Should the British government be able to monitor our use of texts, calls and internet

  • Thread starter DeletedUser17143
  • Start date

DeletedUser16008

I have plenty to "hide" that I have no wish another has or could have access to. I call it my privacy, personal, clients, integrity. ie PRIVACY, this isnt about "hiding" anything and perceptions of what is ok to hide or not will and always does change...

Hellstromm points out one of the main concerns above and ive been saying it since my first post....No government can be trusted with this kind of thing... if it dosnt mess up by being incompetent it will certainly get there in another manner. You know it I know it... heck even the experts know it but they still want it on a matter of National Security... yknow i am so sick of hearing this BS..


Nothing makes you now more unsafe than 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Your less likely to be a victim of serious crime and injury than at any other time in history. Your transport is safe, you all live healthier lives, your life expectancy is vastly higher than ever before, in fact for most in the developed world your living in virtual paradise compared..... And a few boogymen now is worse than we used to have ??? total rubbish, your watching too much propaganda and scared of the man with a Koran when it used to be the Red commies.

"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about" standard answer... which btw is the worst reason ive heard to allow another access your privacy.... its like asking you to tell me all about your family here ... you got nothing to hide right so whats the problem. In fact whats the difference between anyone having this information and my government... its run by people just the same and they are just as prone to all those faults.

They also said "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about" to the Jews when they decided it was a good idea to "identify" them along with other groups and asked them to wear a little yellow badge at all times.....

Its amazing how fast people can be put back to sleep.....
 

DeletedUser

rice farmer said:
Guess we all better vote for the Pirate Party, then. :D
Click to expand...

Illogical, just because you do not want the government to have access to your personal information does not mean you are a pirate. Wrapping the argument for personal privacy into a debate of piracy is just damaging to the proponents of privacy. Like I said before there are very valid reasons the government has to get judicial permission to collect personal information with out the express permission of the citizen. This was in place long before digital piracy.
 

DeletedUser

WillyPete said:
Illogical, just because you do not want the government to have access to your personal information does not mean you are a pirate. Wrapping the argument for personal privacy into a debate of piracy is just damaging to the proponents of privacy. Like I said before there are very valid reasons the government has to get judicial permission to collect personal information with out the express permission of the citizen. This was in place long before digital piracy.
Click to expand...
Illogical, just because they're called pirates doesn't mean they are pirates or support such activities.
 

DeletedUser

I agree with you Rice Farmer. the Pirate Party is an entity based on democracy. I see no problem with it, in fact, when I am eligible to vote, I'll be voting for them.

that is, of course, unless it's members are arrested by the government...(begins typing up conspiracy theory)

All in all I say this debate is concluded, the British government should not bring about such measures, and if they do, I for one will not be silenced..
 

DeletedUser

Hmm, I'm tempted to debate the Pirate Party, can someone start a new thread on that rather than have this discussion hijacked?
 

DeletedUser15641

I am from kuwait so they should have no rights because i am a peaceful guy....:D
 

DeletedUser

As predicted, it's turning into another non-story. The scaremongers will have to find another dead horse to beat - the Tories coalition partners are already watering this down to specific anti-terrorist, -crime sydicate and -paedophile usage, and the opposition will almost certainly back them up, so this has next to no chance of affecting 99.99% of the population.
Back in your boxes, doom-merchants and conpiracists. I wonder if the real 'sheeple' are the ones who fall for it every time the media and fringe groups play up a scare-story to sell their rubbishy papers and cranky agendas.
 

DeletedUser

Hi Eli, I have found no information to support your assertions. What people may say on the podium doesn't match what is being stated as to what is on the bill.
 

DeletedUser

I based that on an article by Andrew Grice in today's "The Independent". I'm afraid I'm one of those old-fashioned people who read an actual paper and I couldn't see the article in their on-line coverage, but it was reporting a big backlash against the proposed bill by LibDem MPs, which along with Labour MPs and rebel Conservatives could well sink the bill (ofc it will be diluted before that happens).
 

DeletedUser

Right guy, wrong article. It's on p5 of the Saturday "i" (cut-down version of the full paper). Sorry I can't source it on-line.
[Edit] This is how the news media work. They create a 'scare' then they report a 'rebellion' so when the bill is published in the bland form it was always destined to take they have in the meantime pocketed the sales from two sensational, but totally bogus, 'scoops'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser16008

Eli Makepeace said:
As predicted, it's turning into another non-story. The scaremongers will have to find another dead horse to beat - the Tories coalition partners are already watering this down to specific anti-terrorist, -crime sydicate and -paedophile usage, and the opposition will almost certainly back them up, so this has next to no chance of affecting 99.99% of the population.
Back in your boxes, doom-merchants and conpiracists. I wonder if the real 'sheeple' are the ones who fall for it every time the media and fringe groups play up a scare-story to sell their rubbishy papers and cranky agendas.
Click to expand...

