Wednesday, 7 November 2018

The UK, is it worth it?


 The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long,
 building and  improving his house and laying up supplies for the
 winter.  The grasshopper  thinks he's a fool, and laughs and
dances and plays the summer away.  Come  winter, the squirrel is
 warm and well fed.  The shivering grasshopper has no  food or
 shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

                        THE END

                        THE U.K. VERSION:
The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building
 his house and laying up supplies for the winter.  The grasshopper
 thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
 Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.

A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference
 and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well
fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving.
 The BBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper;
 with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a
table laden with food.

The British press inform people that they should be ashamed that in a country
 of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so, while others
 have plenty.  The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper
 Council of GB demonstrate in front of the squirrel's house.
  The BBC, interrupting a cultural festival special from Notting Hill with
breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing "We Shall Overcome".

Ken Livingstone rants in an interview with Trevor McDonald that the squirrel  got rich
off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel
 to make him pay his "fair share" and increases the charge for squirrels to enter
 inner London.

In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic
Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of
 the summer.  The squirrel's taxes are reassessed.  He is taken to court and
 fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders for the work he was doing on
 his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper
 did not want to work.  The grasshopper is provided with a council house, financial
 aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi  firm to ensure he can be
socially mobile.  The squirrel's food is seized and redistributed to the more
needy members of society, in this case the grasshopper.  Without enough money
 to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the
 squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home.

The local authority takes over his old home and utilize it as a temporary home
 for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Britain as they had
to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival they tried to blow up the
 airport because of Britain's apparent love of dogs.  The cats had been arrested
 for the international offense of hijacking and attempted bombing but were
immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon
whilst in custody.  Initial moves to then return them to their own country were
 abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice. The cats
devise and start a scam to obtain money from people's credit cards.

A Panorama special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel's
 food, though spring is still months away, while the council house he is in, crumbles
 around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain

the house.  He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is
blamed for the grasshopper's drug 'illness'.  The cats seek recompense in the
 British courts for their treatment since arrival in UK.

The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get
money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because
 he has been in custody for a few weeks.  He is placed in the care of the
probation service to monitor and supervise him. Within a few weeks he has
 killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery.

A commission of inquiry, that will eventually cost £10,000,000 and state the
 obvious, is set up.  Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation
 scheme for grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers
is increased.  The asylum-seeking cats are praised by the government for enriching
 Britain's multicultural diversity and dogs are criticized by the government for failing
 to befriend the cats.

The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose. The usual sections of the press blame
 it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair
arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of
prison.   They call for the resignation of a minister.  The cats are paid a
million pounds each because their rights were infringed when the government
failed to inform them there were mice in the United Kingdom.
The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing,
the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on
 their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and
order and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a
shortfall in government funds.

                        THE END

Tuesday, 11 September 2018

Alok Sharma - Tory shill.

Dear Alok Sharma

Regarding your reply sent 6 September.

"..set out the governments position."

That is truly the most offensive thing you could say to someone who voted for you.

Your job is not to represent the Government to your voters, but to represent your voters to the government. You have failed completely in this.

And what else you have done that is offensive is failed to hold the police, and those in positions of power to account for their illegal actions. Which I will continue to send to you.
What's truly offensive is your failure to support the right of free speech.
What's truly offensive is your failure to support the right to free movement.
What's truly offensive is your failure to support the right to privacy.
What's truly offensive is your failure to represent.
What's truly offensive is that the only thing keeping you and the other MP's in power is the utter and complete disaster that the Her Majesty's official opposition is. The lesser of two evils is not a good thing.

So do not lie when I try to hold you to account by using loaded words like offensive, especially when you are derelict in your duty for which you were elected.

Again with disgust, disdain, and anger.
Your former voter
Ashley Black

Monday, 2 October 2017

An open letter to W3C

Following below is my far more terse letter to the W3C for their stance on DRM.

Dear W3C

Fuck you, you fucking cunts.

Ashley Black

Tuesday, 19 September 2017

Photobucket sucks.

Sorry for all the broken images on this blog, but Photobucket, without warning, are now demanding $400to display the images. I will never pay them now for anything. This means I need to host the pictures elsewhere, and fix all the broken links.

If they had made a reasonable price, I might have paid, but $40 a month is many times more expensive than just renting a VPS to host the images from. Utter madness from a stupid company.

For now, if you need to see the images, use chrome and the add-on which will get round the problem for now.

Also, sign the petition while you are at it please.

Wednesday, 2 August 2017

First they came...

First they came for the kinksters - and I did not stand up - for I am not a pervert..

Then they came for the religious intolerance - and I did not stand up - for I am not a terrorist..

Then they came for the cyber-criminals - and I did not stand up - for I am not a hacker..

Then they came for the privacy campaigners - and I did not stand up - for I have nothing to hide..

Then they came for me - and there was no-one left, to stand up for me.

