back to article Look out, law abiding folk: UK’s Counter-Extremism Bill slithers into view

The UK’s National Security Council is meeting today to discuss the new Counter-Extremism Bill, with prime minister David Cameron seemingly determined to target those spouting extremist rhetoric - even when no criminal offence has been committed. "For too long we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: …

  1. viscount
    Stop

    Summary: in the interests of protecting freedom of speech, the Government will acquire the power to shut up and shut down groups that say things that are legal but they don't like.

    1. Vimes

      Perhaps we can at least get our own back on MPs the next time they break the spirit rather than the letter of the law (expenses specifically come to mind, as does the likes of Adam Werritty).

      That's something we've certainly one area where we've been far too passively tolerant.

    2. PleebSmash
      Mushroom

      >"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 in a government press release.

      That's the summary. Quote of the century right there.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Oh i dont know

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoeOAdFvkqA

    3. John Robson Silver badge

      Innocent until proven guilty...

      already assumes guilt.

      "Innocent unless proven guilty" maybe?

      Of course now it's "innocent is a drinks manufacturer"

    4. Vimes

      It's difficult to see this happen without the HRA repeal (DRIPA was an 'emergency' response after the EU's DRD was ruled illegal if you recall).

      I would suggest that anybody interested in the prospect of the HRA read this:

      http://jackofkent.com/2015/05/the-seven-hurdles-for-repeal-of-the-human-rights-act/

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The jackofkent article is interesting, but I don't think the obstacles are actually that big.

        Parliaments is supreme, and Salisbury and the Parliament Act mean HoC is supreme within Parliament. They can pass a bill that takes out the HRA and that would be law of the land. Done.

        The biggest obstacle (and it is in the article as Hurdle 3) is that some Tory MPs will oppose the move, and could get quite noisy.

        1. ScottAS2

          Except for viewers in Scotland

          Bear in mind that in Scotland the Crown in Parliament does not have unlimited sovereignty - this was referred to by the Lord President of the Court of Session as "a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law" in the result of MacCormick v Lord Advocate.

          This isn't to say that Westminster couldn't legislate to repeal the HRA in Scotland, but it could result in a constitutional crisis or two if the Scottish Parliament dig their heels in and try to assert that they better represent the considered will of the people of Scotland (which is widely asserted, but has never been proved, to be sovereign in Scotland) than Westminster.

          Those of us (in Scotland at least) live in interesting times.

  2. Vimes

    Define 'extremist'.

    Teresa May can't. And that should tell you all you need to know.

    1. captain veg

      She could try looking in a mirror.

      -A.

    2. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Teresa May can't

      I think I, Norman Smith, and quite a few others here could fix that for you ;)

    3. AllTheGoodOnesHaveGone

      She certainly couldn't on Radio 4 yesterday.

      In fact it occurred to me whether Teresa May wasn't being allowed by Cameron and Osborne to push forward this legislation to keep her out of mischief and fill up the media with hand-wringing.

    4. Paul Kinsler
      Joke

      Define 'extremist'.

      How about this: "Anyone who can be found using the method of Lagrange multipliers". Women who have had children are a case in point: they might be an Extremum.

      1. Vimes

        Re: Define 'extremist'.

        Teresa May: "we are one nation"

        Is it just me or would that sound better in its native German?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Define 'extremist'.

          ein VOLK, ein FUEHRER, ja, es stimmt gut!

          ...

          Well, using German (we're anti-eu now, remember!) and clear connotations, worse still - implications (what are you trying to say?!) - make me a prime-time terrorist. Is it the sound of a siren from a pacifying force?

          1. G.Y.

            Re: Define 'extremist'.

            text is "ein volk, EIN REICH, ein fuehrer" !

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
              Coat

              Re: Define 'extremist'.

              "Teresa May can't"

              Teresa Mayn't.

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Define 'extremist'.

            Keep Bajor for the Bajorans!

  3. knarf
    Trollface

    oh Dear

    There will be a lot of SNP voters in jail

    1. Fink-Nottle

      Re: oh Dear

      > There will be a lot of SNP voters in jail

      You say that like it's a bad thing ...

      1. john devoy

        Re: oh Dear

        Yes, how dare those pesky Scots try to control their own laws.

      2. Fink-Nottle

        Re: oh Dear

        >> There will be a lot of SNP voters in jail

        >> You say that like it's a bad thing ...

        4 thumbs down? Really? Some folks need to lighten up.

    2. James 51 Silver badge

      Re: oh Dear

      The SNP, the Green Party, a few UKIPers as well, Green Peace, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and plenty more besides. Oh yes, if you're not a one nation tory in favour with the upper ranks of The Party it's open season.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: oh Dear

        A "one nation Tory" is a conservative in the British sense, ie: part of a respectable tradition of Conservatism which sees society as a whole, rejects division, and has a sense of noblesse oblige (ie: believes that privilege entails to responsibility.) Just what squalid little shits like David Cameron don't stand for!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: oh Dear - David Cameron

          Eton exists to ensure that the scions of the upper classes don't swallow any of that One Nation nonsense. Since George Orwell overcame it, the conditioning has been intensified. Why do you think Cameron looks so shiny? It's the result of the Eton lessons in "oiling" - i.e. oiling your way up the system.

  4. eJ2095
    Mushroom

    V for Vendetta

    V for Vendetta ......

    Guy Fawkes needed...

    1. Andrew Newstead

      Re: V for Vendetta

      Guy Fawkes mask icon needed back...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: V for Vendetta

        You called...

  5. King Jack Silver badge
    Big Brother

    'Powers to close premises where extremists seek to influence others'

    Does that mean all churches will be closed down? If so I'm all for it.

    1. captain veg

      Don't forget TV and radio studios where politicians are interviewed.

      And pubs, of course.

      Be careful what you wish for.

      -A.

      1. Khaptain Silver badge

        So I suppose that the prisons will be closed too and while were at it, let's just close down the internet and then set fire to Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc. (oooops some of that has already started)...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          So I suppose that the prisons will be closed too

          As has been noted already, Gove has been made Minster for Justice not so that we can all have a cynical laugh, but to introduce free prisons that can be started by anybody who lives in an upper middle class area. Only the right sort of prisoners will be admitted. The wrong sort of prisoners will simply be sent back where they came from, for which the default is Somalia. The right sort will ensure that the leaves are removed from the park and the hedgerows are neatly trimmed, and probably fix the bicycles for the old maids to ride to church, where the Rector will tell them about the arrest of the Archbishop of Canterbury on terrorism charges.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Does that mean all churches will be closed down? I"

      No chance. "Chiltern Radio Dave" will use "God" as the convenient "moral" justification for people doing what they are told. Everyone will be encouraged to pay lip service to that - or else suffer a loss of privilege. The CofE and RCC will be delighted with having more power over children's education - "for their own good British values". Has Cameron done a Blair and kissed the Pope's ring yet?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Which ring?

      2. Teiwaz Silver badge

        Too far along the apathy road...

        For a real world version of Peter Watkins 'Privilege'

        And any 'goosey goosey gandering' are as likely to be told to 'bugger off' as families head over to the nearest 'mall' of a sunday.

    3. Tweetiepooh

      conversely

      Muting those with an "anti-religion" agenda on the same basis.

    4. sabroni Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: If so I'm all for it.

      Right, so May's got the right idea in your opinion? The government should promote free speech by stopping free speech?

      I guess someone got the government they deserved....

      1. King Jack Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: If so I'm all for it.

        Whooosh!! Note the big brother icon on my original post.

