... Oh? Not that sort of shooting...?
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Pardon my cynicism, but he's probably only appearing to be listening because he sees political advantage in it...
When we see some concrete evidence of him actually doing stuff, then maybe I'll believe it.
Let's begin with his party (and all the others) making Manifesto Promises to get rid of the ridiculously draconian, vague or ill-defined laws that Nu Labour have brought in and restore the basic liberties and rights that we've long enjoyed in this country and perhaps his words will gain a bit of credibility.
"Oh, well then we will wag our finger sternly at them as they laugh and carry on doing what the hell they like."
And this will carry on until the Government gives the ICO some real teeth (which they're unlikely to do since HMG are probably the first who will get bitten in the arse!)
If you'd bothered to read that article I linked to you'd note the countries with *STV* Proportional Representation include:
Ireland: Parliamentary elections (since 1919), European elections, Local government elections
Malta: Parliamentary elections, European elections, Local government elections
Northern Ireland: Regional assembly elections, European elections, Local government elections
Scotland: Local government elections (since May 2007)
Australia: country-wide Senate elections (in the form of a group voting ticket)
Tasmania: State assembly elections, Local government elections
New Zealand: Some local government elections such as Dunedin and the capital city of Wellington
United States: City elections in Cambridge, Massachusetts
Yes, the devil is in the (inconvenient) details ( and just because Lee can't see how this will change the current system doesn't mean that it won't...)
By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 25th May 2009 12:05 GMT
> The only information you are obliged to give the police if asked is your name and if requested some form of ID to back that up.
No, no, NO!!
You are not obliged to give *ANY* information to the Police, not your name and certainly no form of ID!
You have the right to go about your lawful business without let or hindrance, this is an established principle of English Common Law. The Police can *ask* for your name and ID, but you are entirely within your rights to say "No".
Even if they start playing silly buggers and claim they can do this under Section 44 of the terrorism act, you are still not obliged to comply.
See http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/6-free-speech/s44-terrorism-act/index.shtml for more details.
> Which is not really PR in the real sense of the word.
I don't give a monkey's what you call it, the question is, does it work better than the current system and I think the answer is yes, see http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=103 for more information.
And you're wrong about getting "everyone's second choice", if you look at that example again you'll notice that most people wanted Chocolate, followed by Oranges and then there's very little difference in "first choice" preferences for Pears, Strawberries and Sweets, so the second choices determine that Strawberries are chosen.
BTW your example about University Fees in Scotland just shows the flaws in the current system where a vote for "Party X" is interpreted as "I support everything that Party X has in their manifesto" (and simply repeating "STV is not PR" doesn't improve your arguments)
Personally I'd prefer a system where Political Parties as they exist at the moment are banned so people actually vote for a Candidate instead of a coloured ribbon, but I don't see that ever happening.
> RE: LibDem electoral reforms. This means PR. We don't want PR and you should not either, for the following reasons:
I suggest, before you start spouting off like this, you do a little research into the Single Transferable Vote system which does not use "Party Lists" and thus pretty much negates all the problems you raise.
"The Single transferable vote (STV) is a system of preferential voting designed to minimize wasted votes and provide proportional representation while ensuring that votes are explicitly expressed for individual candidates rather than for party lists."
... and another for us
We are, it seems, supposed to be meek and obedient sheeple, willing to obey our "Lords and Masters" and not question their authority, but what we're seeing now is the sheep turning on the shepherd and his dogs and saying "Just a minute there..."
We have seen the slow but steady whittling away of our rights, yet apart from a few of us, most people have not stirred from their apathy to complain and those of us who do are ignored or fobbed off with worthless platitudes that do nothing to fix the underlying problems.
But, finally, people are starting to wake up because this recent scandal is hitting them in a sensitive spot, ie in their wallets and purses.
The question is, though, whether there will actually be any *real* change from all this?
Will we actually see the sort of reform we need where our government becomes truly representative of the people or will the changes just be cosmetic and the public slump back into their apathy again?
YOU have the ability to do something, the intertubes give you that power.
Write to your MP at http://www.writetothem.com and tell them that you're Mad As Hell and You're Not Going to Take It Any More!