(with apologies)

Friday, 23 December 2016

Dear friends

The Investigatory Powers Act will become law at the end of 2016.  This piece of legislation allows many government agency access to your browsing history without warrant. It is a massive invasion of privacy by the state into citizens lives.

Please write your MP, tell them they have lost a vote. The easiest way is via the website

Below is my open letter to my MP. I am not a wordsmith, and that should be obvious, but do write your MP, and ask why they are exempt for this, and if you can make the point "An act which effectively provides a police "tail" on all members of the public at all times while they surf the internet, just in case it may be useful in the future, is not acceptable in a democracy, only in a police state."

Also, Sign the petition at

My letter to my MP:

Dear Alok Sharma 

Thank you for the replies to my previous letters, and to my email regarding signing of the petition to have the Investigatory Powers Act repealed.

This is an open letter, and I will be publishing it on-line as well as any responses to it.

I am writing over my deep concerns about the Investigatory Powers Act, and its brazen disregard for privacy. As such I have signed the petition to have this act repealed. I have also read the current government response (included at the bottom of this letter) and I find it completely inadequate. Anything other than the complete repeal of this Act is now and always will be inadequate. I cannot vote for anyone who does not vow to repeal this Act, and I have been and will continue to advise all I can to do the same.

Since signing, receiving the home office response, and your reply, it seems the loss in the Court of Justice of the European Union may force some revision, but for me it too late, and not enough. Mass data retention of innocent people is wrong. And if you believe otherwise, then you should not be my MP, nor anyone else's. 

Furthermore I oppose this as it assumes guilt, and collects unprecedented amounts of information about the electorate that may all be legal but when leaked,say by the corrupt present in any organisation, could still damage the individual.
Therefore the go to phrase of "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" as used repeatedly by your predecessor Martin Salter, and by the current administration is a misleading lie at best, but I consider it a deliberate deception.  As Edward Snowden has said "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." 

Also, from Tony Blair onwards it seems that Arn Rand was correct when she said “There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” and an act which effectively provides a police "tail" on all members of the public at all times while they surf the internet, just in case it may be useful in the future, is not acceptable in a democracy, only in a police state.

But if you truly have nothing to hide and agree with this intrusive Act, then please provide me with your entire list of websites visited since you were first on the Internet. And do the same Mrs. May's as well, in the interests of full transparency, because if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. 

"The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" - Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

This Act is my line, I will not back down, I will never stop campaigning against it. I will go dark, and my ISP will see nothing. I will advise everyone I can on how to continue to enjoy the internet with out fear of it being leaked or used against them. The supposed targets for this act know more than I do on how to be untracked, and it is trivial for me to do so! Everything about this law, the "safeguards", and they way it was passed make me ashamed of this so called free and open democracy. 

"If you criminalize privacy, then only criminals will have privacy." - Unknown

Finally, I would like to respond to some aspects of the Current response to the petition.

"The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage. "
An outright lie. Scrap it was the main response, and that was not listened to at all.

"The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act."
An outright lie. The act would not exist if this was remotely true. Also ISP's are hacked all the time, and you want them to store private information. You want corruptible people to have access to this? You want all those government agency's to have access to this? Privacy was shoe horned in at the end (Badly) in an effort to look like they cared. 

"Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers. "
Sure they do, except they will never be used, much like current legislation is not used to prosecute those in public office when they break the law. So not a lie, but as good one.

In summary, repeal this Act, because its utterly useless for its described purpose, because the criminals for which it is intended can bypass it with ease, and the Act it is, in reality, an instrument of state control of a free and open internet. 

Yours Sincerely
Ashley Black

Home office response to the petition as on the 30th November 2016

The Investigatory Powers Act dramatically increases transparency around the use of investigatory powers. It protects both privacy and security and underwent unprecedented scrutiny before becoming law.

The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.

The Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements.

The Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.

Second, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.

Third, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.

Public scrutiny

The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage. 
The Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed. 

The Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material.

A revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time.

The Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes.

Privacy and Oversight

The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy.

A new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the protection of privacy is at the heart of this legislation. This privacy clause ensures that in each and every case a public authority must consider whether less intrusive means could be used, and must have regard to human rights and the particular sensitivity of certain information. The powers can only be exercised when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and the Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers. 
The safeguards in this Act reflect the UK’s international reputation for protecting human rights. The unprecedented transparency and the new safeguards – including the ‘double lock’ for the most sensitive powers – set an international benchmark for how the law can protect both privacy and security. 

Home Office

Monday, 28 November 2016

Don't know what your feelings are on having your internet history accessible to everyone below, but please share and sign this petition and write to your MP via . Google "Investigatory Powers Act" for much more info...

Please sign and share...

Metropolitan police force
City of London police force
Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Security Service
Secret Intelligence Service
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
NHS trusts and foundation trusts in England that provide ambulance services
Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gambling Commission
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
Information Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office

Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust