SlowlyButSurely
Active member
Aren't you arguing both sides of question here? If we were to declare war surely the armed forces would take over and there would be no debate to have?
Lock you up and throw away the key?
- Thread starter ColdFusion
- Start date
SlowlyButSurely
Active member
I don't know whether this legislation will increase security or not, but would you say that my assessment is right, ie. that if we are to have increased security from a perceived threat then some liberties will have to be sacrificed and conversely if we are to preserve our current civil liberties then some risk must be tolerated? Regardless of your personal feelings for TB, the issue to be addressed is the same wouldn't you say?
Das_Boot
New member
If the threats were as bad as we are told would it not be better to declare a state of emergency like zimbabwe.
The principal is a fundemental one. The right to prove your innocence the right not to be sent to jail on the word of a politician and although this seems like two principals they are one and the same.
The principal is a fundemental one. The right to prove your innocence the right not to be sent to jail on the word of a politician and although this seems like two principals they are one and the same.
tome
New member
Yes I agree, and in my case believe that some risk must be tolerated. If that risk has increased recently then that is in direct response to poor foreign policy by the US and her allies, notably in the middle east.
Das_Boot
New member
By the way even Nelson Mandela got his day in court under a corrupt and despotic regime it was only later when the regime was in its death throws that it introduced more and more draconian law untill it fell under the weight of contempt.
I have seen civil liberty whittled away day by day scare by scare it starts slowley and gathers momentum each bad law allowing the introduction of worse law.
Believe me you dont want it happening here.
I have seen civil liberty whittled away day by day scare by scare it starts slowley and gathers momentum each bad law allowing the introduction of worse law.
Believe me you dont want it happening here.
Mirelle
N/A
Right
I was personally saddened to hear Lord Harris, whom I knew and rather liked when he was a student called Toby Harris, blathering on to the effect that an elected politician was in a better position to decide than a non-elected Judge. I immediately thought, like you, of the Third Reich - Adolf Hitler was elected.
I was personally saddened to hear Lord Harris, whom I knew and rather liked when he was a student called Toby Harris, blathering on to the effect that an elected politician was in a better position to decide than a non-elected Judge. I immediately thought, like you, of the Third Reich - Adolf Hitler was elected.
Metabarca
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, quite. I was asking the question, not putting forward a point of view, because this is the issue: do we put up with the odd miscarriage of justice for the sake of enhanced security or do we suffer countless dead and injured in order to preserve a principle? ie. just how many dead and injured is this principle worth?
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel there's a loss of a sense of proportion here. Has the stastical probability of any one of us being blown sky high really that much higher than in the good ol'days of the IRA, Baader-Meinhoff, Brigate Rosse and assorted other fruitcakes? Perhaps it has, from 1/1,000,000 to 1/999,000; in other words, zilch. But it has been hyped up by the Western governments for their own agenda, making us more 'scared' and who does this benefit? The terrorists (and the companies that gain financially from a climate such as this). I cannot believe things are so serious that the law should be tampered with in this way. Don't forget, it only takes a few figures in authority to claim they are saving their country to wind up with a situation like that in the States with the question of blacks in the '60s or like Argentina in the 1970s; here too, the military was saving the country from the 'enemy within'. "Trust us", they said.
There can never be an excuse for a free society to make use of any tactics other than an open, free and fair trial. Especially in a case such as this where the West claims to be a shining beacon for the benighted fuzzywuzzies. A fine example it gives if it adopts the draconian measures our Dear Leader suggests. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Yes, quite. I was asking the question, not putting forward a point of view, because this is the issue: do we put up with the odd miscarriage of justice for the sake of enhanced security or do we suffer countless dead and injured in order to preserve a principle? ie. just how many dead and injured is this principle worth?
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel there's a loss of a sense of proportion here. Has the stastical probability of any one of us being blown sky high really that much higher than in the good ol'days of the IRA, Baader-Meinhoff, Brigate Rosse and assorted other fruitcakes? Perhaps it has, from 1/1,000,000 to 1/999,000; in other words, zilch. But it has been hyped up by the Western governments for their own agenda, making us more 'scared' and who does this benefit? The terrorists (and the companies that gain financially from a climate such as this). I cannot believe things are so serious that the law should be tampered with in this way. Don't forget, it only takes a few figures in authority to claim they are saving their country to wind up with a situation like that in the States with the question of blacks in the '60s or like Argentina in the 1970s; here too, the military was saving the country from the 'enemy within'. "Trust us", they said.
