front? After all, if the police charge you, surely they have obtained enough evidence already?



• Nanny also wants to fingerprint people over 10 accused of nonrecordable offences, crimes for which an offender cannot be imprisoned.

A nice little legacy wouldn't you agree?

Nanny's Elderly Database

Ah the joys of living in Nu Labour Britain, where Nanny ceaselessly works for the good of the people; even if they don't like what she does, or how she does it.

You may recall the ongoing hoo haa over Nanny's ID card scheme. In Nanny's world, so she says, ID cards will protect us from nasty people who have evil intentions etc etc.

The arguments against the scheme are pretty clear cut, and can be re-read here Top Ten Reasons Why ID Cards Are Bollocks.

Anyhoo, Nanny is not really in a listening mode; she is ignoring those arguments, and is pressing ahead anyway with her plan to have us all registered on her massive database.

Now, her cunning plan to get us all registered was really rather simple; as from 2009 everyone who applies for a passport will have a compulsory ID card issued to them. This means that fingerprints etc will have to be taken.

Subtle compulsion like that is so brilliant isn't it?

However, there is a minor flaw in Nanny's scheme.

Can anyone tell me what that is?

Yes, that's right, not everyone in the country will be applying for a passport. In fact there is one very large section of the population, who are not expected to be applying en masse for passport.

The elderly.

So, what is Nanny to do?

Simple, she will order all pensioners to attend special centres where they will be forced to give their fingerprints, biometric scans of their face and iris and personal details to the authorities.

Those of you are over 80, may well recall fighting against such oppression a few decades ago...funny how we have allowed this to happen here.

Those who refuse will face fines of up to £2500.

Even better news for the elderly is that, on top of their already prohibitively expensive council tax, they will be expected to pay for the privilege of being registered in Nanny's database (about £93).

Brilliant!

A whole new form of poll tax will be imposed on us, on top of council tax, without anyone actually noticing or protesting!

Don't you just love Nu labour?

Big Brother

You know you are in a police state, when children are having their fingerprints taken without having committed a crime.

Holland Park School recently proudly became one of the UK's first school to fingerprint every pupil, in an effort to monitor their attendance.

It plans to build a database so that children can be identified, and their time of arrival recorded in a "Live Register", by pressing a finger on an electronic pad.

Children who do not press the pad will be recorded as absent.

Here is a page from the school's website explaining the system (it also has a photo of the fingerprint "gizmo"), Holland Park School.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in which Holland Park School is located, denied that the database is being developed as part of Nanny's proposal to build a Children's Index, a national database of under 12s.

Quote:

"All data is retained in the school

as part of our current database

and will not be shared with any third party."

So that's alright then!

Am I the only person who suspects that the privacy controls over this "live register" will be open to abuse and interference by Nanny and others?

The issue with all of these "improved" IT methods of monitoring us etc is that there is no way to trust the current government, or governments in the future, not to misuse the data being collected.

As has always been the case, the less the state knows about the private lives of it honest citizens, the better.

Why not drop the council a note expressing your views on the subject?

Here is their email address information.services@rbkc.gov.uk

Here is the list of concillors, with their email addresses, Councillors.

You're Nicked

Given the amount of crime that people in Britain now have endure, such as mugging, assault and robbery, it is heartening to know that Nanny's police are doing everything they can to tackle this upswell.

Therefore it should come as no surprise to learn that the Swinton police reacted promptly, and sternly, to a recent "crime" allegedly committed by Codie Scott (14 years old) and arrested her.

Her crime?

Refusing to sit with a group of Asian students, because some of them didn't speak English.

Apparently, expecting one's fellow classmates to speak English is now a race crime.

Codie Stott's family claim that after the arrest, she was forced to spend over 3 hours in a police cell.

Codie attends Harrop Fold High School, in Worsley Greater Manchester (oddly enough in the same local education authority where a 10 year old boy was prosecuted earlier this year for calling a schoolfriend racist names in the playground).

Codie was attending a GCSE science class and was allocated a group to sit with, as she had missed the earlier day due to a hospital appointment.

Codie said:

"She (the teacher) said I had to sit there with five Asian pupils.

Only one could speak English,

so she had to tell that one what to do

so she could explain in their language.

Then she sat me with them and said 'Discuss'."

According to Codie, the 5 pupils then began talking in a language she didn't understand, thought to be Urdu, so she went to speak to the teacher.

Quote:

"I said 'I'm not being funny, but can I change groups

because I can't understand them?'

But she started shouting and screaming,

saying 'It's racist, you're going to get done by the police'."

Codie said she went outside to calm down where another teacher found her and, after speaking to her class teacher, put her in isolation for the rest of the day.

The teacher then made a complaint to a police officer based full-time at the school (since when do the police get based full time at schools?).

Over a week after the incident on September 26, she was taken to Swinton police station and placed under arrest.

Quote:

"They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery,

and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken.

It was awful."

School insiders have reportedly said that at least three of the students Codie refused to sit with had recently arrived in this country, and spoke little English.

