Privacy goes for a burton

[Snoopy]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4969312.ece

According to this report in the Times the Government have plans to make anyone who purchases a Pay As You Go mobile 'phone provide proof of identity to add to their proposed data base of mobile telephone users.

Do they really think this sort of thing is what anyone voted for?

[Pastis]

No. Typically naive thinking...
 

The pay-as-you-go phones are popular with criminals and terrorists because their anonymity shields their activities from the authorities.

So, the criminal and terrorist element are going to 'fess up, come clean, and show real ID? 

But they are also used by thousands of law-abiding citizens who wish to communicate in private.

Another nail in the coffin of personal freedom 

[Snoopy]

Well my PAYG has served me well for seven years or so. Maybe I'll replace it before they get this on the statute book and give them the finger.

[Pastis]

I have two now on PAYG 

I just couldn't bear to throw the old one away; it has a handy torch light 
The newer one, although it's now PAYG I've been topping online with a debit card so they would probably have my number if they chose to pry 

[Snoopy]

I have two now on PAYG 

I just couldn't bear to throw the old one away; it has a handy torch light 
The newer one, although it's now PAYG I've been topping online with a debit card so they would probably have my number if they chose to pry 

ASDA are the cheapest PAYG providers by miles. You can top up on line or in store when you get your groceries.
They do a SIM card for 50p to convert any phone to their pricing. Worth a look.

Meanwhile Minor is shouting for a mobile of his own when he goes to High School ~ he can have my old one.

[Pastis]

One of my nephews wanted my old one; fair enough, said I, when it comes to your birthday etc etc.

Come the birthday... Nah, it's out of date now    They now have ones which now have far more bells and whistles than mine.

Sister has done something novel; she has a ringtone deliberately designed to annoy and embarrass them 

Ooops... off topic in the Commons 

[Snoopy]

SWMBO complained she could never hear her ringtone so I changed it to play the Can Can. Never seen anyone answer a mobile in a supermarket so fast in my life. 


Commons? There's only the two of us here. Keep quiet and nobody will notice.

[Pastis]

  

I think sister's is "I'm in the mood for dancing" by the Nolans     

She says it makes her laugh and winds the boys up into complete embarrassment within seconds. She calls it a win / win situation!

[Barman]

It is perfectly logical… 

Because a terrorist used a PAYG ‘phone everybody that uses a PAYG phone is a terrorist…

In the same way that because somebody was killed by a speeding motorist everybody that drives at 41mph in a 40mph limit is a murderer…

Leg Iron calls it the Andy Pandy Logic…

I've always been mystified by the drink limit for drivers. It's 80 mg. What the hell does that mean? How would I go about checking myself to see if I'm under or over that figure? Let's be honest here - how many people do you suppose have the slightest idea what that figure really means? If you were to say 'two pints', it's equally meaningless. Two pints of 3% beer, two of 5%, two pints of 'Jock McSquirty's Bowel Purger 'at 11%, or two pints of Trappist-brewed 'God's Smiting Ale' (aka Chimay, I forget which colour) at anything up to 14%? Incidentally, that Trappist vow of silence is rubbish. There's no vow. I've tried that stuff and I'm certain the reason they don't speak is because they've forgotten how.

Now it appears that 'most people' think the limit should be cut from 80 to 50 mg. To those asked, both figures are meaningless. So they approve of changing one regulation they don't understand to another regulation they don't understand. I expect most responses were a shrug and an 'If you say so'.

Well, if 'most people' say something the Government intended to do anyway, then they'll do it. If most people had said 'No, get lost, raise it or scrap it' then it would have been lowered for our own good anyway. It might not even have been reported.

The case for the Righteous hinges on polls like that, and on statements like these:

Also, 17 per cent of those surveyed admitted that they had driven home after a night out knowing they were probably over the limit.
And 20 per cent said they had got behind the wheel the morning after thinking their blood-alcohol levels were over the limit.

'knowing they were probably' - that's an interesting bit of logic. I know, but only maybe. They didn't know whether they were over the limit or not because they don't understand the limit, and if they did they have no way of measuring it. And yet the phrasing suggests that they must have been blasted, barely able to see, as talkative as a Trappist and driving at 100 mph along back streets.

The other 20 percent, who said they thought they were over the limit next morning, are idiots. If they were, they'd know, They'd feel drunk. It's a different feeling from hungover. And yet that line conjures images of commuters weaving through traffic jams on two wheels, while spilling not a drop from the vodka bottle they swig from as they drive. Look for such suggestion in news reports. It's not hard to spot once you get the hang of it.

Alcohol's effects depend on much more than the 80 mg or 50 mg figure. Those who imbibe often can drink far more than those who have the odd shandy, without being dangerously affected. Some might be safe to drive after five pints, some might be a menace after one. Rather than a fixed limit which doesn't work for everyone, what we need is a sobriety test. A test of capability, not of blood. One that does not require handing over your DNA, which will be stored in one of the Government database storage areas (currently on public transport) whether you are guilty or not.