        @sabroni

        I'm light heartedly pointing out how stupid this new law will be. It can be used to legalise or criminalise anything they want. If anyone disagrees with them and speaks out about it, then they are extremists and must be jailed. Only a Hitler supporter would agree to this 'law'. Only a war will get rid of it, like last time.

        1. martinusher Silver badge

          Re: If so I'm all for it.

          Two things to bear in mind about Hitler. One was that he was enthusiastically supported by many of the British ruling classes at the time. The other is that to get rid of him we not only had to fight a war but lay waste to large parts of Europe in the process. So its best to nail this sort of thing before it takes root.

          Here's the problem, though. A right wing government that stands for order and decency that dumps on the workshy and deviant (and other people who are a drag on the State) could describe the Nazis. We tend to focus on their peculiarities -- specifically their pogroms -- without seeing the bigger picture. Their street theater -- uniforms, symbols and so on -- didn't happen by accident, they were a product of an understanding of marketing methodology and public relations. So in a sense we're already quite a long way down that road. Then look at the notion of totalitarianism, the idea that nobody can hide anything from the State. I've been railing against the blind acceptance of anti-kiddie porn measures for years, not because I'm a wannabe pervert but because as a programmer I can abstract classes -- if I have mechanisms in place to identify people who possess one class of information then those same mechanisms can be used to identify people who possess any class of information -- to my (admittedly somewhat paranoid) mind this was nothing to do with a social problem and everything to do with developing mechanisms of control which would eventually be used against all of us. (To hark back to the Nazi thing, that time really was a case of "first they came for the Communists but I said nothing because I wasn't a Communist". We have to take the long view when dealing with these people.)

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: If so I'm all for it.

            @ martinusher

            The problem I have with this kind of description (I upvoted you btw) is that people focus on the nazi bit and assume it is a right wing problem. This is where the very left like to label the right to generate fear. The problem is that the communists were as bad and that is of course the extreme left.

            I am not convinced that Cameron is a crazy rightie with nazi dreams. I think he is a right winger moving left (a blair clone who was a left leaning right). The problem I have is that an extreme left or a extreme right gov gets in and we have the same result, communist or nazi. While our current centre seems to be well wishing fools creating the tools and rules for nutters.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Coat

              Re: If so I'm all for it.

              Commie-servatives I tell ee

          2. cyfahead
            Paris Hilton

            Re: If so I'm all for it.

            This thread is getting to the nub of the matter... The values that Cameron and May would like to protect are the self same values which have been built up by the Establishment over the past few centuries since we abolished the divine right of kings i.e. the right to vast tracts of land and the rents off them and hence to their ownership and the resulting power to perpetuate the status quo by giving a permanent head start in owning and controlling whatever commercial opportunities are thrown up by technological advance or political opportunity.

            Don't be shy folks to question the very basis of our economic system. That is not terrorism but it certainly comes under the heading of 'likely to create unrest'. Masses of it. If you want to read an excellent primer on the 'economic philosophy' that Cameron claims to be underpinning 'decent society and behaviour' read this article, written by academics at Cornell and Sydney? Uni's, published in the JACOBIN emagazine at https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/09/dont-mention-the-war/ . The authors are Seth Ackerman and Mike Beggs. They deserve a medal for a clear readable exposition of the real issue. We need a new vision. One that includes us all, all of the time, fairly building well being for everyone from cradle to grave sustainably across the UK and the world... that is us all who are 'one'. Whatever it might look like we are not an island.

        2. sabroni Silver badge
          Meh

          @King Jack I'm light heartedly pointing out how stupid this new law will be.

          No you weren't. You were hilariously dissing those religious idiots that you know so much better than. Can't say I though it was funny (And I have a very good sense of humour!!), it just sounded like the usual intellectual intolerance directed toward the religious that you get on here all the time...

          Are the 47 upvotes ironic? Difficult to tell isn't it....

          1. King Jack Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: @King Jack I'm light heartedly pointing out how stupid this new law will be.

            So now you are a (bad) mind reader with no sense of humour.

            If you want to believe in a sky fairy that is up to you. I don't agree with brainwashing (religion) but everyone's life is their own and they should be free to believe in crap if they want to. I'm off to worship the chocolate teapot orbiting mercury whilst I'm still allowed to do so. Care to join me?

          2. Vic

            Re: @King Jack I'm light heartedly pointing out how stupid this new law will be.

            I have a very good sense of humour!

            IME, those that have a good sense of humour can be seen to have such by their actions. Those that need to tell others that they have one generally don't...

            Vic.

    5. Julz

      There's also that ornate place by the Thames next to the pointy clock tower that's jam packed with extremists...

    6. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Can we close Faux News too?

      As well as Sun, The Volkischer Beobachter and "Sunday T*ts, etc"

    7. Tim Jenkins

      "...all churches will be closed down?"

      Nah; just the ones which have issues with traditions, beliefs, histories, science, sexualities and gender roles that differ from their own teachings, and encourage their 'faithful' to act accordingly.

      Oh, wait....

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What about those organisations proposing to abolish free speech?

      Like Westminster, apparently.

    9. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      All churches maybe but mosques will be excluded as normal.

  6. Buzzword

    Ofcom in the Internet age?

    What can Ofcom do to clamp down on foreign hate preachers broadcasting over the internet? Lots of noises, not much concrete action.

    1. Triggerfish

      Re: Ofcom in the Internet age?

      Oh they could build a big firewall and go down the China route I suppose, after all its for our own good.

      Just as a note I have a friend who has worked with various intel type organisations US and UK his comment once was if you saw what (our MPs) they want to do, you'd be sickened.

  7. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Headmaster

    What is lacking here are legal tests for what is meant by

    --threat to democracy

    --extremism

    --radicalization

    --hate speech

    Without these, this legislation is almost inevitably going to end up in abuse of power to silence people who are fans of controversial or anti-hierarchical positions.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: this legislation is almost inevitably going to end up in abuse of power

      You seem to have accidentally typed "almost" in the middle of that sentence...

      1. Marketing Hack Silver badge

        Re: this legislation is almost inevitably going to end up in abuse of power

        @ Sabroni

        Against all experience, I'm trying to remain optimistic about this legislation...

    2. Velv Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: What is lacking here are legal tests for what is meant by

      What's even crazier is that there are existing laws which could be used to tackle these if the terms were defined more clearly (and if someone in the CPS/PF was brave enough to try a prosecution).

    3. cyfahead
      Paris Hilton

      Re: What is lacking here are legal tests for what is meant by

      This is exactly the rigour we need. Do you have any plans on how we can do this? By 'we' I mean us sane , thoughtful grey heads (..whose that said I'm bald? That's a #0 cutter) who live on pension credit after a life in corporate IT and community work. Can I claim Legal Aid to bring a test case do you think?

  8. Thought About IT

    One party state

    When you look at the new government's priorities for the first 100 days, a pattern emerges:

    Reintroduce the Snooper's charter & suppress free speech.

    Repeal the European Court of Human Rights act.

    Reduce trade unions' right to strike.

    Threaten the BBC to toe the line or lose the license fee.

    Gerrymander constituency boundaries - worth 20 seats - to make sure they win the next election.

    One party state, anyone?

    1. Anonymous Coward 101

      Re: One party state

      Also reintroduce fox hunting, because fuck yeah why not?

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: reintroduce fox hunting

        Because it never stopped and someone might notice? You don't need terrier men on a drag hunt....

      2. wolfetone Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: One party state

        "Also reintroduce fox hunting, because fuck yeah why not?"

        I hear that they'll also be reintroducing slavery, but won't discriminate by colour or race. They are a lot of things, but racist isn't one of them.

