Feeds

back to article Theresa May announces new counter-terrorism package

Home Secretary, Theresa May, yesterday announced radical government action to end the creeping threat to civil liberties in the UK brought about by counter-terrorism legislation and increased powers for the security forces – by replacing her existing powers with even better counter-terror legislation and new powers for the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
FAIL

Wrong!

Underage sales of alcohol only attract a fine, there is no custodial sentence available to the courts so surveillance will not be allowed and hence enforcement will become very difficult if not impossible.

0
2
FAIL

Wrong!

There is no custodial sentence available for underage sales of alcohol only a level 5 fine.

The removal of surveillance will make enforcement very difficult if not impossible.

0
4
Stop

Re:Wrong!

"The removal of surveillance will make enforcement very difficult if not impossible."

Surprisingly enought this legislation was enforced before the labour party introduced the surveilance state, during the last administration.

The proposal is that enforcement will now have to convince the judicary that there is ample grounds for violating somebodies privacy, rather than being able to just run off on fishing expeditions beacuse somebody felt like it.

For those that haven't encountered this concept before, we call it a free society, as in the opposite of a police state,

.

6
0
Flame

Disgusted

I'm disgusted by the way Lib Dems are spinning rebranded, "low-fat" control orders as some kind of improvement.

"Rather than break both your legs, we plan to break just one arm. Aren't we doing a great job?"

And if we say, "No!"? We'll have both our legs broken anyway?

It's wrong to look at this as a choice between "full-fat" control orders and "low-fat" control orders. With existing control orders, the choice is between having them, and not having them at all.

The choice is between violating people's human rights, and not violating their rights.

The choice should not be seen as being between different extents to which human rights are violated. That's simply the wrong way to look at it. Lib Dem spin looks at this in that deplorable way. I'm disgusted with them.

They might try to argue that compromise is necessary in coalition, but there are some things that shouldn't be compromised on. Control orders should simply be done away with. Choosing to continue to violate people's human rights, even if to a lesser extent, is clearly worse than simply not violating those human rights any more.

"I've stolen £1000, and I propose to steal another £300. That's a big step in the right direction, to the tune of £700!"

"No it isn't! You're proposing to increase the amount you've stolen by a further £300!"

"The State is violating people's human rights with control orders. We propose to continue violating their human rights with new terrorism prevention and investigation measures. That's a big step in the right direction."

"No it isn't! You're proposing to continue violating people's human rights!"

And denying that curfews are curfews is just taking the piss.

9
0
Flame

You're disgusted...

Imagine how myself and other LibDems feel with Clegg selling LibDem principles down the river!

Sorry if it offends any fellow LibDems who believe power should trump principles but Clegg & Co have shown themselves to be no better than the other two-faced bastards who seek power. By all rights the LibDem party should be dead by now, seen as a false hope, having run an election campaign of lies.

Worst of all is that Clegg and Cable are the willing suckers for Tory policy presenting it with a happy smile and approval as if it were in line with LibDem principles. Absolute traitors to the cause and lacking backbone. No better than the spineless New Labourites we just got rid off.

5
0
Anonymous Coward

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.

5
0
FAIL

Whatever happend to Wacki Jacqui?

I think she may have recently signed a Deed of Change of Name.

0
0
FAIL

Security Theatre

One can basically describe all the "anti-terror" legislation brought in since 1997 as "Security Theatre".

It is legislation based on sound bytes, political posturing, and no coherent consideration or plan.

e.g.

if you suspect somebody is a terrorist, do not arrest them, put them under survielance and gather inteligence.

This way you get "evidence", and can detected all the people supporting or working for them. At which point you can nail everybody, not just one or two operators.

PS

most of the current Terrorism legislation is badly written (the police and armed forces count as terrorists according to the letter of the law!, Bush, Obama, et al break the law every time they celibrate the 4th of July, etc.)

3
0
Silver badge

Don't blame the Lib Dems

I don't think it's simply a case of them selling out for power. Ever since the Coalition got in it has behaved almost exactly like New Labour on most issues related to law enforcement and civil liberties. And this is despite their seemingly different political and social ideologies. I'm forced to conclude that the politicians aren't actually the masters of policy. Did I miss the coup?

