Let's install cameras in every room of every house: that'll cut domestic violence, sexual abuse, rape and goodness knows what else.

There is already an established, legal procedure if they need to, that has been in existence for years, so why does it need altering? Scaremongering politics, I'm afraid

Everyone has something to hide or something that could be used to incriminate them. If you have and express any political or religious view that then could be used to execute you under a future, authoritarian government. Your complacency is astonishing.

This is completely OT, but I saw this article this morning and thought fondly of you.



[url=http://www.businessrevieweurope.eu/business_leaders/bespoke-saville-row-tailoring-at-its-best?utm_campaign=europe%2Bmarch2012&utm_source=europe%2Bmar02-12&utm_medium=newsletterSaville or Savile??[/url

Just thought I'd mention it.

Anyway, I am not convinced the proposal is just (or even) about terrorism. It's about maintaining the status quo, which is under threat from modern communications. The latter permit instant organisation, instant campaigning and instant dissemination of information. In other words, they are a potential threat to the established State by providing a vehicle for real democracy (but also evil in anarchy, etc). It's about keeping the genie in the bottle before it emerges rather more strongly than in the recent riots. There are lots of IT literate young people without proper jobs and in debt, the seeds of a Britannic Spring are sown and the goverment / establishment will wish to stamp on any germinating shoots before they can establish themselves.

Some time ago, we had a discussion about ID cards in this forum.
I was against them then and I'm against these new powers for the same reasons ... as I see it, the citizen in the street has no comeback, no checks and balances to protect him/her against misuse of the data.

When I see those put in place, preferably via a written constitution, then I might (!) change my mind.

Nah – that's tb's tailor.

Assuming that t'interwebby and e-mails had yet to be invented.

Would this or any other government propose intercepting, opening and photocopying every letter that was posted to, from or within the UK?

And what do you presume would be the reaction?

[url=http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/50527/telldaveeverything_it_could_get_worse.htmlWhat we can expect[/url

It's mind blowing. And it was entirely bad enough when Labour proposed such plans, but for the Tories to have (rightly) opposed them then and now forgotten that makes it stink even more (if possible).

And really – this cobblers about 'if you have nothing to hide '...

Hey, let's all be so scared that we sleepwalk into an Orwellian reality. Do the people who claim that 'if you've done nothing wrong' actually have absolutely nothing whatsoever in their lives that they wouldn't want to share with everybody else? Really?

[url=http://twitpic.com/9572ut/fullTomorrow's Indy front page[/url

Be interesting to read the details but I can hear screeching brakes even now, I wouldn't completely rule out a handbrake turn

If that's correct, then would that be a record for a u-turn by this lot?

What if what you have to hide isnt illegal?


What are you doing where the government would need unfettered access to your communications to save a life?

There have been so many that they really are proving themselves to be incompetent.

Problem is that what they are doing is flying kites.

They are merely puppets dancing to the tune being played by more extreme puppeteers behind the screens, they have been told that there has to be extremely deep cuts, that there has to be a complete clampdown on freedoms, both press and public and rather than take considered decisions they are leaking details to the press and waiting to see what the reaction is, its almost like government by constant opinion poll instead of government by leadership.

We all know this now and we all know what tools to use to register our disapproval, more than ever before its possible to immediately register your objection to policies and so this government more than any seem perfectly happy to keep playing this game, and making themselves look weak and leaderless at the same time.

Its almost like they know now that there won't be another term after this one and the agenda has to be writ in law ASAP.

Throw in the proposals for government to withold evidence in trials and we're approaching a state that Kim Jong Il would've been proud to lead.

I can't help this sneaking suspicion that some are deliberately seeking to provoke a response, in order to have an excuse to crack down on the miscreants. That's one way of reducing the headcount and by extension, the welfare bill.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-retreats-on-digital-big-brother-plan-7615542.htmlIndy front page story[/url

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/04/human-rights-committee-hidden-justiceClegg demands rethink on secret justice plans[/url

What was it Saddened said about "if you've got nothing to hide?"

Fook me, they're getting desparate now

[url=http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2012/04/ten-reasons-to-be-proud-of-what-this-prime-minister-is-doing.htmlTen reasons to be proud of Cameron[/url

You need to be desperate to proclaim this as one of the ten best things your party leader has done during his term as Prime Minister...

5. A higher and more sustainable retirement age.


First of all WTF is a "sustainable" retirement age other than an unwillingness and long standing inability of all governments to tackle the issue of state pensions ?

And secondly - why be proud of the fact that you are forcing (not even asking) your citizens to work for more years than previously - I would have thought that LOWERING the retirement age would be something to be proud of.

It's a bit like the [iWail[/i declaring, a year or so ago, that one of the very greatest bits of St Maggie of Grantham's legacy was that we in the UK are now the only Europeans who are working longer than in the 1980s (even though our GDP has fallen but don't let's mention that).

Or "not quite got immigration under control as we'd have liked"

I was rather hoping they'd add:

11) Hasn't declared war on Iran (yet)

12) Hasn't been caught shagging a goat

That would be the appropriate way of phrasing it for the Tory spin machine as well.

"We're not saying he doesn't shag goats, or that he hasn't at some point in the past shagged one, but he certainly hasn't been caught doing it. At least not by anyone who lived long enough to tell the rest of the world what they saw."

He has admitted that he rode Rebekah Wade's horse ... maybe that was just a euphemism though.

I like to think I have a vivid imagination, I have a flair for exaggeration and can make the mundane seem colourful and interesting at the drop of a hat. But I am foooked if I can imagine Nick Clegg "demanding" anything other than another spanking from matron.

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9185208/Ken-Clarke-US-intelligence-agencies-are-holding-back-evidence-from-Britain-over-fears-of-open-courts.htmlErr, it's cos the US doesn't trust open courts.[/url