    2. Trigonoceps occipitalis

      Re: One party state

      Gerrymander constituency boundaries - worth 20 seats - to ensure equal representation for each vote.

      FTFY

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: One party state

        "Gerrymander constituency boundaries - worth 20 seats - to ensure equal representation for each vote."

        Good idea. So next time it won't take Labour 20% more votes per MP on average than the Conservatives, and the seats will be adjusted to give fair representation to all the minority parties?

        There goes the Conservative majority.

        1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

          Re: One party state

          I must say that I expect my MP to give equal effort to supporting Labour, Tory, UKIP, Green, Monster Raving Loony, even SNP constituents if there ever are any in my part of the UK. Do not confuse votes with the electoral roll. Even those who don't vote have exercised a democratic choice.

    3. PassingStrange

      Re: One party state

      >Gerrymander constituency boundaries - worth 20 seats - to make sure they win the next election.

      I'll inevitably get seriously down-voted by the more leftward voting El Reg readers for this, but. If it were Gerrymandering we were talking about, the OP wouldn't be able to quote a number of seats ahead of time. This is something different (and, yes, it will inevitably work to Labour's disadvantage; if you actually believe in the idea of democracy in the UK, rather than giving lip service provided it always delivers the result you like, that's no reason it shouldn't go ahead).

      Firstly, courtesy of the LibDems throwing their tantrum over the Tories not letting them dictate how the Lords should be reformed, we're overdue an adjustment of constituency boundaries (the reviews of which are carried out at intervals, by law, by 4 non-political Boundary Commissions, by the way).

      Secondly, after past adjustments, and in particular the fourth such review back in 1995, it has been generally agreed by independent political commentators that Labour activists have consistently beaten the Tories hands-down at gaming the commissions system to their party-political advantage. I doubt that left wing voters need fear that THAT's changed much.

      The big thing that's different about the proposed legislation is that it would require all constituencies to be of roughly similar size. And that would kick into touch the built-in, but manifestly unfair, electoral advantage that Labour currently gains from the UK having a large number of small, inner-city constituencies. Well - if that's Gerrymandering, all I can say is, not before time. If a party of any hue can't convince the electorate on a level playing field, it doesn't deserve to be in power. Although for my money, I'd prefer a system in which my own vote actually counts for something each time (I've lived all over the country, but never yet voted in an election in which the constituency result wasn't a foregone conclusion).

      1. cyfahead
        Paris Hilton

        Re: One party state

        "we're overdue an adjustment of constituency boundaries (the reviews of which are carried out at intervals, by law, by 4 non-political Boundary Commissions, by the way)"

        A Boundary Commission, one for each country in the UK, comprises 4 appointed people. The Speaker of the House of Commons "who by tradition takes no part but is the Chairman of each", A Justice of the realm (not sure if that means a judge or your local Earl Marshall of the Shire), and two 'independent' personages. Thirteen trusty souls. Their deliberations explicitly bar them from considering what the political effects of what they are doing may have. (How any one with two brain cells can achieve that is beyond me) BUT, crucially, they do have a set of guidelines laid down by law which they should consider (including the usual 'special circumstances' escape clause). These guidelines are the nub for they have become congruent with all sorts of other legislation, regulation and policy that has been added to the statute book over the years.

        Consider the expansion of Green Beltism from the original quarter mile of recreational parkland envisaged in the enacting legislation to the 30 miles depth all around London, 15 around Birmingham and at least 10 mile elsewhere. Not much parkland in there you say? No, but you can't build your house there unless it is going to cost more than most of us will ever be able, or probably even want to, afford. The result? Most labour lives in densely packed cities and towns (islands in green belts cf. Kidderminster) and the more conservatively minded spread out over the rest enjoying perpetual capital appreciation on their own properties while competing with one another for good rental properties where the demand (inexplicably?) is high... in the towns and cities. When this 'settlement policy' is added to the guideline of 'traditional, local authority and physical boundaries being considered' in setting boundaries you begin to see why Shropshire is full of safe Tory seats. Surrey is probably stitched up the same way. All the people unable to afford a £200,000 plus house, or to get one of the very few Shropshire social housing places in the few embedded towns, have to commute into their rural places of work from the urban areas... South Shropshire being served by Shrewsbury, Kidderminster, Wolverhampton, Telford and then North Shropshire also served by its Brown Belt lands out to Stoke and up to the Chester.

        The Commissions are a stitch in the first place, then their guidelines are. They are all set in place by the very people who have various vested interests in keeping them susceptible to 'influence' through policy, anf influence. Lots of it being exercised at the regional council level and through the centralised control of planning. It is interesting that Cameron wants to give cities more powers. It stops them lobbying for any changes in the rural areas that are now all nicely protected for nice people. The next step should be to ecologically cover the cities up with huge domes planted with grass.... That is an idea of another Old Etonian. George Orwell I think.

        NO! The Boundaries Commissions are a panacea covering up and preserving the status quo. A mere distraction. Can we get a referendum process that creates law? That would be democratic! It is probably the only way to get the Boundaries Commission set up as a really independent function with an overriding guideline requiring that each constituency has as far as is practically possible the same frequency distribution of wealth + last five years of income. I would nominate the Monarch as the ACTIVE chair... that would well justify the Royal Purse for ever and a day!

        The abstraction of constituency boundaries from council ones is a precedent already set. Having multi representation in each might also make things easier and more democratic, while giving continuity. Just give two seats to each of 350 constituencies. One to each of the top two polling candidates. And they vote independently of each other, with separate offices and clinics. That would work against any 'undue influence' being brought to bear on them too.

    4. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: One party state

      Gerrymandering the boundaries is a tradition practised by all parties when they get into government, I would get worked up by everything else on your list first before worrying about it.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: One party state

      Sounds like about the exact thing as in happening in Canada under our Conservative regime. If one were prone to conspiracy theories, one might think there is a New World Order type of Fascist control regime being put into place...are those black helicopters on the horizon?

    6. Daniel B.
      Facepalm

      Re: One party state

      Welp, you guys decided to give the Tories an absolute majority (though a weak one). You're just getting to reap what you sow real fast. :/

      1. sandman

        Re: One party state

        Give the people what they want and give it to them good and hard!

    7. Dan 55 Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: One party state

      They need backbench loyalty to phrase the referendum question in such a way that the result is that the UK stays in the EU, so beforehand we're going to get some good old nasty party policies that everyone can get behind and drum up party loyalty.

      Come back Clegg, all is forgiven.

      1. wolfetone Silver badge

        Re: One party state

        "Come back Clegg, all is forgiven."

        The membership of the Lib Dem's has increased by 10,000 since the election - I'm one of them.

        The fight back has started anyway. TUSC, The People's Assembly are all mounting from the left, the Lib Dem's from the middle, the right are blowing up with a coup in UKIP.

        Politics at it's finest.

        1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

          Re: One party state

          as a "neo-socialist", I'd be delighted to see a fight-back from the centre/moderate left, but please, not TUSC. Anyone who thinks quoting Bob Crow as a source of profound political wisdom and believes that unions should be a voice in foreign policy decisions may need a rethink.

          I don't want to swap one uninformed extremist for another one, ta very much!

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Charities

    The only sensible thing in there is the charities bit. It's about time there was a thorough overall of the criteria as to what constitutes a charity for various tax purposes.

    Other than that - Cameron has finally totally reneged on all his promises in 2010 to roll back State intrusion into people's private lives. Wait for the first use of any new law to shut down a revelation of Establishment figures' financial and sexual activities.

    Labour's new leader looks fairly likely to be a Blair clone - and they will back the Government to the hilt in any repressive measures.

