tzijlstra Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 What about the British Muslims who are in Syria threatening us on their return? What about British Muslims who have been caught and found planning attacks. Am I dreaming? I am not afraid of any " nasties" as I am too old, but I fear for the future of your children and grandchildren. You say there is no threat and I therefore ask if you have a crystal ball and if I can borrow it? BTW. I am going out to the supermarket now but when I return I will do some research. I am hoping to discuss further, and anytime I am wrong I will admit it. I've nothing to lose. I will be humble. Ask yourself this: do you genuinely fear being blown up by a suicide bomber when you are shopping in Meadowhall? And is it really required that we, as normal citizens, see our liberties eroded for the sake of that? I am not saying there are no nasty elements in society, there is a need to police things efficiently, but does it really require a government that flaunts our democratic rights to do so? Using an organisation we really know very little about? If you are happy with that, great, but I am not. PS there is a difference between being stopped and searched for no reason and getting questioned for fiddling with girls in the back of a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longleyman Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Ask yourself this: do you genuinely fear being blown up by a suicide bomber when you are shopping in Meadowhall? And is it really required that we, as normal citizens, see our liberties eroded for the sake of that? I am not saying there are no nasty elements in society, there is a need to police things efficiently, but does it really require a government that flaunts our democratic rights to do so? Using an organisation we really know very little about? If you are happy with that, great, but I am not. PS there is a difference between being stopped and searched for no reason and getting questioned for fiddling with girls in the back of a car. I have been stopped and searched for no reason. I have stated this in a post. Have you not the intellect to understand what I've written. I can repeat the post if you are slow to grasp this information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 I have been stopped and searched for no reason. I have stated this in a post. Have you not the intellect to understand what I've written. I can repeat the post if you are slow to grasp this information. Your facade is still fraying at the edges, yet it seems to be accelerating at an alarming pace. Did I state you weren't? Pot/kettle and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longleyman Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 ++++++++++ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Why do you feel the need to bring this into the discussion? I have gathered that you are not a fan of Muslims/Islam but please this thread is about a serious issue so please go and find an anti Islam/muslim thread to vent your bile on. ---------- Post added 12-07-2014 at 00:13 ---------- Why isn't it relevant and what's it matter to you if some people don't like muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longleyman Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 [quote=tzijlstra;1058037 PS there is a difference between being stopped and searched for no reason and getting questioned for fiddling with girls in the back of a car. There is no difference. I was stopped from completing a normal act. We were searched by torch light. When the policeman was leaving he didn't say "Carry on." ---------- Post added 13-07-2014 at 15:46 ---------- Dear Tim. Have you seen this article supporting your thread on Mail online? " "We're queuing meekly in security, clutching a one-way ticket to disaster... By PETER HITCHENS" PUBLISHED: 00:50, 13 July 2014 | UPDATED: 00:50, 13 July 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 ...Dear Tim. Have you seen this article supporting your thread on Mail online? " "We're queuing meekly in security, clutching a one-way ticket to disaster... By PETER HITCHENS" PUBLISHED: 00:50, 13 July 2014 | UPDATED: 00:50, 13 July 2014 It does help if you provide a link to articles you reference http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2690144/PETER-HITCHENS-We-queuing-meekly-security-clutching-one-way-ticket-disaster.html I believe http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240224416/Legal-challenge-to-UK-surveillance-set-to-kick-off-at-Investigatory-Powers-Tribunal to be the court case that is causing the government to rush to change the law before it sets a precedent A high-profile legal challenge to the UK government’s powers to conduct mass internet surveillance is set to take place 14 to 18 July 2014.and Parliament will be passing the legislation, unless there is a mass revolt against the party whips, on the 17th, just before the trial delivers a verdict. As far as I'm concerned this is the emergency, there's no imminent attack by a handful of jihadis that necessitates the monitoring of 60 odd million people, just a court case that may not go the way the government wants it to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 It does help if you provide a link to articles you reference http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2690144/PETER-HITCHENS-We-queuing-meekly-security-clutching-one-way-ticket-disaster.html I believe http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240224416/Legal-challenge-to-UK-surveillance-set-to-kick-off-at-Investigatory-Powers-Tribunal to be the court case that is causing the government to rush to change the law before it sets a precedentand Parliament will be passing the legislation, unless there is a mass revolt against the party whips, on the 17th, just before the trial delivers a verdict. As far as I'm concerned this is the emergency, there's no imminent attack by a handful of jihadis that necessitates the monitoring of 60 odd million people, just a court case that may not go the way the government wants it to Completely agree, that is exactly what all the urgency is about. Things have come to a bad state when the government of this country is prepared to ride roughshod over everyone's civil rights and 'pull a flanker' in order to do so. There is also the problem of practicality, have they seriously thought this through? As someone pointed out, in this day of internet connection we're all linked in some way or other. How are they going to sort the wheat from the chaff? How many innocent people are going to have their lives disrupted because of some inconsequential connection that they're not even aware of? No doubt there will be a demand for billions in order to support this program. Just about every government initiative to date that has involved computers has turned out a disaster and cost the taxpayer billions. I can see another one coming right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 Well I've written to my MP, no response yet I'm quietly expecting a response on the 18th along the lines of "my apologies, I did not have time to respond to your concerns before the vote, and as I didn't want to lose my pension I supported the bill" -- EDIT -- Yep the court case is the be all and end all of the emergency https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329880/SignedDataRetentionIA.pdf Apologies for any typo's I've had to type this as the original is a scan of a typed document embedded in a PDF, it's almost as if HMG don't want people referring to particular sections and quoting them. Page 2 Key assumptions/sensitivities/risks If a successful legal challenge leads to the loss of the mandatory data retention regime, then there would be implications for retention and acquisition of CD from business data or held under other legislation. Reduced access to CD in key cases is likely to necessitate greater reliance on other more expensive (and intrusive) investigative techniques such as surveillance, which could possibly total £millions each year.So the argument appears to be if this imminent court case sets a precedent then HMG will have to use more expensive methods of surveillance. Apparently it's cheaper to monitor the entire population 24/7 rather than just monitor those individuals causing the problems. Anyone else think there's something wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWOODS Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 I'd just be happy with the interest in me. As the missus tends to ignore me. Haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.