It's official: The Home Office is listening

Sir What?

So does Sir Neville-Kingdom hang out with Sir Branson? Or is he perhaps old enough to remember the war-time leader Sir Churchill?

Nothing to hide?

In today's paranoia state I'm already guilty of abetting terrorism and paedophilia. Someone quickly lock me up as I've watched terrorist propaganda, seen small children naked and can frequently been seen outside the school playground while wearing my long coat.

All the above is technically true. Given enough analysis I could very quickly find myself added to a secret list of names deemed unsuitable to work with children or even whisked off as part of some terrorist crackdown.

My actual crimes?

Reading the al Jazeera website (my cousin lives in Qatar). Knowing someone who lives in a terrorist friendly state who frequently can be seen consorting with terrorist sympathisers (read "muslims").

And, that most heinous crime of all, being a parent!

I'll accept being a Goth could be considered illegal in some parts of the world.

Re:@Only the guilty - @ac

***"Only people with something to hide (i.e. as yet unidentified law-breakers) have something to fear from such a process.

So, put simply, stop breaking the law."***

What an inordinate *prick* you are!

And how can you be *so* sure *you* haven't broken any law? Ever? Where do you draw the line between law-abiding and non law abiding. Accidentally broke a speed limit by 5 mph 10 years ago? Are you still law abiding? Murdered someone 10 years ago? Still Law abiding? How many crimes, and to what degree, do you need to commit to step over that line?

I sincerely hope that you review your past activities and compare them to the current UK statutes and common Law (this may take the rest of your life, of course). If you think you may have transgressed any I assume you will take yourself down to the local cop-shop to confess all.

Nothing to fear?

Why don't you tell that to Harry Stanley?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Stanley

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm

Or Nicholas Gaubert?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7096456.stm

Or Jean Charles de Menezes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/menezes

or Derek Bennett?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4677736.stm

or Steven Waldorf?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Waldorf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/14/newsid_2530000/2530649.stm

or James Ashley?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ashley

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/may/23/ukcrime.nickdavies

or Pearse Jordan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearse_Jordan

http://tinyurl.com/5fcgnj

for our cousins 'cross the pond, Rigoberto Alpizar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigoberto_Alpizar

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1138965,00.html

or Randolph evans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Evans

I could go on and on and on and on, but I'm sick of this. OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES YOU MORONS!

North Korea

This government is too overbearing, too powerful and too fucking nosey. Which is why I have just accepted a contract for insanely toe-curlingly large amounts of cash in North Korea.

Oh the North Korean government is crap, and they want all your data too. But the whole point is, they're crap. They wouldn't know how to collect it, don't have the technology or the infrastructure. Perfect.

"Objective need"....

Might be what as "necessary in the public interest", which sounds OK until you read the Identity Cards Act 2006, s1(4):

"For the purposes of this Act something is necessary in the public interest if, and only if, it is—

"(a) in the interests of national security;

"(b) for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime;

"(c) for the purposes of the enforcement of immigration controls;

"(d) for the purposes of the enforcement of prohibitions on unauthorised working or employment; or

"(e) for the purpose of securing the efficient and effective provision of public services."

I have a prize for anyone who can come up with anything a government department might want to do that isn't therefore "necessary in the public interest" - gotta love that "only if".