    Sometimes I look at the day's news and think we are in a rerun of the 1930s - the Blackshirts are here in spirit if not yet body.

    1. phuzz Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Charities

      Overhauling charities? I can't see that going too far, or someone might think about removing the charitable status from most of the UK's private schools (including Eton). I can't see Dave going for that one.

  10. Anonymous Coward 101

    I love how the Conservatives, taking cognisance of the fact most people didn't vote for them, have started with a moderate agenda that nobody will find too controversial.

    More realistically, whether or not they like them now, I have a feeling that most people in this country are going to hate this government by 2020.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I want to say something about hindsight...

    2. Triggerfish

      Hell man I pretty much hate the government whatever shower of shites running it, just on general principles.

    3. nematoad Silver badge

      Keep calm and carry on.

      "I have a feeling that most people in this country are going to hate this government by 2020."

      Do not despair. Yes we have a Tory government but one with a very small majority. If you can, remember what happened to John Major in 1992. He had a majority of 21 IIRC and that soon disappeared.

      Hold on, keep your nerve and get the popcorn in. This could be interesting. Though it will get nasty for a while.

      One last thing, I find myself in agreement with Theresa May to my astonishment. Yes the Tories are "The nasty party."

    4. cyfahead
      Paris Hilton

      "I love how the Conservatives, taking cognisance of the fact most people didn't vote for them, have started with a moderate agenda that nobody will find too controversial.

      More realistically, whether or not they like them now, I have a feeling that most people in this country are going to hate this government by 2020."

      The Conservatives, nor the media, seem to have yet taken cognisance of the fact that almost as many people as voted for them (about 34%?) arguably rejected the lot of them by not voting at all! Well ahead of Labour's vote. On this reckoning they came third.

      Lets hope you are right. It would be nice for the 'extreme' non-voting population, to win the next election with a majority of over 50%. The outgoing government might want to think about rounding them all up for undermining democracy and British values in a way liable to 'lead to unrest', then disenfranchise them so that their protest votes are no longer visible and no longer disturb the smug assuredness of 'true Brits' that everything is well in the best of all possible worlds.

  11. MrWibble

    "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,”

    "for too long"? What the fuck? I hope I/El Reg have taken this quote out of context.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      " I hope I/El Reg have taken this quote out of context."

      That's been the flavour of what has been reported in the last few days. Couldn't believe my ears either. Either Cameron has done a volte face on intrusion into private lives - or he is trying to avoid a rebellion by Tory hard right backbenchers.

      It always amazes me that self-styled "Libertarians" are often the most repressive abusers of power over other people's lives.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Ahemm...... I beg to differ

        These people aren't Libertarians, they are seeking to stifle one of the last free places on earth your mind, and your right to assemble and speak freely. People who preach death and destruction as a solution can already be stopped in many ways, such as reasoned debate and balanced media coverage. Last time I looked there was plenty of free-speech suppressing legislation already. Do we really need more? Has the Western Empire become so weak and corrupt it can't stand up for it's own first principles?

        Real Libertarians would spit in these politician's general direction and be arrested (or possibly shot) in the process.

        And here I though a Tory majority might inject some sanity back into the discussion, ..... so wrong, so wrong.

    2. Dan 10

      I think there's an element of selective quoting - Cameron is implying that you can be an obvious baddie(TM) but as long as you obey the letter of the law, then legally they can't currently touch you, which is what he wants to change. Think extremist preacher who causes the media to blast the government as inept because said preacher is 'untouchable under this country's weak laws' etc etc...

      Clearly though, if not properly thought through, this will be ripe for abuse.

      1. captain veg

        as long as you obey the letter of the law, then legally they can't currently touch you

        And that's a problem how, exactly?

        -A.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: as long as you obey the letter of the law, then legally they can't currently touch you

          > ...we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone

          Well I'm still trying to get my head around what is wrong with this idea anyway.

          Why wouldn't you leave someone alone that is obeying the law?

          1. hplasm Silver badge
            Headmaster

            RE:Well I'm still trying to get my head around what is wrong with this idea anyway.

            "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,” ( This will now stop)

            That- is what is wrong with the idea- the parts you missed out and the parts he left out.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: RE:Well I'm still trying to get my head around what is wrong with this idea anyway.

              > That- is what is wrong with the idea- the parts you missed out and the parts he left out.

              I think you misunderstood, me. I agree with the sentiment that if you are law abiding, then the government should have no interest in you whatsoever. That Cameron thinks that this is now not unacceptable is what I can't get my head around.

              I could have better phrased my comment, I do admit.

              1. hplasm Silver badge
                Thumb Up

                Re: RE:Well I'm still trying to get my head around what is wrong with this idea anyway.

                "I think you misunderstood, me."

                Indeed I did- your omission of the first part made things cloudy.

                The omission of the bit I put in (in brackets) by Our Leader makes it all sound a little more sinister...

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: as long as you obey the letter of the law, then legally they can't currently touch you

            he admits his own failure, i.e. that the laws "they" designed, were not broad enough to catch all those... evil-doers". This is gonna change, by changing the law. Or making it "flexible", so they can be interpreted "the right way".

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: as long as you obey the letter of the law, then legally they can't currently touch you

              No doubt some USA advisor is drafting the appropriate new laws and regulations even as we discuss this, if not done already.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: as long as you obey the letter of the law, then legally they can't currently touch you

          > And that's a problem how, exactly?

          You end up with Jeremy Clarkson and his lickspittle Hammond.

          1. captain veg

            Re: as long as you obey the letter of the law, then legally they can't currently touch you

            You get the prize for non sequitur of the day.

            -A.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: as long as you obey the letter of the law, then legally they can't currently touch you

              > You get the prize for non sequitur of the day.

              Not really. The previous poster made the point that, according to Cameron, current law contains loopholes and isn't a true reflection of the intent of the lawmakers. Clarkson has built a career from smart-arse comments / borderline libel / racist statements. I'd say he's a perfect example of the obvious baddie(TM) type - albeit in a different context - that conforms to the letter of the law but not its spirit.

              1. This post has been deleted by its author

              2. h4rm0ny

                Re: as long as you obey the letter of the law, then legally they can't currently touch you

                Unpleasant though he can be, I don't think you can arrest someone for "being Jeremy Clarkson".

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Joke

                  Re: as long as you obey the letter of the law, then legally they can't currently touch you

                  Why Not? Being a Clarkson is certainly worth being arrested

        3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: captain veg Re: as long as you obey the letter of the law.....

          ".....And that's a problem how, exactly?" Anjem Choudray.

          1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

            Re: Re: captain veg Re: as long as you obey the letter of the law.....

            It boils down to political control of the justice system through the DPP. By the letter of the law Choudray did, repeatedly, break it. But the political will wasn't there to prosecute and imprison him.

            I have a theory that he was allowed to continue because he acted as an excellent lightning rod for the mentalists, sparing MI5 a lot of work in tracking them down.

          2. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

            Re: captain veg as long as you obey the letter of the law.....

            Because Anjem Choudray, as objectionable as I find him, has not broken the law. He is entitled to speak his mind and I am entitled to argue with him and criticise him. This is why we are not the state than Mr Choudray wants us to be; it's why we are better than that. The moment we surrender that freedom take steps closer to the totalitarianism that he, and thinkers like him, want us to have and we lose ourselves another tiny piece at a time.

            Let him speak, we'll point and laugh.

            if that's too complex for you, perhaps we should imprison Roy "Chubby" Brown, because he upsets lots and lots of people with his comedy?

            Or what about our very own Matt Bryant? I mean, we can clearly see by the downvotes over the years that he is found highly objectionable by the masses and therefore should be silenced immediately!