This government's policies are based on a population of clones, and not very bright clones at that. They cannot recognise that people don't come out of a sausage factory as identical units, no matter how hard they try to make it happen.

The Righteous cannot cope with it at all. They can tell us apart by whether we are dependent on them or not, and that's it. All dependents are the same, all non-dependents are the same. All non-dependents are merely dependents in waiting, all they need to do is figure out how to make it so. There are no differences between individuals in the Righteous mind. Andy Pandy logic works for them.

For those who don't remember, Andy Pandy was a character on a children's show. His friends were Looby Loo and Teddy, and it's not on air any more because they all slept together in a box. Anyway, 'Andy Pandy logic' stems from an episode where they played hide and seek. Ted hid by covering his eyes. His logic was 'if I can't see Andy, then Andy can't see me'. This is the logic of the Righteous.

So if one maniac has a gun, anyone with a gun is a maniac. If someone commits a crime with a knife, anyone with a knife is a criminal. If drug dealers carry large amounts of cash, anyone with a large amount of cash is a drug dealer. If racists don't like immigrants, then anyone who objects to immigration is a racist. And so on.

Therefore, if one person is drunk at 80 mg, then everyone is.

What's worrying is that the Righteous drones really believe they are correct in this. They genuinely believe, just like that stuffed teddy bear, that covering their eyes means they can't be seen. That any connection immediately implies the converse in all situations, always. They see one white man acting racist, and immediately assume that all white men are racists. Men commit rape so all men are rapists.

When the consistency and simplicity of their style is considered, it shows that either they are terminally stupid or extremely clever. The idiotic logic works on so many people, so many times, it is easy to understand why they keep using it.

But then, to assess all the Righteous as stupid or clever is to fall into the trap they have set for us. The trap so many have fallen into: all smokers are evil, all drinkers will drive drunk, all fat people will cost the taxpayer, all Scots are taking English taxes, all Welsh demand Welsh road signs, all Romanians are child traffickers, all Jamaicans are Yardies, all Nigerians are scammers... the logic comes from the Righteous and it is stupid, but they have used it so often it has become part of many people's psyche. I've met people who will curl their lip at anyone who says they are going outside for a smoke. The smoker is filthy and evil even though the lip-curler has never even seen that person smoke. All smokers are devils who want to kill non-smokers with the fumes from Beelzebub's arse. That's how Andy Pandy logic works.

It's not just the Righteous argument that pervades the country. It's the very style of that argument. Unconsciously, people mimic the Righteous and generalise about whole populations on the basis of, often, a single incident. This is where the Righteous are winning. Not in their stupid laws and idiotic arguments, but in changing the very face of logic itself. They have us thinking like them. Unless we fight it, we soon won't be thinking at all.

Not all the Righteous are stupid. The ones we meet day to day are perfectly thick, but they have to be. If they had enough intelligence to question what they were doing, they'd realise they've been had. There are intelligent Righteous but we won't see them often, if at all. Like the Queen at the centre of the ants' nest, they send the stupid ones out to do the dirty work and take the flak while they stay hidden and spawn more drones. They know the logic is wrong. They know it's stupid but they depend on their drones being more stupid, and they know that continual repeating of the stupid makes it eventually accepted. Why? Because, for the most part, people are too lazy to think and are happy to let someone else do it for them.

There is one generalisation it is safe to make. All Righteous are dangerous. Their Andy Pandy logic is taking hold. It will soon be applied to those Iraqi interpreters the Government don't want to let in, because of this case. That case can also be used in the war against photographers. Andy Pandy logic will be used to censor the Internet because of this one. Any single case can be used as proof that anyone engaged in that activity is doing it for criminal reasons.

Poor Andy must be turning in his grave.

[Snoopy]

I have, as you know, run several pubs over the years, I have worked in industry at both "shop floor" and "management" level and have been involved, as an elected official, with a Trade Union. If I took the above to any one of the places that I have worked in the vast majority would agree with it wholeheartedly. Why then do we still end up with these tossers being voted into office?

Because we have no choice. All politicians are the same.

Not an original idea I know but the mere desire to stand for election should automatically rule the individual out on the grounds of insanity.

[Barman]

I have, as you know, run several pubs over the years, I have worked in industry at both "shop floor" and "management" level and have been involved, as an elected official, with a Trade Union. If I took the above to any one of the places that I have worked in the vast majority would agree with it wholeheartedly. Why then do we still end up with these tossers being voted into office?

Because we have no choice. All politicians are the same.

Not an original idea I know but the mere desire to stand for election should automatically rule the individual out on the grounds of insanity.

Indeed... a revolution is needed...

[Grumpmeister]

I have a hunch that this is going to be one of many crackpot 'security measures' that is going to be announced by this bunch of morons in the hope that we will give in and give them their database and 42 day detentions just to keep them quiet.

[Uncle Mort]

Of course under this scheme if you have your mobile stolen, lose it or even change it you will have advise the 'authorities' otherwise you will be the one that the police 'visit' should anything untoward register on the system with your old phone.