1
0
Silver badge
Grenade

Your conclusion

is 100% on the money. It doesn't matter which "Western Democracy" you happen to live in, your elected representatives *always* do exactly what the previous lot did and only faff about at the edges in order to gain a few political points at the expense of the other side. So come election time you get the Left fighting the Right on crap that precisely none of the voters give two shits about while the real issues go completely unmentioned.

We saw this in Technicolour during the last Australian Federal Election. Lots of arguing about the ridiculous National Broadband Network, and lots of stupid accusations that voting for one side or the other will lead to higher taxes/interest rates/carbon emissions/illegal immigrants/monkey revolts whilst the important stuff such as the various wars we are engaged in, our unabashed obsequiousness to the USA, the insane inflation in the area of government and utility charges making Australia the most expensive country in the world to live in not to mention the degradation of our civil rights. All these things were completely unmentioned apart from the occasional boilerplate rhetoric about how "our party totally supports our brave men and women (Question without notice: Exactly how many women have been killed in Iraqistan?) and are utterly committed to fighting the war against terror (tm)" along with a multitude of motherhood statements regarding how schools and hospitals will magically be better if only you would vote for us.

The truth is that there is very little difference between the two majors and therefore a vote for either is a simply a vote for the status quo.

It shits me. It really does. Viva la revolution I say!

1
0
Bronze badge

Simple reasoning

The vast bulk of the British public vote without a single thought. If you are the same as the bunch that got elected last time you can present a 'fresh and pretty face' and 'comfortable sameness' and therefore get elected.

The other explanation - which does have some support - they are actually all the same and doing exactly what they are told by europe/usa/big business/murdock/... any other hate figure... and totally under there control and the public are duped by 'elections' where there votes and wishes are totally ignored under a whitewash of numbers no one can actually challenge in any meaningful way and are given whatever the guy in charge believes will be just enough to prevent a revolution.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Why should Plod be entrusted with making any RIPA decisions?

Plod is one side of the RIPA equation/stop-&-search, and the proposed victim is the other. Only judges should be entrusted when anyone's civil rights are about to be curtailed or breached.

Civil Liberties, as the words are understood in other countries and in the UK until the 1970's, no longer exist in the UK. Enforced answering to Plod questions; your password or jail; detention without trial; etc.

Either Plod, 'security forces', et al, have enough to charge someone with an offence - the Crown has everything going for it in any event - or get off the pot and let the guy go free. Enforcing any regime on an alleged offender is has not undergone judicial process is an insult to the words 'civil liberties'. It's bad enough with most judges having a myopic viewpoint and siding with 'authorities' as if they have some God-given power.

What gets me, and others, why are the British so accepting of all this authoritarian trash. Something has happened to the British psyche between WW2 and the 1970's to permit this to happen.

If you let a government take anything from you it is awfully hard to recover it.

5
0
Bronze badge

Judges and trusted in a single sentance...

Without any "not to be", "can't be", "shouldn't be", "no" statements?

How odd. These judges are surely the super alcohol soaked rich old men who routinely believe that a 10 year old girl deserved to be raped for a short skirt and their paedophile mate should therefore get less than a week inside while the horrible dirty, dangerous scoundrel who dared to damage a Conservative party fire extinquisher, or who stole someones pet Rolls Royce should be hung from the nearest lamp post ? Trust them, not a chance

0
0
Bronze badge
WTF?

People 'vote' for this?

I would dearly love to think that the British actually voted for the politicians we have. I can't believe even the lazy, dim witted unthinking bunch of morons that occupy 99.99999% of these islands are quite thick enough to believe this same batch of lies time and time and time and time again.

Surely by now even the most numbskulled British idiot must realise that Labour == Conservative == Liberal Democrat == lying, two faced, cheating, swindling an** who is out to s***w you into the floor with higher taxes, more control, deeper spying, lower living standards and more and more fear of everything...

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.