            Beware of "liberal censorship", wherein we take a sharp breath when someone says something "illiberal" and we respond with "you CAN'T say THAT!"

            Yes, you can say that. Speak up so we can all hear you.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Boring Bernie Re: captain veg as long as you obey the letter of the law.....

              "Because Anjem Choudray, as objectionable as I find him, has not broken the law....." Yes, despite his open support for terrorism and his encouragement of others to get their jihad on, hence the new law to tighten up on what Choudray and chums can say and do. And before you spout off about the right to freedom of speech, it does not remove the obligation to consider the consequences of that speech. The new law will either make Choudray shut up or send him to prison.

              "....perhaps we should imprison Roy "Chubby" Brown...." Sorry, failing to see a down side there. I assume that, in your self-deluding, "salt-of-the-Earth, downtrodden, common man" self-limitations, you believe Mr Brown to be some form of cultural and comedic icon? Put him a cell with Choudray for all I care!

              ".....we can clearly see by the downvotes over the years...." Dear oh dear, you're still making that same old mistake of stupidly extrapolating the number of the baaaaahlievers from here into some national level of representation of your dim views! How tragic! Do I need to remind you yet again of the recent election result? LMAO!

    3. John G Imrie Silver badge

      This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation, and bring our country together.

      He then added

      What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television... I want *everyone* to *remember*, why they *need* us!

      England Prevails.

  12. malle-herbert Silver badge
    Big Brother

    You are free !

    To do as we tell you...

    1. Christoph Silver badge

      Re: You are free !

      And it's through that there Magna Charter,

      As were made by the Barons of old,

      That in England today we can do what we like,

      So long as we do what we're told.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I am an extremist

    I believe all software should be free and all people should have access to secure encryption.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I am an extremist

      That's you prosecuted for something anyway

      1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: I am an extremist

        Possession of socks and sandals with intent to wear

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: I am an extremist

          Whilst hoping that this is just going to be a storm in a tea-cup*, I can't help thinking that there are going to be some people who have said "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" are going to find out that the rest of us that added "... yet" were on the right side of history. The implication of Cameron's frankly unbelievable statement is that what was legal yesterday will become illegal - still yesterday.

          Seriously, what harm is extremist speech to the population of this country? Why can't it be met with sensible speech from others?

          * I know - incurable optimism is a curse

  14. Vimes

    Repealing the HRA look likely to be doomed at best and questionable at worst thanks to devolution (and here I was never thinking I'd be thankful for the SNP).

    Given that rather large bump in the road that the government has yet to find a way around, how do they plan to put this into action and make it legal with regards to human rights that we have at present?

    1. Brian Morrison

      And all with a small majority instead of the large-ish one they had in coalition...

      1. sabroni Silver badge
        Unhappy

        HRA

        Just let those who disagree with it opt out of it. Abdicate your rights if you really think the HRA is a bad idea.... But no, it's always someone else's human rights that are the problem.

  15. Busby

    So in summary they are going to protect our right including free speech by limiting free speech why does my head hurt?

    The only hope we have is that there are enough back benchers left to recognise this for the abuse it is and not follow the party whip. Then again there are probably enough gullible fools in other parties that accept the need for this to head off any Tory back bench fight back against this.

  16. AJames

    All good citizens should conform to the norm!

    Oh wait, isn't that communism? What's the one I mean, the one where the secret police round up dissenters and throw them prison?

  17. TheOldGuy

    One Nation....

    what's next?

    "One People, One Empire, One Leader" perhaps?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      One World Government.

    2. Marketing Hack Silver badge
      Trollface

      @TheOldGuy

      What's the British English for "Ein Volk, Ein Reich"? That might work.

      (OK, Godwin's Law--you got me)

    3. 's water music Silver badge

      One Nation....

      what's next?

      Please let it be ...under a groove. Please let it be ...under a groove. Please let it be ...under a groove. Please let it be ...under a groove. Please let it be ...under a groove.

  18. Alfred
    WTF?

    Genuinely could not make this shit up

    "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."

    Truly, truly mental. Look what you did, you stupid tory voters.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Alfred Re: Genuinely could not make this shit up

      Wow, so many bitter Labour voters! Have you finished crying yet? If you're that upset then just head for Dover and keep going.

      1. cyfahead
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Alfred Genuinely could not make this shit up

        Perhaps it is the occupiers from Normandy that should return to Dover and keep going. Us earlier occupiers had some sort of fairness going on.... we had land rights and kings used to go around the country holding court in the fields listening to people from many 'levels'. It only took 140 years of occupiers squabbling amongst themselves about which chunks of land and rent payers they each controlled that led to Magna Carta. Think post independence South Sudan.... it was the 'diplomatic' solution that won out over developing and continuing civil war.

        It only became democracy here ,as you would know it, after the suffragette movement won out 80 odd years ago..... and that only lasted 20 years if you take out the war years and rationing. The democracy that friend Cameron is talking about is all the rest. They are the traditional values he is talking about protecting. Even hero Gen. Montgomery wanted to continue the enslavement of the rest of Africa and the Middle East into the British Empire after the war was one! Another product of Eton? Charitable aims..... my Foot! Sorry Michael... didn't want to bring you into it!

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Unhappy

        Re: Alfred Genuinely could not make this shit up

        Nah! labour would have been almost as bad - its those power hungry cretins called politicians that people voted for - current bunch headed by a shiny-faced camerron

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What colour extremists?

    So I take it that under a "One Nation" Prime Minister, these policies will be rigorously enforced in Northern Ireland, then? Especially the no discrimination on sexuality grounds?

  20. icesenshi

    "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,”

    So just obeying the law isn't good enough anyomore? Today it's 'extremist speech', tomorrow???

    1. codejunky Silver badge
      Facepalm

      @ icesenshi

      This isnt new. Under labour you were racist if you discussed immigration. PC insanity had people glaring at each other for uttering mere words. It wasnt difficult to see the direction being taken by the lead parties. But they claimed not to be racist and claimed to exist to take care of us all in this wonderful socialist society yada yada. Of course it doesnt help when brown is caught calling supporters 'bigot' nor the racist immigration policy of white countries only, others must apply but then the people never were that smart. Such was proven when UKIP was branded racist for fighting racism and bigots for not being 'excessively sanitised' with PC (the very things people claim to want).

      Of course the propaganda and scaremongering of this new 'hitler' has put us all in a safe place. Not like the last 2 govs have an ongoing war campaign against a non-defined enemy (terror), pushed for ID cards, turned the secret police against its citizens nor this gov looking to revoke innocent until proven guilty.

      There is little joy in seeing it coming.

    2. Lysenko Silver badge

      Seems straightforward...

      "For too long we have been a passively tolerant society..."

      ...So now we're going to be an actively intolerant society.

      I guess I have to give him credit for being clear about his intentions.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: Seems straightforward...

        Just as a thought - what would "active tolerance" be, anyway?

  21. Richard Barnes

    Please could somebody tell me...

    ... why we need this new law when there is a perfectly good offence of Encouraging or Assisting a Crime already on the statute books in the Serious Crime Act 2007?

    What exactly is the nature of this speech that on the one hand doesn't break this law but on the other is deemed extremist?

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Please could somebody tell me...

      Because it couldn't be used against people who weren't assisting a crime.

      There are lots of things people do that the tory's bosses don't like which aren't a crime (yet)

  22. Graham Marsden
    Big Brother

    Organisations who seek to undermine democracy

    TRY LOOKING IN THE FUCKING MIRROR, DAVID!

