I can tell the difference, I just don't see what the harm is. I really don't what harm will come to me if they do snoop? Why would Big Brother have any interest in little old boring me? Perhaps if you can explain that to me? Them assassinating me on public transport is a bit silly, so keep it to sensible, but detrimental, things that might happen if the Government agencies had complete access to monitoring my life?

It could never happen. No operative could stand reading the shoite you post for any length of time, it's bad enough for us.

A couple of things mentioned on Question Time last night, one being "Why can't a British company invent and host a search engine and a Facebook ?", well nice idea but its never going to happen so in the meantime the other thing makes more sense "Don't ever post anything on Facebook that you don't want others to read and don't believe that when it says "Private" then it means that".

Personally I posted a series of Spike Milligan poems on my Facebook page last night, I hope the various government agencies who will "Share" these around like them this morning.

I didn't mention anyone assassinating you on public transport.

But it is an entirely reasonable illustration of what can go wrong with entirely innocent people when the security forces cock up. After all, what could possibly happen to an electrician going about their life perfectly normally and legally?

There are plenty of other illustrations of incidences where the police have monumentally cocked up – "monumentally" as in mortal errors. The Harry Stanley case is just that springs to mind, since it happened very near where I live.

So to start with, if you cannot comprehend that the security forces and police are far from infallible, then you're staggeringly naive.

If you comprehend the above – and still think that giving the security forces even more scope for error (it has been acknowledged that, for instance, no amount of additional snooping powers would have prevented the murder of Lee Rigby), then you're plain daft.

If you do not understand and value the concept of privacy, you're also daft on that score too.

That you're apparently happy to sacrifice your own privacy is one thing: that you're apparently quite happy for everyone else to sacrifice theirs too, and daft enough to fall for the cretinous line about 'if you've nothing to hide', is yet another illustration of the parlous state of public discourse in this country.

and now [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/14/home-secretaries-clegg-snoopers-charterfour former Home Secretaries are urging Clegg to drop his opposition to the snoopers' charter[/url

Why is it whenever something bad happens, or is even hinted at, all politicians want to do is exercise greater control over the lives of the population? The vast majority of whom are no threat to anyone at all.

All four of 'em, need locking up based on a case of mistaken identity. They would soon change their tunes.

In any case just how would the "snoopers charter" have prevented the Woolwich Incident? No one is daft enough to post their intentions to commit such a crime on Facebook. So just what would they be looking for? Someone posting they converted to Islam and because they did which is of course perfectly legal suddenly start treating them as a potential criminal?

Hopefully Clegg will have the balls not to cave in though his past record of working out how to support stuff he claims to be against is not good.

As far as I am aware, in the days immediately after that murder, it was acknowledged that no such measures would have stopped it.

It's the bloody security services that get each new government as it enters office, and tries to convince it that ever more surveillance measures are required.

Cameron and the Conservatives were (rightly) opposed to these sort of measures in opposition. It only took until they got in office, and GCHQ to have a little word, to change their minds.

Boring old you? No. It's very unlikely that anyone would ever find you interesting enough to watch.

But if they have the capacity to monitor boring old you, for no reason whatsoever, then they have the capacity to monitor ANYONE for ANY REASON.

This still might not be an issue for you, because you seem to be very stupid, but it would worry anyone with any sense.

Excellently put.

Why though? Other than the childish insults, none of you have come up with any reasons at all why that should bother me or anyone else.

Nothing gets votes like looking good in a crisis.

Even if sometimes, you have to create a crisis to begin with.

See Bush the Lesser's second election victory, secured amidst a climate of fear in post 9/11 America.

I haven't insulted you.

So perhaps you can provide something like a half-way thought-out response to some of the points that have been raised.

As it happens, your response to TLGJM suggests that you simply don't care a fig about anyone else other than yourself. So you're admitting, in essence, that you're just an entirely selfish and self-centred individual. Which at least will be consolation to you if you ever do need anyone else to care about you.

Taking some well deserved flak again I see.

What's wrong with the authorities having to convince a judge that the need to monitor someone is in the national interest?

Or let's say in the future, a very left wing government gets in power and decides they want to eradicate anyone who is even slightly right wing. They need only turn to GCHQ to get their targets.

