- Petitions = data collection. They ignore them. - MPs = whipped into obedience. Party loyalty > people. - Begging the system = playing their game, on their terms. So, if you’re serious about resisting, it can’t be about begging the same machine that’s building the cage. The real levers are elsewhere. Here’s a strategy framework your members could use: 1. Starve the Beast Every system runs on compliance. If enough people refuse, delay, or slow-walk adoption, the rollout collapses. - Don’t download the app. - Don’t volunteer info beyond what’s legally required. - Use existing IDs (NI, passport, licence) wherever possible. - Opt for paper/physical alternatives if they exist (forcing the state to maintain “legacy routes” costs them money). They only win if the majority roll over and adopt it without friction. 2. Parallel Systems = Real Power When people can’t rely solely on the state, they build alternatives: - Private trade networks (cash, barter, crypto, local exchange). - Mutual aid communities (housing, food, work). - Independent ID systems (trust-based groups, private trusts, lawful paperwork). - Alternative media (stop swallowing BBC/Sky narratives, build/share independent channels). A digital ID is powerless if you don’t need it for the life you’ve built. 3. Legal & Equity Pressure - Judicial review challenges (arguing disproportionate intrusion vs GDPR, Human Rights Act). - Equity trusts & private law routes (separating equitable rights from statutory “personhood”). - Data protection challenges (ICO complaints, SARs, GDPR breaches).Even if you don’t “win,” you slow them down and force transparency. 4. Mass Non-Compliance They cannot enforce this on 60+ million people if enough say “No.” - Remember Blair’s ID cards? Shelved because people resisted. - Remember Poll Tax? Collapsed when millions refused.The trick is numbers. If you and 10 friends resist, you’re a nuisance. If you and 10 million resist, the policy is dead.

I have been putting off asking this question as I am sure I am missing something and there is a simple answer, it has yet to become apparent to me so I have to ask. Peter has put together a superb set of documents that seem to a layman pretty bulletproof. I have done quite a bit of reading about the security of trusts and from what I see the biggest failure point is the "Sham Trust "scenario whereby someone sets aside property in a trust and then continues to use and benefit from that property as if the trust did not even exist. I look at the Smithery Trust example where they have put everything even their spit(DNA) into trust and it is clear that to continue their existance they must continue to use and benefit from items in the trust. I am sure the answer lies somewhere in the legal/equitable interest argument but sorry I need it explaining. If someone can point me to a doc or video please do

Fight Back Now

Our Ref: RNL/11489345; Our Client: Asda Stores Limited Dear , Please note our interest on behalf of our client. Please note your claim is being dealt with by Racheal Lumb who can be contacted at the following email address [email protected] We would be grateful if you could send all future correspondence to us quoting the above reference. Your claim is now receiving our attention and we shall return to you in due course, with a formal acknowledgement to follow if needed. In the meantime should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards Christine Bond File Handling Assistant Keoghs-mail signature_England Liverpool Office Keoghs.co.uk I received this yesterday after giving Asda until 28th September 2025 to respond to my LBC and suggestion of an out of court settlement, i think i'm still going to send the NoIP to Asda after Sunday 28th rather than wait to be contacted 'in due course'. Thoughts please @Peter Wilson @Dave DimeBar also, after checking Keoghs out on the SRA 2 of their employees were prosecuted for dishonesty, one of them being signing documents pretending to be clients signatures! so i was also considering advising them that i don't feel comfortable dealing with a company who employs dishonest staff and their companies house is also pretty interesting

Hi there, Hope you are all doing great this day of Thor, plenty of Vitamin D up north, had a fantastic walk down the beach and then in the woods with Mouse, Tonight we have our group meeting, i am going to cover the legal title that these Dirty DCAs do not possess, this means that they have no legal ownership of any debt, so no legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR, i have created a new basis for the "Witness Statement" and "Skeleton Argument" for a data breach case where the DCAs always attempt to slide the court over to a consumer debt proving case, i have also created a block document list to stop any escape attempts of the DCAs, so this will be an important infomative meeting for a lot of people, as they are being lied to and rail roaded by these Dirty DCAs and easily swayed judges, hope to see you soon Peter