  23. Richard Barnes

    Might as well just abolish 'innocent until proven guilty'

    I'm afraid the Reg's sub-editor is behind the times.

    Innocent until proven guilty has already been abolished for a range of crimes under the heading of "Strict Liability".

    1. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Re: Might as well just abolish 'innocent until proven guilty'

      "

      Innocent until proven guilty has already been abolished for a range of crimes under the heading of "Strict Liability".

      "

      No, that's not true. "Strict liability" (mainly road traffic offences such as speeding or going through a red light etc.) abolish the need to prove that there was *intent* to commit the crime. The crime itself must still be proven to criminal standards (beyond reasonable doubt). With all other crimes the prosecution must prove not only that the person committed the criminal act (actus reus), but also that they intended to commit that act (mens rea). So while it is a valid defence to an act of (say) shoplifting to say that it was an oversight and you did not intend to take the goods without paying, it is not a defence to state that you unintentionally exceeded the speed limit.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well I read the uk.gov linked page:

    Believe it or not, on the very same page:

    "Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality."

    ...then...

    "introducing Banning Orders for extremist organisations who seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but fall short of proscription"

    Jesus wept though, the content of that page is frightening...or is that the point?

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

      This is a very thorny subject, prone to misinterpretation (both deliberate and accidental).

      What about the threat of Sharia Law which would seek to remove a lot of our freedoms?

      Do we allow it to be promoted unhindered (total free speech) to the point where it becomes normal and so no longer have total free speech.

      Or do you try and curtail it (limited free speech) in order to prevent total free speech from being lost (which it already has - but you still have some i.e. paradox).

      We *have* been too tolerant of those wishing to undermine our way of life by importing alien cultural influences into our island nation en-masse in my opinion.

      I have no problem with immigration, but if someone comes to this country then they should adopt this country's ways - not seek to destroy them in favour of their own cultural habits.

      The problem is that government (and more usually - councils) tend to take a foot should you give them an inch. These kind of proposals of restriction are dangerous and need to be closely monitored by an external, independent, oversight body (that is also not exempt from FOI).

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        @ Sir Runcible Spoon

        "What about the threat of Sharia Law which would seek to remove a lot of our freedoms?

        Do we allow it to be promoted unhindered (total free speech) to the point where it becomes normal and so no longer have total free speech."

        They have free speech to talk about it. Just as we have free speech to debate and discuss and talk against it. As implementing it and enforcing it and stifling debate about it would be removing peoples freedom is where the law steps in. That is how it should be to let people live their own lives.

        "We *have* been too tolerant of those wishing to undermine our way of life by importing alien cultural influences into our island nation en-masse in my opinion."

        That is a very different thing and I would agree. You cant import people with their own ways of living and assume they will conform to the acceptable standards of this country. An interesting example is the benefits street Romanian with his 12 yr old wife (if I remember it right). It isnt wrong or illegal in his own culture.

        "The problem is that government (and more usually - councils) tend to take a foot should you give them an inch."

        No kidding. My fear isnt necessarily the current gov, but the extreme one that steps in afterwards with lots of new powers

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    promote dangerous extremist views

    like those that a given governm

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    England:

    Once a kingdom ruled by a king.

    Now a country, ruled by a......... man.....

    1. swampdog

      Re: England: Now a country, ruled by a......... man.....

      a.... gammon faced cockwomble...

      Dunno where I saw that online but haven't been able to get it out of my head since. Shit sticks so we should encourage everyone to just refer to him as (the) GFC.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    I look forward to the debate

    The scary words as quoted by many above :

    "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,”

    encapsulate the whole thrust of this and previous governments' mad push to destroy what is truly valuable about our society.

    If we are no longer tolerant and obedience of the law is no longer enough to keep one out of the courts, then I submit that Great Britain will have entered a phase of terminal decline.

    What I will be interested in will be the extent to which Cameron's party actually follows him down this path and also how many from the other parties will stand up against it.

    I am proud to be British. I'd like to continue being proud, if it's all the same to you, Dave.

  28. Lars Silver badge
    Pint

    Sad

    You can fix fungus in a toenail by removing the legg but isn't that a rather sad way to do it. We can fine and imprisson all "uneducated" people but would it not be better to increase the education. Extremists in religion, who is the first to throw the stone. I cannot remember any religion without them, Budism perhaps, not an expert, I gave up religion a long time ago. Con business.

    Have we forgotten that only education is what make us different to apes. Are we trying to prevent the ship from sinking by deciding water is against the law.

    Have we started to run our society on a quarterly basis. What the hell are we up to.

    1. cyfahead
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Sad

      I sympathise. And can offer this in reply... If you have no clear beliefs then almost any strongly held belief might seem to you 'extreme' and its strong adherents 'extremist'. Not long ago being 'British' was synonymous with one who strongly believed in the rectitude of God, King, Country and Empire. Now we have no Empire and hence only a little country, no active Monarch and no God by whose grace they may have been appointed.

      So what is it now to be 'British' so that we can be self-assured enough not to regard everyone with a strongly held point of view as a dangerous extremist? We have to re-invent ourselves. Don't we?

      How about 'I Like me. Be Like Me'! In fact I like it so much I think we should make it enforceable under the law! Ummmm.. how can I do that? Needs a bit of generality I think, and it needs to stand the passage of time and individuals. Have to look after the kids' future after all, what! How about a few vaguely defined descriptive nouns, a few all encompassing verbs and all nicely phrased by my sister, the Judge, living a few houses down the street. Let's call it the 'I Like Us! Be Like Us! ..or else.' law. You say that's not PC? Oh well! How about calling it 'A Bill for the Protection of Free Speech, Democracy and Social Order'? Yes! I like that. Jolly good show chaps!

  29. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Unhappy

    800th Anniversary of the Maga Carta

    Happy birthday.

    1. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: 800th Anniversary of the Maga Carta

      "Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? That brave Hungarian peasant girl who forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten"

      - A.A. Hancock

  30. lucki bstard

    Why are you all surprised?

    Why are you all surprised?

    I mean come on, look at the posts over the last few years alone, why is anyone surprised? Its not just the party by the way, they all act like kids in a free sweet shop once they get in.

    That 'Green and pleasant land' was a fable back when Hubert Parry corrupted it in 1916 (to promote that unpopular war then); we are coming up to the 30th anniversary of Operation Solstice (Battle of the Beanfield). The buzzwords have changed but the underlying sentiment hasn't.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why are you all surprised?

      Ah, the Battle of the Beanfield! Yeah. I remember apparently few cared back then! That's the thing, isn't it, the 'Nasty Party' represents the nasty people, of which there are plenty. Like the right-wingers in the States in the late-'60s who defended the National Guard firing into the crowd at Kent State.

      Even if we had genuine Democracy, the basic problem would be compromising with the shitbags.

  31. MissingSecurity

    Don't worry ...

    They're just "Method Acting". In order to think like an extremist you must "become" one..

  32. Cynic_999 Silver badge

    When the leader of your country effectively states that he intends to give the police powers to arrest and imprison people who have not broken any law, it is time to become very afraid.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Especially since it will only apply to the white British population. The blacks will play the raciest card, the muslims will play the religion card so only the British are left.

      Be very afraid indeed.

    2. cyfahead
      Paris Hilton

      "When the leader of your country effectively states that he intends to give the police powers to arrest and imprison people who have not broken any law, it is time to become very afraid."

      But my dear chap! You don't understand. If we make a LAW that says you cannot do things that don't break any other law, but which are things which we feel from time to time are not quite 'the done thing' then you WILL be breaking the law!!!

      How on earth could you possibly imagine then that you had not?

