We live in a corrupted system. The way to tackle corruption is to first acknowledge it exists. Only then is it possible to come up with ways of dealing with it, but don't make the mistake of believing the system can or will uncorrupt itself.

Public Consultation on Digital IDs

4 February 2023

The UK Government simply doesn’t not, and will not give up on the plan to implement a digital ID system that is planned to ultimately end up part of a global digital health and CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) system.

On the 4th January 2023 they published an “open consultation” on the Government website titled:

Consultation on draft legislation to support identity verification

This “consultation” is to run from 4th January 2023 to 1st March 2023. Naturally the Government doesn’t seem to be doing much to promote this consultation. We know if the Government wants you to know something they have the means to make that happen, so the fact that this is something you’d need to know about to then go and find it suggests they actually don’t want you to know about it.

Searching for anything about it on the BBC website for example brings up nothing in the few searches I tried. A search for the term “gov.uk one login” returns no relevant results at all. A search for the term “identity verification digital id” also returns no relevant results, and neither does searching for the term “public consultation digital id”. It’s as if the BBC have never heard of it, or if they have, they don’t consider it newsworthy.

Something the BBC does consider newsworthy is that “Bill Gates would rather pay for vaccines than travel to Mars”.

Yes, it is vital, a matter of public interest according to our State media that we know just what a great guy Bill Gates is, and that he’d rather be injecting you and your children than gallivanting off to Mars. It is more important you read this puff-piece, a paid for advert for Bill Gates, than know about a proposed piece of legislation and the chance for you to have a say.

If you happen to think this being referred to as a “paid for advert for Bill Gates” is a stretch, consider that the BBC disclosed a list of their top 10 donors to BBC Media Action in 2019/2020 which was:

  • UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  • Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
  • European Union
  • UK Department for International Development
  • United Nations Development Programme
  • Global Affairs Canada
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • North American Aerospace Defense Command
  • United States Agency for International Development
  • Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Is it any wonder you don’t hear any proper criticism or genuinely incisive journalism from the BBC about the likes of the UN, the EU and Bill Gates? As it turns out, on the Gates Foundation website you can look up who they give these “grants” to, and since 2006 the BMGF has “donated” the following amounts to the BBC:

  • $6,392,782
  • $1,323,302
  • $27,637,483
  • $4,179,158
  • $511,282
  • $868,395
  • $961,854
  • $1,010,356
  • $2,034,790
  • $3,198,524
  • $599,974
  • $1,874,283
  • $1,396,647
  • $510,474
  • $1,449,689

…totalling $53,948,993. So yes, it’s a paid for ad for Bill Gates, as is virtually every other media piece you’ll ever see about him, his Foundation and his pet project, injecting people.

Bill Gates, he just wants to inject you.

Just a quick aside, there is a diagnosable condition called “Factitious disorder imposed on another” that has a recognised criminal aspect to it, previously known as “Munchausen syndrome by proxy”. Wikipedia describes this condition like this…

“In factitious disorder imposed on another, a caregiver makes a dependent person appear mentally or physically ill in order to gain attention. To perpetuate the medical relationship, the caregiver systematically misrepresents symptoms, fabricates signs, manipulates laboratory tests, or even purposely harms the dependent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another

We’ve just experienced a global, systemic misrepresentation of symptoms (cold/flu-like symptoms along with almost every other known symptom presented as COVID-19), the fabrication of signs (fraudulent stats and graphs to instil fear), the manipulation of laboratory tests (the fraudulent PCR and LFT “tests”) and purposely harming (the now proven ineffective but dangerous “vaccines”), and Bill Gates was the public face of that, gaining huge amounts of attention.

For the record, I am not suggesting Bill Gates is singularly responsible and sits atop a pyramid somewhere, dictating all world affairs, but he is certainly part of that group of control freaks and dedicated vast amounts of resources towards making the last 3 years happen.

Anyway, back to the “public consultation”, the one the BBC and the Government don’t think is worth informing the public about.

MP Alex Burghart has written a “foreword” on the web page about this. Burghart is an academia type who after holding the position of “Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions” for a grand total of 37 days, is now fronting this consultation for a Government digital ID. Highlights of this foreword include…

“The Digital Economy Act was designed and passed in 2017 to give us flexibility to introduce new data sharing gateways”

Translation: We granted ourselves new powers to further remove your freedoms and privacy as and when we want to.

The proposed legislation will also unlock the full benefits of a new government identity verification system, known as GOV.UK One Login. As part of the Cabinet Office, the Government Digital Service (GDS) is developing GOV.UK One Login, through close collaboration with other government departments.

Translation: We’re already implementing this, regardless of the outcome of this façade of a consultation.