There can never be an excuse for a free society to make use of any tactics other than an open, free and fair trial. Especially in a case such as this where the West claims to be a shining beacon for the benighted fuzzywuzzies. A fine example it gives if it adopts the draconian measures our Dear Leader suggests. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
ColdFusion
New member
[ QUOTE ]
[Is] the statistical probability of any one of us being blown sky high really that much higher than in the good ol'days of the IRA?
[/ QUOTE ]
Subject to evidence to the contrary I'd say the statistical probability is about the same. The difference here, as you suggest, is that the propaganda machine is in overdrive with 'warnings' from the security services making people feel threatened and vulnerable. So Blair the Hero steps forward to save the day - and before you know it your (yes your) right to a fair trial is history. Innocent until proven guilty? Pah!
[Is] the statistical probability of any one of us being blown sky high really that much higher than in the good ol'days of the IRA?
[/ QUOTE ]
Subject to evidence to the contrary I'd say the statistical probability is about the same. The difference here, as you suggest, is that the propaganda machine is in overdrive with 'warnings' from the security services making people feel threatened and vulnerable. So Blair the Hero steps forward to save the day - and before you know it your (yes your) right to a fair trial is history. Innocent until proven guilty? Pah!
alant
Active member
Point again well made, but no-one seems to be listening.
People care more about their 'rant' over Blair et al, than thinking about the unthinkable.
Surely stopping a drunk driver before people are killed must be better than scraping bodies off the floor. What about the victims 'freedoms'?
Its not the hysterical language of fear, but sensible precaution. I'm sure the emergency services would prefer to be idle than visit an atrocity which could have been prevented!
Forget about the 'countless injured', even if its only one, prevention must be a better option.
People care more about their 'rant' over Blair et al, than thinking about the unthinkable.
Surely stopping a drunk driver before people are killed must be better than scraping bodies off the floor. What about the victims 'freedoms'?
Its not the hysterical language of fear, but sensible precaution. I'm sure the emergency services would prefer to be idle than visit an atrocity which could have been prevented!
Forget about the 'countless injured', even if its only one, prevention must be a better option.
ShipsWoofy
New member
Thank God someone finally said it!
Does any of the panel really think the middle east freedom fighters would otherwise have any interest in a piddly Island off mainland Europe.
New Zealand has the best foreign policy, 'we have no enemies'. It appears to work quite well for them.
My last word
OIL
nah that can't be it....
Does any of the panel really think the middle east freedom fighters would otherwise have any interest in a piddly Island off mainland Europe.
New Zealand has the best foreign policy, 'we have no enemies'. It appears to work quite well for them.
My last word
OIL
nah that can't be it....
ShipsWoofy
New member
It does not matter how much you try to fight the case on the forum, I am sure you are out of luck.
The first concentration camp will be staffed by friends and family of politicians.
You might manage a camp in a few years but it might be a crap location like Lossiemouth... sorry to anyone who lives there!
The first concentration camp will be staffed by friends and family of politicians.
You might manage a camp in a few years but it might be a crap location like Lossiemouth... sorry to anyone who lives there!
ColdFusion
New member
Oil is another (not entirely unrelated) subject. High prices, inflated reserve forecasts and dwindling supplies equate to a very uncertain future. What will happen to those countries in the middle east when their primary resource starts drying up? This will happen in (most of) our lifetimes.
oldgit
Well-known member
To much to ask peeps to obey the speed limit then /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif.Funny always thought the highway code contained summat or other about speed limits.
Still that only applies to other road users eh.
Still that only applies to other road users eh.
Bergman
New member
Re: Nothing wrong with a good Knee jerk if circumstances warrant!
I like to see a reasoned intellectual approach.
Problem is your theory is great for the one with the knee - but what if you happen to be the one with the soft bits?
I like to see a reasoned intellectual approach.
Problem is your theory is great for the one with the knee - but what if you happen to be the one with the soft bits?
ColdFusion
New member
Alant,
I think most people care more about the fundamental issue at stake than "their 'rant' over Blair et al". It's just that Blair and all are the people trying to change the fundamental issues, so if some posts (including mine) seem to rant about Blair then that's why.