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just as well...

    Gosh, a good job we can be sure our responsible, democracy-protecting police forces won't misuse this lovely little bag of shiny new toys like they did with all the poorly drafted illiberal tosh Blair and chums came up with.

    I await the Mails triumphant headline: "Extremist photographer nabbed for promoting picture taking around Big Buildings".

  34. Conundrum1885

    27th May

    (downloads "V for Vendetta" to memory card, WiFi adaptor via ESP8266 and makes a few dozen "Victory throwies" in case the Government decides to add this film to the forbidden list)

  35. Leeroy Bronze badge

    fixed it for you

    'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

    I would like proportional representation instead of first past the post. Nuts now I'm a terrorist for my extreimist views along with most of the smaller political parties etc

  36. Captain DaFt

    "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"

    Ho-lee-SHIT! So he's as good as admitting the law doesn't matter, it's the Will of the Leaders that counts?

  37. Chris G Silver badge

    The Bill Follows On

    From the recommendations of The Extremism Task Force!

    Who are : The members of the Extremism Taskforce were:

    the Prime Minister (chair)

    the Deputy Prime Minister

    the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    the Secretary of State for the Home Department

    the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills

    the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

    the Secretary of State for Education

    the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

    the Minister for Schools

    the Minister for Faith and Communities

    the Minister for Government Policy

    So the recommendations are simply their own opinions reinforced with a title.

    Since Thatcher ( or maybe before) nearly all of our Prime Ministers and party leaders seem to suffer from Messiah Complex trying to save us allfrom ourselves.

    This latest crap from Dave now he has been 'mandated' for the second time is yet another nail in the UK's coffin.

    Political correctness and extremism have been slowly eroding the freedom of speech in the UK for years now Dave has become fed up with waiting for it to disappear entirely so he has effectively come up with a law that will basically gag you based on someone's opinion. I didn't see anything about defining what exactly you will have to do to receive his intolerance but I bet it will be a bitch to get out once they have carted you off to the Ministry of Love.

  38. MYOFB

    Fukkinell . . . "Call me Dave" has just turned himself into a Terrorist!!

    How?

    This is how!!

    "Introducing Banning Orders for extremist organisations who seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places."

    I'm looking forward to a new set of colours nailed to the door of Number 10 sometime in the future & they won't consist of Red, Blue or Yellow.

    The only "Extremist organisations who seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places" are the very same ones who have been elected into Parliament for the duration of my life!!

    Fuckem!!

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Turns out the LibDems were doing something useful over the last 5 years after all - who knew ?

  40. Spanners Silver badge
    Pint

    Surely this is self defeating?

    Apart from the customary xenophobia, the rest seems to be fairly well aimed at the Conservative Party.

    If they push this insanity through, they will be banning themselves.

    1. Chris G Silver badge

      Re: Surely this is self defeating?

      "If they push this insanity through, they will be banning themselves."

      Dave: I am making this Prime Ministerial announcement that I am having myself arrested for being extreme and inciting hatred of people who incite hatred.... of people.

      Also it is clear that I have been inciting hatred and have had an extreme attitude toward other people such as immigrants who are not very British or not at all British.

      I am however appealing on the grounds of diminished responsiblity and expect to be back at Number 10 shortly,I know how much you need me.....us...the Conservative Government so I have instructed my...our judges to be lenient with me.

  41. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well, it's all about change

    After all, why keep having this passively tolerant society when you could have an actively intolerant one?

    Meanwhile in Denmark... (long article, but be sure to read it all).

  42. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Copycatting around the world....

    This is indeed scary. With various countries following the US style PATRIOT ACT for surveillance, Cameron has to come with this. I'm sure that the US and the rest will come up with similar acts shortly. What makes it beyond scary is the lack of definition. It will be whatever the people in power say it is.

    Since I live in the US, I would suppose that under such an ill-defined act one could be arrested being an extremist by waving the Constitution and suggesting that our government follow it. Yes, it's extremist behavior by the PATRIOT Act standards of "terrorist", etc.

    I fear not just for the UK but for citizens of the rest of world who's governments will see this as a good idea and jump on the bandwagon.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Copycatting around the world....

      Our glorious leader to the north has just suggested that a Church of Canada boycott on goods from the occupied territories would be illegal hate-speech.

    2. cyfahead
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Copycatting around the world....

      "I fear not just for the UK but for citizens of the rest of world who's governments will see this as a good idea and jump on the bandwagon."

      I am VERY AFRAID. I will tell you why. Listen well...

      The media do not keep people well informed of what should concern them. If they did we would all know that it is now well understood amongst economist and planners and politicians that the models of economics in use by them and of whatever ilk and all the statistics historically collected and the whole direction of technology and industry built upon it point to just one scenario.

      For 45 years inequality between people within each country has been increasing and is accelerating. The rich are getting richer the poor are getting poorer. This has been predicted by the authors of the basic economic philosophies and theories that we have been building upon for the past 150 years. Systemically, in everything that has been built up, in whatever country, there is now clear way of changing this. What is known is that low wages, part-time jobs, deskilled jobs and a buffer of unemployment are prerequisites for an efficient flexible labour market. Technology helps to make more and more jobs have little or no skill requirement, it also ensures fewer jobs for the same production levels and helps ensure jobs only need to pay what the lowest acceptor will take. Marginal value of the work you do being a determinant of your worth and hence your wage, for the economically literate, is now known to be a fallacy in the real world. Technology, having eliminated millions of meaningful employment opportunities for the low skilled, has in the past 20 years been doing the same to the skilled employment opportunities. Briefly we saw a period as technology caught up when many of these jobs went offshore to people who would work for less. Now they are also losing their jobs and will continue to do so.

      Here is the rub.... All that work that was done by people earned them money, part of the value of the product they made. That enabled them to buy from the 'big basket' of products and it created the demand that was the reason for making them in the first place. Now more and more of that value goes to the owners of the technology and the factories and machines using it. They only eat as much as you and I, only use the same iPhone and so on. The demand our jobs used to create is drying up. Investment in new capacity is becoming less attractive, but more and more 'rich' money is still being created. That value has to be preserved by its owners so expensive collectibles, pictures, classic cars, old buildings, islands. They compete with each other and their prices are increasing in value by double digits and sometimes 3 every year. Meanwhile the price of goods being produced stagnates, wages stagnate, unemployment stagnates, unrest in the countries peripheral to the stronger centres increases and there prices have gone sky high relative to continually depressed wages and fewer and fewer real jobs and less and less subsistence opportunities as 'foreign aid programmes' have tried to destroy them in favour of bringing simple people into the 'cash economy'.

      Those people already know that our British values are bankrupt, along with those values of all the other countries who have followed us over the past 200 years. That is why their are three proximate threats to our 'dear realm' - the economic migrant hoping to at least not die starving to death where he is, the political and unrest refugees fleeing autocratic governance trying to control an uncontrollable situation while enriching themselves, and the 'extremists' who believe that they know better than us how things should be run where they are and for that matter where we are.

      The truth is their visions of utopia are ancient, inapplicable and flawed. JUST LIKE OURS!

      The second truth is this... with technology, robotics and power then the survival of people and their continuing development and well-being into the future is assured. If and only if the ratio of capital goods to labour is far higher than it is today. Put simply..... Unless we come up with another vision for the human hegemony the future is only for a relatively few who both control and are served by a stupendous infrastructure of automated technologically sophisticated equipment and systems.

      There are too many of us to transit into this scenario safely. There will be increasing discontent, unrest and extreme violence. Cameron is being far-sighted, as are all the other plonkers we have been discussing here! Within 20 years you will see this.