You have got to be either joking, haven't actually read any of the reasons put forward including the articles in the links I posted earlier in the thread or you really are a bit thick! That isn't meant to be an insult by the way. More of a despairing comment that anyone could be so naive to think the information gathered will not be misused either accidentally or deliberately to the detriment of people in this country.

The fact you don't care they can see you in your bondage gear or whatever is not the problem. It's when that is published for the world to see your life is affected. Why don't you get this?

Which is an interesting illustration, because we can see exactly the sort of impact that such a thing would have via the case of Max Mosely.

He does something that is not illegal and does not contradict anything he's said or done in public life (so there's no hypocrisy argument). But the result of the [iNOTW[/i splashing his [uprivate[/u life all over the front page for the titilation of millions may quite possibly have been a factor in his son's subsequent suicide, while his employers seek to sack him on the basis of the revelations.

And then there's the case of Simon Walsh – #PornTrial, as it became known – who has lost his career because (in all likelihood), for political reasons, his sexual preferences (again, nothing illegal) were used to prosecute him. He was subsequently cleared (summary of that case [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/porntrial-masking-real-questions.htmlhere[/url: pic may not be considered work safe).

In this particular case, an 'expert' for the police even claimed that wearing a gas mask (as featured in one photograph that Walsh had) was very bad, since it could cause serious harm to the wearer – even death by asphyxiation. That in itself is some illustration of how the police can behave with private information.

I actually know of a similar case where the person involved was not famous, and was sacked because someone decided to reveal to their employer their predilection for a spot of consensual S&M in their own, personal time.

But privacy is unimportant and only those with something to hide need be afraid – and the authorities would never, ever, ever do anything detrimental with or as a result of such information.

So it would be okay for the ruling government to pry into every aspect of their political opponents?

The police officer who has decided you're not man enough for your wife and he wants her, you want him to have access to these snooping facilities?

The 8 year old girl who has just been murdered near your house. You were seen by CCTV cameras in the building at the approximate time of her death. Your DNA has supposedly been found at the crime scene. Your skin was found under the fingernails of the victim. Do you think that anyone will believe your protestations that you've been fitted up?

The example I gave above of the case of Simon Walsh: he had been involved in disciplinary procedures against police officers. There has certainly been speculation that those details of his private life were used in an attempt to get rid of him.

BECAUSE NORMAL PEOPLE VALUE THEIR BLOODY PRIVACY!!!

I get it. You would not care if a government team was seconded to have an agent within 1 metre of you throughout your entire life, with a recording device. You go for a , he's there. Sit watcj=hing tv, he's there. You go to bed, he watches whatever you do there. You spend time on the internet, he is there watching everything you do. He listens to every conversation, personal or electronic. He reads all your mail. You go out for a good session, he's sat next to you. You go on holiday, he's in the next seat, and he shares your room. He goes sightseeing with you, in the pool he's there, as you apply the factor 15 to yourself and your missus, he's closely watching. You go to your GP for various personal problems, he's there in the examination room. Your relative dies, there he is at the service, and the graveside, and the wake.

I could, of course, go on ad infinitum, but if you really want to try to convince me you would be perfectly cool with all this, then you are quite, quite mad, so there would be no point.

He should really apply factor 30 if he's going to be sitting by the pool.

Do you ever masturbate? Or have sex? Maybe you like certain activities that might be described as 'non-mainstream'?

Can they really do all that ?

Is that the explanation for the scarecrow in my garden who's eyes follow you around when you're cutting the grass, I have no idea how it got there or even when it first appeared.

They've had to come up with something new now that those pictures of Jesus, with eyes that are said to follow you (a deeply mystical thing, it was implied when I was young and there was one in my bedroom) are not in as many homes.

I can't imagine many blow-up dolls requiring sun screen

There's only one thing crazier than Saddened and that's taking his shtick seriously.

I'm comforted by knowing the British constitution will protect me against snooping and such like and the relevant sections will be scrutinised openly and fairly by the relevant powers who police the executive.

There are however. perhaps, at least several reasons why that may not be the case.

Perhaps it is time to look at the overall comfort zone of the current political set up in this country and realise that at best it is bad and is so corrupt and biased that it will never change.

It still leaves me wondering though why people still like a monarchy and believe in aristocracy rather than meritocracy, the former being why we are in the mess we are.