In the event that they wish to creep deeper into our souls, under the auspices of OUR HEALTH AND SAFETY, and where NATIONAL SAFTEY IS the PLIGHT THEY ARE ADDRESSING....We still need to state that: 'digital id' runs deeper, and creepier, than merely into your devices. The devilish ways it is being fronted as a backdoor into all your areas of your life, whilst having the legitimacy of being labelled as 'Good ole' wholesome healthy tech' (what did we do without it allll those years ?? ///////////Still, and a side note here is : Tech is the answer in catching the criminal. So in much the same way as the Mafia dons, in USA anyway, could really ONLY be charge-able with (i.e held 'accountable' for their lack of paying tax) tax fraud, this is where technology IS AT ITS BEST, it is developed with top priority, and YOU could even say that 'tech' was 'the thing' that caught EPSTEIN, and that gave the evidence be able to the call out his criminality, and GIVE EVIDENCE of his (devil) ways. Each itemised crime from his hellish domain was seen. When printed out, there was a domain transaction, a link to that action, that we CAN SEE. However THE DEVILish part of it all, is still too deep and creepy for us to measure with tech, we can only deal with what is seen, evidential and is label-able)) .....So We still can only confront and challenge those concerns that CAN be SANELY addressed publicly, so........ we can't call out the 'dance with the devil' that this 'bat-shit crazy' virtual reality is really ALL- about. xxxxx To this end, I add my voice with Together, who devise pre-scripted emails to send to Members of parliament....(which incidentally, I had done previously and received back a nicely worded letter that assures me that the prime minster has reassured them, (the members of parliament), of the benefits of this tech (intrusion) and the 'benefits' are the basis of securing 'national data'' and 'national security' and 'national health and wellbeing', (and also, NOT in the Letter, but they are doing the same with babies and children at school..... so if this particular run at Digital ID doesn't take off in their preferred timeline..it will have already been secretly lined up and implemented with the babies from birth, and children at school.... who will have been digitally organised and monitored in a parallel and simultaneous vein (literally) unbeknownst to their parents).... So no, the letter, did not acknowledge any knowledge of any such policy to do with babies and children, THAT HAS GOT DIFFEENT NAME.... BUT neither did it acknowledge that the Digital ID policy was NOT a Vote winner, People did not vote them in on this policy...in fact this policy was NOT anywhere on their manifesto I WONDER WHY???? So what was in the letter? ONLY copious reassurances that there are no dangers in the roll out of it. No mention of the plans and structures already in place, such as the 15 min cities, being built and other psycho-social structures that Digital ID will be used to police us into, corral us and to fine us if we don't comply....Maybe even we get zapped with an electric shock, that will be a quick dishing out of punishment to get us back in line if OUT and ABOUTING in the wrong time or place. ITS MUCH EASier to harvest money off us this way, in social taxes such as 'Fixed penalty notices' FPN's , already fleecing the spitters and the litterers... easy to become the "STAY WHERE YOU ARE" ers OR the, "STOP your are Not vaxxed for this wave of pandemic fever" ers !!!!! Its Easy to raid the purses and wallets of the people, to top up the NATIONAL WALLET in fines when its all logged in together, health status and wallets, like the CCP have been doing for years. Digital ID to be everywhere, and stopping everything from happening...reducing spontaneity and freefall crowd gathering for picnics and fun, let alone protesting//////. How much do they know?, How far down the line are the structures set in place to police us and restrict us? Little does he know eh? BUT how little do any of the flying monkeys know, if anything, about WHAT and whom they have given their allegiance to. As long as their status remains 'tight' within the small light-bulb lit circle of their world, All is good in their well paid world. Michaela.

Dear Bob Blackman MP,  AGAIN I SAY "NO TO TO DIGITAL ID."  I am writing as a concerned constituent to urge you to oppose any proposals to "ban" under-16s from social media, and any associated measures that would restrict access to privacy-protecting tools such as VPNs. It is deeply disappointing that the Conservative party, which has long claimed to champion individual liberty and parental responsibility, would consider policies that effectively force digital ID, restrict personal freedoms, and undermine the role of parents in this way. Were the lockdowns, "vaccine passports" and censorship of the Conservatives in government "a feature, not a bug?" Were you aware that 42 leading children’s and online safety organisations - including the NSPCC - have publicly stated that they do not support a blanket social media ban for under-16s? This demonstrates that even those who care most about child welfare see this proposal as misguided. A blanket ban undermines parental responsibility. Families, not the state, are best placed to decide what is appropriate for their children, based on maturity, circumstances, and individual needs. Replacing parental judgement with state control is a clear overreach. Moreover, enforcing age verification on social media or VPN use would inevitably require citizens to submit ID or biometric data. The British public has consistently rejected mandatory digital ID, yet this proposal would introduce it by stealth. VPNs are essential privacy tools, relied upon by journalists, whistleblowers, domestic abuse survivors, and ordinary citizens seeking to protect their personal data. Requiring ID or face scans to use such tools would undermine privacy, security, and freedom. It is only a couple of years since the Conservative government promised that the Online Safety Act would make the UK “the safest place in the world to be online.” Today, these proposals suggest a very different vision - one that risks censorship, overreach, and a loss of trust. Was that promise misleading? Social media also provides vital spaces for connection, support, and education for millions of children. Removing access would isolate the very young people it aims to protect, while unworkable restrictions would simply push them toward unregulated platforms, beyond the reach of safeguarding or parental oversight. More broadly, embedding compulsory identity checks into everyday internet use would give the state unprecedented power over private communication - a fundamental shift with profound implications for privacy, press freedom, and democratic accountability. These are not small matters, and they were not put before voters at the last general election. I urge you to uphold Conservative principles of parental responsibility, individual liberty, and limited government by opposing any social media ban for under-16s and any system that would effectively force digital ID for online access. I would be grateful if you could confirm your position on this important matter.