bit-tech.net

UK government plans emergency data retention law

UK government plans emergency data retention law

A new privacy law, issued in the face of a ECJ ruling that the Data Retention Directive breached human rights legislation, is to be rushed through parliament as an 'emergency.'

The UK government is to rush emergency legislation, which has not been seen by MPs, through parliament in order to reverse a European Court ruling that rendered the retention of personal data by internet service providers (ISPs) illegal.

The European Court of Justice recently issued a ruling on the Data Retention Directive which demanded limits on what data can be kept by ISPs and for how long. The ruling stated, in part, that people whose communications must be confidential for legal reasons - such as doctor-patient privilege - must be granted exceptions, access to the stored data should only be available during investigation of strictly-defined serious crimes, said access should be limited to only the data strictly necessary to investigate the crime, and that an independent administrator should be appointed to make such decisions.

The UK government's current approach to data retention does not meet the ECJ's requirements, but it has told ISPs to continue collecting, retaining and providing government officials with access to the data illegally. It has a plan to fix that, however: a rushed change to the law that would make its data retention legal once more, and without proper parliamentary debate.

A meeting scheduled for today will see David Cameron and Nick Clegg tell a special cabinet that the new law must be passed in order to 'keep the country safe,' the BBC reports. The law will also include the establishment of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which recently jailed an individual for refusing to divulge his encryption passwords, and a 'sunset' clause that will see the law changed again in 2016.

Despite these assurances, privacy advocates are displeased with the way debate on the law has been stifled. Speaking to the Today programme, Labour MP Tom Watson - whose party has declared support for the law - called it 'a secret deal between party leaders. There hasn’t been a bill published and yet we find out this morning, when Parliament is on one-line whip and MPs are in their constituencies, that next week they will railroad emergency legislation to put right a decision made by the European Court of Justice that the current legislation was beyond human rights law. Now, that doesn’t seem right to me.

'It’s a Bill that will override the views of judges who have seen how the mass collection of your data breaches the human rights of you and your family,
' he added in a blog post. 'Regardless of where you stand on the decision of the European Court of Justice, can you honestly say that you want a key decision about how your personal data is stored to be made by a stitch up behind closed doors and clouded in secrecy? None of your MPs have even read this legislation, let alone been able to scrutinise it.'

106 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Fizzban 10th July 2014, 10:06 Quote
So once again the government sticks 2 fingers up and does what the hell it wants regardless. Great.
Corky42 10th July 2014, 10:07 Quote
I was under the impression that the ECJ not only ruled that it was for people whose communications must be confidential for legal reasons, but also because it breached the right to privacy for us normal people.
I also, maybe incorrectly, thought that it applies to mobile phone call logs and web sites visited.

Basically it seems like a resurrection of the snoopers charter, even though Nick Clegg claims it is not.

EDIT: Rhetorical question, if it's "emergency legislation" what is the emergency ?
Maki role 10th July 2014, 10:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42

EDIT: Rhetorical question, if it's "emergency legislation" what is the emergency ?

No doubt they'll be using the excuse that they could stop teenagers from being indoctrinated and heading out to fight in Syria. That seems to be the big story of the moment.
IanW 10th July 2014, 12:05 Quote
If it'll stop teenagers wanting to be politicians, then I'm all for it! </trolling>
Fizzban 10th July 2014, 12:05 Quote
They always find a way to dress it up so it sounds like they are doing us a favour. Only need to look at the whole internet filtering because of 'child pornography' bollox. It sounds good, but won't actually benefit children at all. Just a slow erosion of our freedoms. They just want control over us. One of these days they'll push us too far..
enbydee 10th July 2014, 13:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
EDIT: Rhetorical question, if it's "emergency legislation" what is the emergency ?

My limited understanding is that with the ECJ ruling that the Data Retention Directive is non-binding, companies have been asking government what they're meant to do with the data already gathered, otherwise they'll bin it. The government doesn't want them to so is introducing emergency legislation to force them to keep hold of it.
Yadda 10th July 2014, 13:46 Quote
It's a tricky one. On the one hand "the eval gummint is robbin owur freedumbs!", while on the other hand the French have just uncovered a plot to blow up the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre (and possibly a French nuclear power station), suggesting that we may be on the verge of another period of heightened risk from terrorist attack.

