PM's Snoopers' Charter

[Stanley]

This is a great point Itso - it's a bit like the inherent hatred people have for traffic wardens. If you are illegally parked you get a ticket, ergo don't do it in the first place. We all get the hump when we get stuck in an inexplicable traffic jam, often caused by someone being illegally parked, but the offender inconveniences lots of people and will no doubt rant about the ***in* **n* that gives them a ticket for breaking the law

Unless the PCN has been unlawfully issued in the first place of course - which they often are - as I can attest to from personal experience following several successful challenges! ;-)

Moral of the story - the watchers need watching too :-)

[Itsonlyagame]

Unless the PCN has been unlawfully issued in the first place of course - which they often are - as I can attest to from personal experience following several successful challenges! ;-)

Moral of the story - the watchers need watching too :-)

Ahem. Aren't the two posters who seem most vehemently against more monitoring etc, voluntary moderators ?
Doesn't your role involve deciding what stays on view. In pre- moderation you basically censor what's being said by somebody.
Slightly tongue in cheek point of course and I completely understand why we need them, the site wouldn't function otherwise.

[Itsonlyagame]

Ahem. Aren't the two posters who seem most vehemently against more monitoring etc, voluntary moderators ?
Doesn't your role involve deciding what stays on view. In pre- moderation you basically censor what's being said by somebody.
Slightly tongue in cheek point of course and I completely understand why we need them, the site wouldn't function otherwise.

Forgot to add, whose watching you !

[Stanley]

Ahem. Aren't the two posters who seem most vehemently against more monitoring etc, voluntary moderators ?...

Erm, actually no. One of them is and one of them isn't. And as you say, the site wouldn't function without them anyway. Besides from which, we've also had moderators in favour of your position on the thread, so no conspiracy there I'm afraid. ;-)

[Itsonlyagame]

Erm, actually no. One of them is and one of them isn't. And as you say, the site wouldn't function without them anyway. Besides from which, we've also had moderators in favour of your position on the thread, so no conspiracy there I'm afraid. ;-)

Damn, not one for conspiracy theories but the first time I've ever had one you shoot it down in flames

[brightonr]

Damn, not one for conspiracy theories but the first time I've ever had one you shoot it down in flames

Not to worry, it's just the paranoia setting in.

[Bluehoop]

Not to worry, it's just the paranoia setting in.

[Itsonlyagame]

Not to worry, it's just the paranoia setting in.

God please no, it's bad enough being a rangers fan.

[Hubble]

Been thinking about this some more, especially in regard to some of your statements on here Itso - and one of my key thoughts is this: how much do you value your freedom? Not just your freedom to think and act, but your freedom to say what you feel, and your freedom to criticise and protest, if needs be? Because all these kind of legislations are about curbing your freedom. And the thing is - you might not know that it's gone, or that you miss it - until it's too late. Until you realise a government or some large corporate is doing something that affects you and your family and you decide you have to take a stand and protest - but before you can do anything, they've stopped you - labelled you a terrorist (the most frightening aspect of all this - that ordinary people protesting things like having some power station built on your doorstep or what have you can now be labelled as such) - and you realise - it wasn't all about 'if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear' - it was all about something more profound than that - the slow drip drip erosion of your personal rights and freedoms - in the name of control and government.... Is that what you want?

I watched a brilliant film last night that summed it all up and really got me thinking. It's called 'Free State of Jones', starring Matthew McConnaughey and I highly recommend it, especially in this context.

[Itsonlyagame]

Been thinking about this some more, especially in regard to some of your statements on here Itso - and one of my key thoughts is this: how much do you value your freedom? Not just your freedom to think and act, but your freedom to say what you feel, and your freedom to criticise and protest, if needs be? Because all these kind of legislations are about curbing your freedom. And the thing is - you might not know that it's gone, or that you miss it - until it's too late. Until you realise a government or some large corporate is doing something that affects you and your family and you decide you have to take a stand and protest - but before you can do anything, they've stopped you - labelled you a terrorist (the most frightening aspect of all this - that ordinary people protesting things like having some power station built on your doorstep or what have you can now be labelled as such) - and you realise - it wasn't all about 'if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear' - it was all about something more profound than that - the slow drip drip erosion of your personal rights and freedoms - in the name of control and government.... Is that what you want?

I watched a brilliant film last night that summed it all up and really got me thinking. It's called 'Free State of Jones', starring Matthew McConnaughey and I highly recommend it, especially in this context.

Hubs, with all due respect, all you've said in this post is assumption.
You're assuming the state will use these laws of access to stop people from exercising their legal right to challenge things. Given you have a very deep mistrust of the state I can see why you would assume that.
I don't completely trust them either but to not anywhere near the same degree.
You may or may not agree but personally I think our difference of opinion isn't about hard facts, it's about a fear of what may or may not happen.

i obviously value my freedom as much as the next man. But freedom is a very loose word and is surely relative.
You mentioned a free internet in a previous post. Personally I don't think it should be free and should be monitored far more than it is. Yes terrorism, peadophillia, bullying etc existed before the internet, but the internet has been a complete game changer for these people. In the case of terrorists, you've now got one man satellites murdering scores of people off the back of online activities. Children that were bullied at school could at least come home and get some respite. Now it's 24/7 and you have other kids joining in who don't even know the victim.
The internet has to be controlled more strictly, it's a no brainer imo.
As for your fear that people fighting the construction of a new power station could be labelled terrorists by the state, sorry, I just don't buy that. Even if the state tried to pull that one, the Guardian would be on it like a rash.