Inclusion is at the heart of GOV.UK One Login.

Translation: You won’t have a choice not to use this, but we’re hiding the tyranny behind the word “inclusion”, like we always do.

Furthermore, the government is committed to realising the benefits of digital identity technologies without creating ID cards.

Translation: This is biometric digital ID, i.e. tied to your biology. Could be facial recognition, fingerprints, retina scans, DNA, who knows, but it’s not an ID card because they sound bad.

GOV.UK One Login and the proposed legislation will ensure the government continues to drive inclusive digital transformation, to level up opportunities across all corners of the UK, and deliver brilliant public services.

Translation: Of the three (naturally) advertised advantages, the first one which is the most important, is the driving of “inclusive digital transformation”. Public services, “brilliant” or otherwise, are dead last and the least important thing.

You get the idea. They are expanding the list of Public Authorities that will have access to this shared digital ID system by adding to the list, known as Schedule 4 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. The new Authorities to be added are:

  • The Cabinet Office
  • Department for Transport
  • Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs
  • The Disclosure and Barring Service

In the section describing what data will be stored, it gives some examples but leaves it open for anything to be added “as identity verification services develop”. There appear to be no limits being set.

Then we get two “case studies” presented. The Government calls them “case studies” but they are not. As we’re now living in a post-definition world, someone somewhere will probably claim that it is perfectly reasonable to present hypothetical examples as “case studies”, but most people would generally agree that a case study is a study of a case, i.e. something that has happened, by way of illustrating how well something works or to find ways of improving things. Here we are presented with two fictional people, Mikel and Bukayo, and their fictional experiences of how the GOV.UK One Login improved their lives. This is just nonsense propaganda.

The Government is obviously aware that there might be some people out there that would ask “why now?”, so they have pre-empted that and dedicated an entire section to it, titled “Why introduce the power now?” where they state the following…

The Digital Identity Call for Evidence in 2020 demonstrated the UK public’s strong desire for the government to use digital identities…

…where they link to the alleged “evidence” that alleges to demonstrate the UK public’s alleged “strong desire” for Government digital id. That page is here.

As you can read for yourself in the section titled “2.1 Scale of responses” it says:

The Call for Evidence received 148 responses. A small number were out of scope, but the list of organisations providing in scope submissions can be found in Annex B. 20 submissions were from individuals.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/digital-identity/outcome/digital-identity-call-for-evidence-response

148 responses, only 20 of which were from individuals who might be considered members of the UK public, is laughably referred to as demonstrating “the UK public’s strong desire”. The list of 119 organisations can been seen here and includes:

  • Accenture
  • All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG)
  • Bank of England
  • Deloitte LLP and Evernym (UK) Ltd
  • Department for Work and Pensions
  • Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO)
  • HSBC
  • Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
  • Scottish Government
  • Mastercard
  • Nominet
  • Santander
  • Tony Blair Institute for Global Change
  • Welsh Government

…plus a plethora of other global finance, digital ID obsessed companies and organisations.

The Government is attempting to pass off as “public opinion” the responses of 20 individuals, who may well all have disagreed for all we know, plus the responses from global organisations obsessed and financially incentivised with the “digital transformation”, and even other Government departments. This collective tech, finance and Government response is the justification for going ahead with GOV.UK One Login, presented as “public demand”.

Forgetting the 119 corporations, banks and Government departments that clearly do not represent the UK public, 20 individuals out of the population of the UK is 0.000029%, and to visualise that here is an image…

Concerned? Well the Government wants to assure you that…

The Cabinet Office has carried out an initial assessment against the Data Ethics Framework which is published with this consultation. The initial assessment identified no immediate ethical concerns and the complete assessment will be published in due course.

Nothing to worry about guys, they’ve identified “no immediate ethical concerns”. Just like despite record numbers of all-cause mortality resulting from the largest medical experiment ever conducted on the public hasn’t raised any safety concerns. You can trust them guys, because they’ve checked it all out.

They have even posted a provisional timetable, and expect to have this all up and running by December 2023. Yes, the end of this year. Need to see a doctor? Sorry we haven’t got enough money or resources. Got a disease that could end up terminal without timely access to treatment you’re forced to pay for? Sorry you’ll be lucky to get an appointment before you’re dead. But we do have the money and resources to set up a digital ID system that works across the entirety of the UK Government.

Do I think responding to this will change the outcome? I’d say it’s unlikely based on the evidence, but I still think it’s a good idea to do so. The more people who do respond and challenge this authoritarian garbage the better. It sends a message even if they appear to ignore it, but more importantly it can never be said that when we had the chance to speak up, we didn’t and just passively accepted this as our future.

Please consider responding and sharing with people.