Now look what you've done!
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
nickgusset  Shizzlehurst 14 May 15 10.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
worst decline in real wages on record...
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| derben 14 May 15 10.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 7.21pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 7.07pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.39pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.35pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.29pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 5.57pm
These "New counter-terrorism measures" will inevitably devolve into something that's applied to anything and anyone the government doesn't like. That's what has happened each and every time with this kind of legislation. “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',” Cameron said “This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach".
You must be really worried that they will be knocking on your door - a fearless critic of the government like you. Under these plans some people will have to get permission from the police before making Facebook posts. It's absurd. Either arrest people for breaking the law or let them be. It's already stupid enough that mildly offensive drunken tweets end up becoming criminal matters on account that someone is mildy 'offended'. Apparently you're all for that though. I thought you were for small government. I am for less government. I just think it funny that you make out we are becoming some sort of Stalinist police state when they are just trying to stop people blowing us up. Edited by derben (14 May 2015 6.35pm) As stated, whether under Labour or Conservatives all of these expansive new laws end up getting widened and used for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or crime. You know this. Whether you care about that is you for. It's really about having more control over the population in general, Mr small government. Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 6.45pm) Well of course I don't accept that "all of these expansive new laws end up getting widened and used for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or crime." It is simply nonsense to say it. It's a statement of fact, not a suggestion. It was happened multiple times previously. As for the EU, I'm not fussed either way. In fact I posted about an hour ago, of how warped and biased I imagined the campaign to force us to stay will be. It should be for the people to decide it won't be, just as it won't be with these looming 'corporate coup' type trade agreements, but you're happy in your bubble so what does it matter to you. Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 7.23pm) Can we have some examples, and do you think it is a good idea or not to take measures to stop people blowing us up?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| imbored UK 14 May 15 11.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 10.59pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 7.21pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 7.07pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.39pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.35pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.29pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 5.57pm
These "New counter-terrorism measures" will inevitably devolve into something that's applied to anything and anyone the government doesn't like. That's what has happened each and every time with this kind of legislation. “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',” Cameron said “This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach".
You must be really worried that they will be knocking on your door - a fearless critic of the government like you. Under these plans some people will have to get permission from the police before making Facebook posts. It's absurd. Either arrest people for breaking the law or let them be. It's already stupid enough that mildly offensive drunken tweets end up becoming criminal matters on account that someone is mildy 'offended'. Apparently you're all for that though. I thought you were for small government. I am for less government. I just think it funny that you make out we are becoming some sort of Stalinist police state when they are just trying to stop people blowing us up. Edited by derben (14 May 2015 6.35pm) As stated, whether under Labour or Conservatives all of these expansive new laws end up getting widened and used for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or crime. You know this. Whether you care about that is you for. It's really about having more control over the population in general, Mr small government. Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 6.45pm) Well of course I don't accept that "all of these expansive new laws end up getting widened and used for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or crime." It is simply nonsense to say it. It's a statement of fact, not a suggestion. It was happened multiple times previously. As for the EU, I'm not fussed either way. In fact I posted about an hour ago, of how warped and biased I imagined the campaign to force us to stay will be. It should be for the people to decide it won't be, just as it won't be with these looming 'corporate coup' type trade agreements, but you're happy in your bubble so what does it matter to you. Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 7.23pm) Can we have some examples, and do you think it is a good idea or not to take measures to stop people blowing us up?
These powers are abused. It's inevitable and human nature to do so once they are available. When it reaches the point where anti-terror laws are being used for something as ridiculous as monitoring "bin crimes" [Link] the debate on whether these laws are used for other reasons is as laughable as it is over. As such this is demonstrably something you are wrong about. No-one is saying we shouldn't have laws in place to protect us. I am saying that we need balance and an awareness that new laws, as with old, will likely be used against the general population at some point. You do not appear to appreciate that fact. These proposed laws are far from all terror specific anyway, another aspect you fail to recognise. They are predictably vague and catch-all. Read this: [Link] Edited by imbored (15 May 2015 12.55am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 15 May 15 8.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 11.31pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 10.59pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 7.21pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 7.07pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.39pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.35pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.29pm
Quote derben at 14 May 2015 6.18pm
Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 5.57pm
These "New counter-terrorism measures" will inevitably devolve into something that's applied to anything and anyone the government doesn't like. That's what has happened each and every time with this kind of legislation. “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone',” Cameron said “This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach".
You must be really worried that they will be knocking on your door - a fearless critic of the government like you. Under these plans some people will have to get permission from the police before making Facebook posts. It's absurd. Either arrest people for breaking the law or let them be. It's already stupid enough that mildly offensive drunken tweets end up becoming criminal matters on account that someone is mildy 'offended'. Apparently you're all for that though. I thought you were for small government. I am for less government. I just think it funny that you make out we are becoming some sort of Stalinist police state when they are just trying to stop people blowing us up. Edited by derben (14 May 2015 6.35pm) As stated, whether under Labour or Conservatives all of these expansive new laws end up getting widened and used for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or crime. You know this. Whether you care about that is you for. It's really about having more control over the population in general, Mr small government. Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 6.45pm) Well of course I don't accept that "all of these expansive new laws end up getting widened and used for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or crime." It is simply nonsense to say it. It's a statement of fact, not a suggestion. It was happened multiple times previously. As for the EU, I'm not fussed either way. In fact I posted about an hour ago, of how warped and biased I imagined the campaign to force us to stay will be. It should be for the people to decide it won't be, just as it won't be with these looming 'corporate coup' type trade agreements, but you're happy in your bubble so what does it matter to you. Edited by imbored (14 May 2015 7.23pm) Can we have some examples, and do you think it is a good idea or not to take measures to stop people blowing us up?
These powers are abused. It's inevitable and human nature to do so once they are available. When it reaches the point where anti-terror laws are being used for something as ridiculous as monitoring "bin crimes" [Link] the debate on whether these laws are used for other reasons is as laughable as it is over. As such this is demonstrably something you are wrong about. No-one is saying we shouldn't have laws in place to protect us. I am saying that we need balance and an awareness that new laws, as with old, will likely be used against the general population at some point. You do not appear to appreciate that fact. These proposed laws are far from all terror specific anyway, another aspect you fail to recognise. They are predictably vague and catch-all. Read this: [Link] Edited by imbored (15 May 2015 12.55am) Is that the best you can come up with? I thought we were going to have people dragged down police cellars and shot in the back of the head like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Instead we get some Green person with a record of looking for faults with policing, who the police keep tabs on what she is complaining about. Also something about some hippie at Glastonbury. Then the New Statesman publishes an article critical of the Tory government - well they would, wouldn't they. However, I do admit that these politicians can step over the line. If Ed Milliband had been elected he was going to make 'Islamophobia' an 'aggravated crime' (although he did not define was Islamophobia is). I'm sure you join me in condemning such draconian thought-crime measures.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.