FWIW I believe that with correct use of existing laws together with the legalisation of 'phone tap evidence, the anti-terror bill would not be necessary. But perhaps herein lies the problem.
My understanding is that currently in this country, telephone tapping by the security services is already carried out on a huge scale, triggered by voice-recognition software that picks up on certain key words used during a conversation. Correct me if I’m wrong but I also understand that the legal process requires a court order to permit the installation and use of telephone tapping equipment – otherwise eavesdropping evidence cannot be submitted in a court. The proposed anti-terror bill will effectively bypass this legal process.
The alternative, to legalise ‘phone tap evidence without a court order, would really get the civil liberty activists (& the public) going because it would legalise eavesdropping on anyone for whatever reason. The anti-terror bill will achieve the same thing but it allegedly targets terrorists. Yeah, right.
As someone else has already said, this will almost inevitably be the thin end of the wedge. Let me hazard a guess at what's coming next, after the election of course... In the name of national security I give you… compulsory ID cards. Terrorists won’t carry them (or if they do they’ll be forgeries) but for the likes of you and me it will mean our movements could be questioned and/or monitored at any point by the authorities, legally. A minority of people will no doubt feel safer though /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
I think most people care more about the fundamental issue at stake than "their 'rant' over Blair et al". It's just that Blair and all are the people trying to change the fundamental issues, so if some posts (including mine) seem to rant about Blair then that's why.
FWIW I believe that with correct use of existing laws together with the legalisation of 'phone tap evidence, the anti-terror bill would not be necessary. But perhaps herein lies the problem.
My understanding is that currently in this country, telephone tapping by the security services is already carried out on a huge scale, triggered by voice-recognition software that picks up on certain key words used during a conversation. Correct me if I’m wrong but I also understand that the legal process requires a court order to permit the installation and use of telephone tapping equipment – otherwise eavesdropping evidence cannot be submitted in a court. The proposed anti-terror bill will effectively bypass this legal process.
The alternative, to legalise ‘phone tap evidence without a court order, would really get the civil liberty activists (& the public) going because it would legalise eavesdropping on anyone for whatever reason. The anti-terror bill will achieve the same thing but it allegedly targets terrorists. Yeah, right.
As someone else has already said, this will almost inevitably be the thin end of the wedge. Let me hazard a guess at what's coming next, after the election of course... In the name of national security I give you… compulsory ID cards. Terrorists won’t carry them (or if they do they’ll be forgeries) but for the likes of you and me it will mean our movements could be questioned and/or monitored at any point by the authorities, legally. A minority of people will no doubt feel safer though /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Sea Devil
Well-known member
Countless dead and injured? This is the hysterical language of fear that Blair is using in his agenda to have us abandon our rights of liberty and freedom from unnecessary state interference. Just how exactly will this new legislation protect us?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now try to explain the hysterical language to the 2000 victims of the twin towers
The victims of the Spanish train explosions
The people who die daily in Iraq
To imagine that extremist forces are not trying to attack the UK is naive at best.
Never before have we had to face wave after wave of young suicide bombers - happy to die for their religious beliefs - who are well educated - knowable and with the ability to use the internet and mobile phones - not isolated but a well organized network.
The day thousands die from one successful attack in London or Manchester or Glasgow is the day the entire country will agree that policing has changed for ever.
But too late...
No government is going to purposely misuse the new powers because our system allows us to vote them out - It is time to get real and try to understand the security problems involved with keeping the country safe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now try to explain the hysterical language to the 2000 victims of the twin towers
The victims of the Spanish train explosions
The people who die daily in Iraq
To imagine that extremist forces are not trying to attack the UK is naive at best.
Never before have we had to face wave after wave of young suicide bombers - happy to die for their religious beliefs - who are well educated - knowable and with the ability to use the internet and mobile phones - not isolated but a well organized network.
The day thousands die from one successful attack in London or Manchester or Glasgow is the day the entire country will agree that policing has changed for ever.
But too late...
No government is going to purposely misuse the new powers because our system allows us to vote them out - It is time to get real and try to understand the security problems involved with keeping the country safe.
Bergman
New member
No not the case.
There is not a "free for all" in "wire taps"
It is illegal in UK to intercept a telphone message (or postal message) without a warrant from Sec of State. This applies to police and to security services. And it is enforced.