The school is now investigating exactly what happened, before deciding what action to take against Codie.

Er shouldn't they have done that before getting her arrested?

One would have thought that they had done enough to punish her already!

Headteacher Dr Antony Edkins said:

"We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude

towards people and pupils of all ethnic backgrounds

and will not stand for racism in any form."

Harrop Fold had the worst GCSE results in the entire Salford LEA last year. Only 15% of pupils achieved five good passes, including English and maths, a third of the national average.

Commonsense dictates that non English speaking pupils should not be placed in mainstream education (until they speak English), thereby bringing down the performance of those who do speak English.

Commonsense does not function in Nanny's Britain.

A well run school, with mature and sensible teachers, would have dealt with this matter internally. Bringing in the police shows that they have lost control, and care only about form rather than substance.

We are being cowed into submission by the state, and the fear that whatever we say or do will cause us to be reported by our fellow citizens and to be arrested by Nanny's police.

The police state is alive and well!

Man Arrested For Scaring Dog

Oh dear what a funny old country we live in, I didn't think that I would be writing this headline I must admit.

It seems that Nanny has taken her love of her furry little friends one step further.

Frank Cook, a farmer of 77 years of age, saw a dog worrying his lambs and decided to scare it off by firing his shotgun (note he did not aim the gun at the dog).

Needless to say Nanny was not best pleased, and sent six (yes six!) police cars to arrest him.

Mr Cook was in fact well within his rights to kill the dog. However, he simply fired from behind it, and then apologised to his neighbour who owned said mutt. Mr Cook even promised to pay any vet bill for the misunderstanding.

Needless to say, the neighbour having been well indoctrinated by Nanny, decided to create a fuss and called the police.

Six of Nanny's finest police vehicles arrived containing a dozen armed officers, some of who then drew their weapons.

Mr Cook was then arrested, put into handcuffs, placed in the backseat of a squad car and frogmarched (or would it be frogdriven?) to jail where he was photographed, and had his DNA and fingerprints taken.

Needless to say Mr Cook was eventually released released without charge.

Mr Cook was a tad pissed off at his treatment and said:

"I am a law-abiding citizen and did not deserve this treatment.

I couldn't believe all this had happened on a nice spring day.

I was standing out on the lawn with my grandchildren, when this armed flotilla of police cars arrived.

Our jaws just dropped.

To my utter astonishment, no fewer than six police cars drove up.

Armed policemen stepped out of the front and stood with their guns at the ready.

Then three men came across the lawn.

I was approached by one of them and asked whether I was Frank Cook.

On assuring them I was, I was then cautioned and arrested.

I protested and told them not be silly and to send the armed men back into their cars and then I would talk to them.

They would not listen.

Instead, one officer put an arm lock on me, frogmarched me to a car and pushed me in.

They told me they were arresting me for criminal damage."

Mid Bedfordshire Tory MP Nadine Dorries, who has taken up Mr Cook's case, said:

"This is a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I cannot believe that something like this can happen in England."

Given the slack jaw morons running this country, I can well believe that it has happened.

Nuff said!

Blears Blunders

Nanny has a rather idiosyncratic approach to her current anti terrorist operations at the moment.

On the one hand she advocates strong measures, such as shooting unarmed Brazilians, then on the other hand her friends confuse matters by advocating a softly softly approach.

Hazel "I'm In Charge" Blears added to the confusion, by speaking about Nanny's policy of stop and search.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme, Blears said that she did not endorse the use of racial profiling and said that stop-and-search powers should not be used in a "discriminatory fashion".

She said:

"Picking up people on the basis that they are Muslim is never going to get the result you want."

Now that is all very well, if the bombers were multi faith. However, as far as can be seen, the current threat comes from those Muslims who reject the concept of democracy.

Is it not therefore more logical for the police, given the fact that their resources are overstretched, to focus their efforts on that area that is perceived to be the highest threat?

However, Blears is not all softly softly; she is also quoted as saying:

"When we get biometric identity cards we will actually know the person standing in front of us is the person they say they are.

That technology will help us immeasurably in having a much bigger grip on people coming in and going out".

Which is of course utter nonsense, as the bombers were home grown and would have had id cards anyway.

Given Nanny's rather unhelpful and confusing messages, I have reproduced a helpful guide for those of you looking to minimise your risk when travelling around the UK.

The USA's Department of Homeland Security issued a handout in January 2004, to border authorities, which identifies certain key "suicide bomber indicators".

• The potential bombers may have a shaved head or short haircut. A short haircut, or recently shaved beard or moustache, may be evident by differences in skin complexion on the head or face



• They may smell of herbal or flower water (most likely flower water), as they may have sprayed perfume on themselves, their clothing, and weapons to prepare for paradise



• They may have been seen praying fervently, giving the appearance of whispering to someone



• Suicide bombers have raised their hands in the air, just before the explosion, to prevent the destruction of their fingerprints



• They have also placed identity cards in their shoes, because they want to be praised and recognised as martyrs

Be lucky!