What are you on about Eli ? in order for there to be opposition to anything, including a bill something has to be proposed in the first place... if its not opposed it goes through in entirety...If a bill wasn't opposed by bringing it to the attn of the masses we would all be stuffed pretty quickly.Take the papers for example.... if there wasn't news how would anyone be able to oppose or be aware of anything or have public opinion ?

Andrew Grice is a political column writer nothing more and is hardly a bringer of facts and until there are amendments nothing is blocked or off the table. You will notice though he does understand the benefit and importance of reporting news that can or might affect the people.Oh btw the papers don't write these bills or proposals but politicians do.

As it stands nothing has been amended at all as yet and if its tossed out, good theres enough that do make a noise... I don't get your attitude towards those people or scaremongers as you put it....Your saying nothing will ever get serious because others will do something about it first but your going to attack them for it ? or really its all rubbish and a bill like that would never be proposed, yet they are proposed all the time... either there are watchful people who bring this to others attn the second its attempted to slip something through..( and you should be thankful for that) or youd rather no one questioned anything.which is it ?

Re newspapers ....regarding this topic, what a bill contains it contains.....if 100% are happy with the bill it would go through as is... If its changed its another story sure... but this is what news is.... reportable information and bring to light the possibilities.... Your complaining about the fact there are enough awake or care enough to save your apathetic ass along with theirs ? People that sit up and take notice and think before its too late is bad in some way is it ?

Reporting is crucial to public awareness and preserving freedoms. It is the watcher for the people and keeps a check on those that rule so they don't get out of line and oppress us without being warned ( or supposed to be ).You only have to look at places with no press freedoms to see the difference.

If you see an iceberg you know theres a lot more under the water you cant see that can pose a danger, so you give it a wide berth not just scrape by it right ? To say icebergs don't exist or not put anyone on watch for them would be wrong and suicidal. If a possible iceberg is spotted you make adjustments long before its unavoidable not at the last minute ?

This opinion that everything will always tick along fine is absolutely nuts. It never has and it never will, to bleat out the mantra others are "making trouble, doomsayers, scaremongers, conspiracists" or rather "inconvenient by ringing the fire drill bell when they see smoke" is silly. They are are the same ones that keep your little world balanced and ultimately stops it burning to the ground before the smoke turns into an uncontrollable fire.

Every single time a bill like this gets tossed out its purely because some give a crap enough to look into it and report it. You shouldnt be so quick to attack those preserving your freedoms and would probably be the first to complain nobody said anything if they were lost.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Victor Kruger said:
What are you on about Eli ? in order for there to be opposition to anything, including a bill something has to be proposed in the first place..
Click to expand...
The *opposition" in the British political lexicon refers to the largest non-government bloc in Parliament.

Victor Kruger said:
. if its not opposed it goes through in entirety...If a bill wasn't opposed by bringing it to the attn of the masses we would all be stuffed pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
Bills can only be 'opposed' by MPs, not the public. The 'masses' vote only at elections; only MPs vote in Parliament.

Victor Kruger said:
Take the papers for example.... if there wasn't news how would anyone be able to oppose or be aware of anything or have public opinion ?
Click to expand...
What's that about? Did someone say we shouldn't have news??

Victor Kruger said:
Andrew Grice is a political column writer nothing more and is hardly a bringer of facts
Click to expand...
You're not even that! :D
Victor Kruger said:
and until there are amendments nothing is blocked or off the table. You will notice though he does understand the benefit and importance of reporting news that can or might affect the people.Oh btw the papers don't write these bills or proposals but politicians do.
Click to expand...
Clap, clap. At least you got that right.

Victor Kruger said:
As it stands nothing has been amended at all as yet and if its tossed out, good theres enough that do make a noise... I don't get your attitude towards those people or scaremongers as you put it....Your saying nothing will ever get serious because others will do something about it first but your going to attack them for it ?
Click to expand...
No (and you're the one dismissing mere political writers here). My whole point is that because we have informed newpapers, parliamentarians, independent broadcasting, active trade unions, free speech, religious groups, a non-political police, the judiciary, European courts, etc. etc. we don't need to worry about the dire forbodings of forum cranks who think they are the sole guardians of the future of mankind.
You just blurt out your nonsense without taking the trouble to even read and understand what has been said.
Have another rant if it makes you feel better though.
 

DeletedUser

Eli Makepeace said:
No (and you're the one dismissing mere political writers here). My whole point is that because we have informed newpapers, parliamentarians, independent broadcasting, active trade unions, free speech, religious groups, a non-political police, the judiciary, European courts, etc. etc. we don't need to worry about the dire forbodings of forum cranks who think they are the sole guardians of the future of mankind.
Click to expand...

so you're saying that nobody should listen the vast majority, and instead listen to the media.
nice thinking there, very democratic...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top