James Hall is the man charged with bringing about the identity cards scheme. If Blair and his bunch of lying, bullying, authoritarian fuckwits were not bad enough, the civil service, unelected and übercontrolling is worse; far worse. The latest evidence of the uncivil service’s arrogant contempt for our liberty is summarised by a piece of newspeak from this unspeakable bastard defending the thoroughly maleficent identity cards scheme.
ID cards could “help safeguard civil liberties,” says the man in charge of introducing them.
Full marks for effrontery and nil points for honesty and integrity. Talk about the new black being white. Sometimes a lie is so stupendous, so outrageous in its barefaced cheek, that you can’t quite believe anyone would have the sheer front to utter it. But, here we are, fuckwit in chief, Mr James Hall, tells us black really is white and we are expected to believe him.
The chief executive of the Identity and Passport Service, James Hall, said in a Downing St web chat that there would be “tight controls” to prevent abuse.
Yeah, right. Given the astounding piece of bollocks that went before it, nothing Mr Hall says is to be trusted.
But Mr Hall said the cards were likely to “reduce the number of times you have to reveal personal information”.
How, exactly? I’d love an answer to that one, but none seems forthcoming. The assertion is made and that’s it. fait accompli. Jesus Christ! If I hold politicians in utter contempt, I wonder just how much lower we can go before we reach the depths at which this loathsome bottom feeder exists.
Mr Hall said: “ I don’t think that ID cards will threaten personal privacy.”
“Rather the reverse; they will likely reduce the number of times you have to reveal personal information and increase the security of your personal data. “
“Maybe we should start arguing the case that ID Cards will reduce the threat of the surveillance society and help safeguard civil liberties,” he added, during the 70-minute moderated web chat.
My blood pressure is going to suffer, I can tell… Mr Hall “thinks” that ID cards won’t threaten personal privacy. Oh, well, that’s okay then. Go home and stop worrying chaps; Mr Hall says it’s all okay and he must be right; after all, we have his assertion and that must mean something, mustn’t it? As for arguing the case for ID cards reducing surveillance and safeguarding civil liberties, it would be funny if this was Rory Bremner. As it is, we have a civil servant telling us that systematic data mining will reduce the threat of, well, systematic data mining. As for these unelected turds talking of defending our liberties, I’m reminded of the thought that wolves would make excellent shepherds.
It isn’t about terrorism, mind:
But Mr Hall said one of his “frustrations was the common assumption that the National Identity Scheme is only about terrorism”.
Oh, no, wait a minute, it is about terrorism.
“But we do know that terrorists use multiple identities to avoid detection and anything we can do to make this more difficult must help”.
Predictable, or what? I wondered how long before the disingenuous blackguard would trot that one out. They always do.
Asked how he could ensure that information would not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals, he said it would be “security accredited to the highest standard.”
Sigh… The standard being? the evidence to support the assertion? Oh, that’s right, there isn’t any.
And he dismissed accusations that ministers were forcing through ID cards in the face of huge public opposition.
He said the government was elected with the ID cards as a manifesto commitment, Parliament voted for it, and the civil servants had to implement it.
“That’s what I and my team are committed to doing. Oh, and by the way the evidence is that the general public supports the scheme and are frustrated that it is taking so long,” he added.
And the evidence of this overwhelming public support (as opposed to indifference, ignorance and apathy)? A few out-of-date polls. I can’t say that I’ve come across any evidence of public frustration at the delay, either. So, what we have is Mr Hall making another of his assertions. As for the assertion that we voted for it; I most certainly didn’t and neither did the majority of those who voted at the last election. In fact – if we are to sully this discussion with anything as crude and dirty as facts; around 22% voted for it – presuming, of course, they even knew what was in the manifesto. So, Mr Hall is either a fool or a liar. Which is it, I wonder?
“The track record [of government IT systems] is nothing like as bad as you might conclude from the press.”
And my name is Mary Poppins.
How about taking a leaf from the odious Mr Hall’s book? Let’s have a serious discussion about the role of the uncivil service. Such as, just for starters, mind, making them accountable for their own fuckups? Now, there’s a thought.
No, I think it would be much more interesting to have a daily ‘Scumbag’ column. A new slice of vermin pie every day. What do you think?
“The track record [of government IT systems] is nothing like as bad as you might conclude from the press.â€
He’s right though. It’s actually much, much worse.
Mr Hall has all the right credentials, having worked for Accenture, the company responsible for public service IT cock ups going back decades, including the latest multi billion NHS fiasco
He must be that fuckhall I always seem to meet in the uncivil service.
Absolutely right, of course. But steady lad, you’ll be doing yourself an injury…
Of course the question is why does this Civil Servant regard it as his job to become involved in the politics?
As far as I’m concerned senior Civil Servants now are all political poodles and all of their pronouncements should be viewed as straight political propaganda. Any ‘information’ emanating from these publicly paid puppets should be treated with the gravest suspicion.
1984 by the back-door. We really have to do something about this.
Sometimes I feel we are closer to civil unrest, or worse, at the moment than we have been since the 1840’s.
So, Mr Hall is either a fool or a liar. Which is it, I wonder?
Dare I say ‘BOTH’.