I completely respect your opinion on all this, let's face it, the proof will be in the pudding and you could be proved completely right.
However, I think ultimately the positives outweigh the negatives in this act. The fact that people like yourself are fighting the cause is still a good thing though, us of blind faith need the mistrusters to look out for us !

[Stanley]

For Itso especially from 8 mins in - from the creator of the first ever antivirus software:

[Hubble]

Hubs, with all due respect, all you've said in this post is assumption.
You're assuming the state will use these laws of access to stop people from exercising their legal right to challenge things. Given you have a very deep mistrust of the state I can see why you would assume that.
I don't completely trust them either but to not anywhere near the same degree.
You may or may not agree but personally I think our difference of opinion isn't about hard facts, it's about a fear of what may or may not happen.

i obviously value my freedom as much as the next man. But freedom is a very loose word and is surely relative.
You mentioned a free internet in a previous post. Personally I don't think it should be free and should be monitored far more than it is. Yes terrorism, peadophillia, bullying etc existed before the internet, but the internet has been a complete game changer for these people. In the case of terrorists, you've now got one man satellites murdering scores of people off the back of online activities. Children that were bullied at school could at least come home and get some respite. Now it's 24/7 and you have other kids joining in who don't even know the victim.
The internet has to be controlled more strictly, it's a no brainer imo.
As for your fear that people fighting the construction of a new power station could be labelled terrorists by the state, sorry, I just don't buy that. Even if the state tried to pull that one, the Guardian would be on it like a rash.

I completely respect your opinion on all this, let's face it, the proof will be in the pudding and you could be proved completely right.
However, I think ultimately the positives outweigh the negatives in this act. The fact that people like yourself are fighting the cause is still a good thing though, us of blind faith need the mistrusters to look out for us !

From the Daily Mail

"Anti-fracking protesters to be labelled 'extremists' by police thanks to Government terror strategy.
Teachers told that campaigners against fracking may be extremists.
MP Caroline Lucas was highlighted as someone who could be a threat.
Fury over new interpretation of the Prevent anti-terror strategy."

Full article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223109/Anti-fracking-protesters-labelled-extremists-police-thanks-Government-terror-strategy.html

From the Telegraph:

"Eco activists labelled as terrorists by Government. Environmental campaigners have been labelled as extremists and listed alongside al-Qaeda inspired terrorists and dissident Irish republican groups."

Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...overnment.html

In America:

"New US Laws Would Make Environmental Protest 'Terrorism'.

Corporations will be able to sue protesters for costing them money."

Full article:

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/4wqzxm/new-laws-would-make-protesting-environmental-devastation-terrorism

[Itsonlyagame]

From the Daily Mail

"Anti-fracking protesters to be labelled 'extremists' by police thanks to Government terror strategy.
Teachers told that campaigners against fracking may be extremists.
MP Caroline Lucas was highlighted as someone who could be a threat.
Fury over new interpretation of the Prevent anti-terror strategy."

Full article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3223109/Anti-fracking-protesters-labelled-extremists-police-thanks-Government-terror-strategy.html

From the Telegraph:

"Eco activists labelled as terrorists by Government. Environmental campaigners have been labelled as extremists and listed alongside al-Qaeda inspired terrorists and dissident Irish republican groups."

Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...overnment.html

In America:

"New US Laws Would Make Environmental Protest 'Terrorism'.

Corporations will be able to sue protesters for costing them money."

Full article:

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/4...tion-terrorism

All those articles say to me is if you break the law in your pursuit of your ideology you could be classed as an extremist.
I don't see a problem with that. Extremism is a very large umbrella.
It's a bit like complaining that if you're caught stealing a loaf of bread you shouldn't be called a thief because there are other thieves who steal far more and their crimes are therefore more extreme.
Semantics imho.
Let's face it though Hubs, looking at the picture in the Daily Mail of those protesters, surely you must agree they should be locked up and have the key thrown away purely on the basis of how they look and almost certainly how they smell.

[Hubble]

All those articles say to me is if you break the law in your pursuit of your ideology you could be classed as an extremist.
I don't see a problem with that. Extremism is a very large umbrella.
It's a bit like complaining that if you're caught stealing a loaf of bread you shouldn't be called a thief because there are other thieves who steal far more and their crimes are therefore more extreme.
Semantics imho.
Let's face it though Hubs, looking at the picture in the Daily Mail of those protesters, surely you must agree they should be locked up and have the key thrown away purely on the basis of how they look and almost certainly how they smell.

Oh no Itso, it is nothing like that at all. These people are not thieves, they are citizens exercising their right to protest. Like I said before, you won't know how this affects you until you need to protest. Then it will be too late. Also making this about one bunch of people you find distasteful is what's known as a 'strawman argument' - and wilfully missing the point my friend - this could apply to anybody - and indeed it has, the kind of people you would approve of have had the same label attached to them and all in the name of corporate greed versus human rights. And labelling someone as a terrorist for legally protesting against something that is in itself a form of terrorism (eco-terrorism is a crime - and many corporations and governments are guilty of it) is the perfect example of lunatics running the asylum.

What you say reminds me of Pastor Niemoller's poem:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Hubble]

Oh, and by the way mate:

"As for your fear that people fighting the construction of a new power station could be labelled terrorists by the state, sorry, I just don't buy that. Even if the state tried to pull that one, the Guardian would be on it like a rash."

Do you buy it now?