      New antibiotics? To be kept on hand for when they are needed? $1billion to kick-start research quickly? Think about it. War, famine and pestilence. They will want to keep it the other side of the Med, south of the Panama Isthmus, of the Himalayas, north of the Torres Straight. But when they all start fighting and dying, and disease runs rife it would be good to have some effective antibiotics in reserve.

      Yes. Dave Cameron is an extremist. Extreme danger brings forth extreme views. WE all will be shortly. The question is 'Where is the better plan?'. Do we rely on God like the Islamists and other religious extremists? Do we rely on the pessimism of the rich and powerful? Or do we create a different vision of how to live, to survive and prosper? For all of us......

  43. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Do Idiots have Learning Difficulties and/or are they classified Retarded?

    I look forward to hearing of the view from Buckingham Palace, and whether HM ER is to condone and tacitly support such extremism and rhetoric from the Conservative Party. Something which her speech at the State Opening of Parliament will surely provide.

    And do you not remember what happened the last time an ignorant and arrogant government machine ventured into the realm and battle space which tries to muzzle free speech and constrain civil liberties .... You get what was/is known of as internment and then bloody expensive explosive civil war and "Troubles*" and a nation schooled in dark arts and secret missions which cannot be overcome and are overwhelming?

    *....TheTroubles ..... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Do Idiots have Learning Difficulties and/or are they classified Retarded?

      > and "Troubles*"

      I find it sad to realise that, not even twenty years on, a footnote may indeed be required for the younger generation.

      1. Havin_it
        Coat

        Re: Do Idiots have Learning Difficulties and/or are they classified Retarded?

        >I find it sad to realise that, not even twenty years on, a footnote may indeed be required for the younger generation.

        Do you? I think it's bloody marvellous myself, especially for that part of the said generation residing in the Falls Road.

        The rhetoric of "never forget" is propagated mainly by those who seek to keep balancing that chip on their shoulder, and pass it to their children's children. Which is why wars are fought internally for generations after the last shot was fired and the original grievance buried.

        We don't have to make our children wade through the blood of their forebears to teach them not to "make the same mistakes". How about we just concentrate on teaching them not to hurt each other out of greed, or intolerance, or fear? I mean, the hard part is living by it ourselves so they don't think us a bunch of hypocrites, obviously, but leaving that aside, I rather like the idea of a generation not only having no idea what the Troubles were, but actually living in a society where the human factors that caused them are unthinkable.

        [I know, bloody hippy. I'll get my kaftan]

  44. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Quite a long time ago I came to the conclusion that our grandchildren were in for a rough time. More recently i revised that to include our childen. This latest outburst of political stupidity convinces me that we are all heading for the smelly stuff pretty soon.

  45. itzman

    Banning?

    Banning Orders for extremist organisations who seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but fall short of proscription

    Well if its applied uniformly and fairly and in a balanced way, that should see most of the far left anti this that or the other movements, most of the anti this that or the other ecological movements and most of the ant this that or the other religious movements.

    All of which might be a plan IF it were indeed applied uniformly.

    And pigs might fly.

  46. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You get what you deserve

    You voted them in and by doing so, empowered them to do whatever they wanted.

    For the next 5 years, suck it up princess.

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      You get what you deserve whenever choices are limited and rigged for status quo continuity?

      You voted them in and by doing so, empowered them to do whatever they wanted.

      For the next 5 years, suck it up princess. ... Anonymous Coward

      A government which imposes austerity after five years in office rather than managing prosperity is a failed enterprise with no viable future intelligence and programming in store.

      It is no more complicated than that…… and a charge of Westminster politics being intellectually bankrupt springs immediately to mind.

      Oh …. and all future elections should have a candidate standing as "None of the Above", so that the depth of dissatisfaction with the system that draws wealth from them can be reflected by the electorate?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: You get what you deserve whenever choices are limited and rigged for status quo continuity?

        > all future elections should have a candidate standing as "None of the Above",

        Indeed. The current "protest" method of simply not voting is not enough, as that may be interpreted in a number of ambiguous ways, and often benefits the group(s) with the most votes.

        For me, the minimum standard for a viable and truly representative vote is the Usenet system. To summarise (and extrapolate where necessary):

        * Anybody can stand as a candidate.

        * Anybody can propose a candidate.

        * Anybody who is interested can vote.

        * Anybody who is not interested can not vote (Australia, I'm looking at you).

        * A vote may be cast FOR a candidate.

        * A vote may be cast AGAINST a candidate.

        * Where applicable, maintaining the status quo is an explicit option which can be voted FOR or AGAINST.

        * Votes must be for a single proposal (single candidate / group of candidates, so as many votes as there are parties in the election may be cast--for or against, obviously).

        * Votes are not transferable. So if I voted FOR John, he cannot form a coalition with Peter to bring him into power. Peter has to have made it on his own right.

        * Likewise, if John has promised X, that's a contract. He must attempt his best to do X and he must not do Y unless that was also promised, or a new vote is cast.

        Anyway, that's my minimum standard. Anything else is not participatory or representative enough.

  47. unmintz

    People voluntarily voted this guy in?

    I suppose that Mr. Cameron and the more authoritarian hacks in government have already taken the important first steps to get rid of that pesky 'voluntary' issue. If you speak out against or refuse to support the government, you must be a terrorist and dangerous, quite obviously.

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      @ unmintz

      Unfortunately people still believe/want a 2 party system. The other guy was worse!

  48. Schultz

    Impressive, he hit all the liberal keywords and still managed to make it xenophobic

    "That means actively promoting certain values [..] Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality. [...] And it means confronting head-on the poisonous Islamist extremist ideology."

    Nicely done, separating out Islam. So he is for equal rights regardless of race but not regardless of religion?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Impressive, he hit all the liberal keywords and still managed to make it xenophobic

      "Islamism is not the same as "Islam" or "Muslim". It's a specific variant that indeed is totally incompatible with western values. Google it.

      1. Schultz
        Go

        "Islamism is [...] a specific variant that indeed is totally incompatible with western values.

        According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

        Islamism

        1: the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam

        2: a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam

        I don't like people advocating laws based on religion (definition No. 2), but even that meaning of islamism is not totally incompatible with western society. Indeed I know Christians who advocate very similar things based on their religion and they are no small minority in many western countries. Maybe your interpretation of the work islamism reflects your own not-so-tolerant (dare I say 'western') values?

        1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

          Re: "Islamism is [...] a specific variant that indeed is totally incompatible with western values.

          Well, Sharia is incompatible with western rule of law. Not sure where you draw the compatibility line, but I think the same law should apply to everyone in this country.

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Senna the Soothsayer

    Woe, woe, thrice woe - we are all doomed

    and still nothing is done because who listens to the Cassandras until it is far far too late?

    not even the street-wise Lurkio (or particularly not such)

    its Howards Way?

  50. cantankerous swineherd Silver badge

    fuck the government.

    now come and get me.

  51. Conundrum1885

    And it gets worse

    http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-all-the-things-theresa-mays-legal-highs-bill-could-accidentally-ban--byMMFwj6xl

    I sometimes wonder if Guido Fawkes had the right idea.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Condumbdumb Re: And it gets worse

      ".....I sometimes wonder if Guido Fawkes had the right idea." Then you need to read some history. Fawkes wasn't some great "freedom-loving leader of the oppressed", he was the bottom-of-the-wrung groupie for a bunch that wanted to re-impose totalitarian rule by a Catholic church-appointed monarch, against the will of the majority of Englishmen. His claim to fame was being caught as the night guard of the explosives, not being some great thinker or leader.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019