... and then pay not a blind bit of notice to what he says and go and do what the hell they like, such as treating us all as suspects who are presumed guilty unless we can prove our innocence.
Contact your MP on http://www.writetothem.com
"the prevention and detection of crime or where it is in the interests of national security"
And who decides these "interests"? The Police? Some Civil Servant? Wacky Jacqui?
Or are we looking at just more Function Creep where these "limits" will be extended time and time again because "well, it might be useful"...?
> The police are just one part of a very very broken political system....
Yes, I agree entirely, and when you have the Police deciding what the law is, let alone "advising" the Government what the law should be or being asked as part of a flawed consultation process, it doesn't make the system any better.
The point is that each group, Police, CPS, Judiciary, Parliament should stick to their own areas of experience and not try to interfere with the others.
I hope Colin Port does end up in jail, because perhaps then it will stop the so-called Association of Chief Police Officers from acting as a self-serving group whose only job is to ensure that *they* decide what the law should be
We have Parliament to make the laws, the CPS to prosecute them and the Courts to Judge them. The Police need to keep to their own mandate of "Maintaining the Queen's Peace", not interfere in the actions of the others simply because they don't like what someone may have done.
> that only makes selling the unsanitised data to a single news paper even worse. That means that there may be certain MPs up to all sorts of dirty tricks, who the Telegraph chose not to name and shame - which we will never find out about.
I don't follow this argument.
If the Telegraph hadn't got hold of this, I'm sure that a lot of "dirty tricks" would have been sanitsed out of the data, so we'd never have found out about them anyway.
And you are making wild assumptions about this person being "willing to be bribed". If the Telegraph paid them *to* steal the information, yes, that would be bribery, but offering it for sale is not the same thing.
And probably they're going to need that dosh to pay for their defence team when TPTB try to throw the book at them for making them look bad.
> How someone managed to smuggle data from a classified machine onto a (presumably) external hard disc
Perhaps they just bought a second hand drive on eBay...!
Of course what this story really shows is, like the nurse who blew the whistle on the terrible treatment given to patients, The Powers That Be will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you make them look bad :-(
... if anyone on the inside dares to try to "blow the whistle" on security failings of this system in use, no doubt they'll face professional ruin, just as the NHS nurse who videoed the shoddy treatment being given to patients did.
The implicit warning being "Don't rock the boat or we'll feed you to the sharks..."
"The decision to terminate the contract was not taken lightly - it was taken after detailed consideration and legal and technical advice."
Yet despite a lot of legal and technical advice, she still ploughs ahead with the DNA database and ID Cards and the National Identity Register etc...
And, of course, because it's a "National Security Issue" we're never going to *see* the "advice" they were given, but it must have been pretty spectacular to make them can the project.
Why am I reminded of Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical block-busters:
"Where God went wrong."
"Some more of God's greatest mistakes."
"Who is this God person anyway?"
Not to mention:
"Well that about wraps it up for God!"
Thumb up as I'm Hitch-Hiking around the Galaxy...
> These new proposals will ensure that the right people are on it,
ie everyone possible (well, apart from Wacky Jacqui and other Labour Party Members who have misappropriated public funds)
> as well as considering where people should come off.
ie nobody at all.
> We will ensure that the most serious offenders are added to the database no matter when or where they were convicted.
Or even *IF* they were convicted at all...
Talk about taking the piss!!
If you object to this as much as I do, contact your MP via http://www.writetothem.com and make your objections clear!
... the Department of the Bleeding Obvious!
Of course it's easier to read something if it's well structured, just as EULAs etc are easier to read if they're not crunched into a tiny box or you're forced to scroll by them in a window that only shows one line at a time...!
eVictims has simply got it wrong (or are victims of wishful thinking)
These images *are* (at present) legally different from photographs because they are not a) real or b) traced or otherwise copied from real images.
The Coroners and Justice Bill is trying to change this, but if it does, there's no doubt in my mind that the Government will then immediately push to extend this to drawings, cartoons or computer generated images of "extreme pornography"...
The Right of Freedom of Expression comes with the attendant *responsbility* to use that right, well, responsibly.
All of the examples you give are not, of course, responsible uses of that right, but I really don't see how that equates with someone saying that you do not have the right to do whatever you wish with something you have bought and paid for.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019