Incidently it is illegal to intercept messages to and from an MP without permission of the PM. This dates back to Mr Wilson, who perhaps had a good reason for introducing this rule.
Lots of people claim to have had 'phone tapped, almost invariably quoting that they have heard a previous conversation being played back. Tis used to be a status symbol for the revolting left.
It is also completely impossible.
Most intelligence that would be available (if any is) would come from "sig int" sources, mostly supplied from the US under a long standing agreement. I suspect it is this aspect that the government is unhappy to reveal in court.
There is not a "free for all" in "wire taps"
It is illegal in UK to intercept a telphone message (or postal message) without a warrant from Sec of State. This applies to police and to security services. And it is enforced.
Incidently it is illegal to intercept messages to and from an MP without permission of the PM. This dates back to Mr Wilson, who perhaps had a good reason for introducing this rule.
Lots of people claim to have had 'phone tapped, almost invariably quoting that they have heard a previous conversation being played back. Tis used to be a status symbol for the revolting left.
It is also completely impossible.
Most intelligence that would be available (if any is) would come from "sig int" sources, mostly supplied from the US under a long standing agreement. I suspect it is this aspect that the government is unhappy to reveal in court.
jenku
New member
There is no point in protecting a country that is not free! If the defence of the country involves the same methods as terrorists would use, the war is already lost. The only way is to keep up the free and open society whatever the costs, in order to show that there is an alternative to the kind of society the terrorists wants us to become.
ongolo
New member
Re: From the BBC .. a quote which eloquently expresses my views
You are right, The key to any terrorist problem is not to fight them, but to remove he grievance. Why is it that only 5 (?) countries out of about 200 world wide, have a terrorist problem?
Lets face it, if the US would not have supported Israel to the tune of three trillion US$ (lates figure claimed), and had not atacked Iraq or Afghanistan, no US citizen would have to wear a canadian label and pretend he is canadian.
No country has ever won a terrist war, in the bush wars, one terrorist keppt 20 regular soldiers busy, neither side could win.
Aslo the definition of a terrorist must be decided on. The Iraquis, are not insurgents (that is an uprising against a legimate government), they are not terrorists, they are partisans or freedom fighters, that is civilians fighting an illegal occupation, and if they take the fight to the US or the UK, they are still partisans fighting an illegal occupation.
In the end, the only way to get peace, is to remove the grievance. Yet, what the French learned in Indo-China and in Algeria, the Amaricans lerned in Vietnam, the Germans in second world war in Grece and Serbia and Montenegro, the South African in Namiabia and the Rhodesians at home, all seem to have to be learned over and over again. How dense are politicians really?
pissed off ongolo
You are right, The key to any terrorist problem is not to fight them, but to remove he grievance. Why is it that only 5 (?) countries out of about 200 world wide, have a terrorist problem?
Lets face it, if the US would not have supported Israel to the tune of three trillion US$ (lates figure claimed), and had not atacked Iraq or Afghanistan, no US citizen would have to wear a canadian label and pretend he is canadian.
No country has ever won a terrist war, in the bush wars, one terrorist keppt 20 regular soldiers busy, neither side could win.
Aslo the definition of a terrorist must be decided on. The Iraquis, are not insurgents (that is an uprising against a legimate government), they are not terrorists, they are partisans or freedom fighters, that is civilians fighting an illegal occupation, and if they take the fight to the US or the UK, they are still partisans fighting an illegal occupation.
In the end, the only way to get peace, is to remove the grievance. Yet, what the French learned in Indo-China and in Algeria, the Amaricans lerned in Vietnam, the Germans in second world war in Grece and Serbia and Montenegro, the South African in Namiabia and the Rhodesians at home, all seem to have to be learned over and over again. How dense are politicians really?
pissed off ongolo
Sea Devil
Well-known member
There is no point in protecting a country that is not free
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not much point if it is no longer your country - blown away.... Nobody is taking away the right of the electorate to get rid of any government that fails to please,,, Its as simple as that. It is a question of trust - Either you trust the security services and the government or you get rid of them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not much point if it is no longer your country - blown away.... Nobody is taking away the right of the electorate to get rid of any government that fails to please,,, Its as simple as that. It is a question of trust - Either you trust the security services and the government or you get rid of them.