Edit: here's a news article.
"French police stumbled on terror plans after decrypting coded messages between Algerian butcher living in southern France and high-ranking members of al-Qaeda"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10956636/Islamist-plot-to-blow-up-Eiffel-Tower-Louvre-and-nuclear-power-plant-foiled-say-French-police.html
Corky42 10th July 2014, 14:29 Quote
Just because we maybe on the verge of heightened risk from terrorist attacks, I don't think a proportional response is to carry on retaining logs of all private communications.

Especially as one of the reasons the ECJ ruled that the data retention laws were invalid was because data retention should be limited to that which is strictly necessary. I wouldn't call blanket coverage to be limited to that which is strictly necessary, why do they need to know how often, when, who, and how long you had a telephone conversation with someone, what web sites you view, who you send and receive e-mails and SMS messages from.

If it was proportional and limited to that which is strictly necessary, wouldn't it be limited to people under suspicion, or with ties to terrorist organisations and the like ?

EDIT: The sad thing is the ECJ ruled that the data retention laws were invalid back in April so why all of a sudden does legislation need to be rushed through parliament, they've had over two months to address and discuss the problem raised by Teresa May.

Is this legislation being rushed through parliament because we face an emergency, or is it because a group of civil liberty organizations have threatened legal action.
Gareth Halfacree 10th July 2014, 14:41 Quote
The government has just published the bill, which is officially known as the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (DRIP). PDFs available on GOV.UK.
Yadda 10th July 2014, 14:42 Quote
It's not just because we're at heightened risk. It's also because the nature of the threat has changed - it seems our biggest threat is now radicalised nationals (as opposed to imported terrorists).

The fact that French Police "stumbled" across that plot suggests that the plotter (a butcher from southern France) wasn't on their radar therefore only monitoring known radicals doesn't cut it any more.
Corky42 10th July 2014, 14:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
It's not just because we're at heightened risk. It's also because the nature of the threat has changed - it seems our biggest threat is now radicalised nationals (as opposed to imported terrorists).

The fact that French Police "stumbled" across that plot suggests that the plotter wasn't on their radar therefore only monitoring known radicals doesn't cut it any more.

So is a proportional response to that a blanket coverage of when, and who every individual communicates with ? Seem like a rather big net to be throwing just in case they stumble upon a radicalised individual.
Stelph 10th July 2014, 15:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
It's not just because we're at heightened risk. It's also because the nature of the threat has changed - it seems our biggest threat is now radicalised nationals (as opposed to imported terrorists).

The fact that French Police "stumbled" across that plot suggests that the plotter (a butcher from southern France) wasn't on their radar therefore only monitoring known radicals doesn't cut it any more.

Also the headline the telegraph uses is a little over the top.

Stating "Islamist plot to blow up Eiffel Tower, Louvre and nuclear power plant foiled" suggests that a plan was in place, planned out in every detail and that it was interrupted (i.e. we were close to it being implemeneted)

Where as if you read the article it suggests that actually it was at the level of two guys on the interenet suggesting "what if's", so no plan in place at all. Its certianly a worrying announcement but not really worth "emergency" measures like the government is proposing to push through here
Teelzebub 10th July 2014, 15:08 Quote
I received this today on the subject

Today the Government has announced 'emergency' legislation on Data Retention. They claim they urgently need ISPs to keep records of your phone calls, texts, and Internet browsing history. With hardly any scrutiny from Parliament or civil society, they are presenting a new law to Parliament on Monday. [1]

But this is not the time for emergency law.

This legislation is being pushed through in a day. Emergency laws are not for crucial decisions about our fundamental rights. What is urgent is making sure that democracy functions properly.

Tell your MP to stop this dangerous legislation and ask for a proper debate:
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-the-data-retention-stitch-up

MP Tom Watson says: 'None of your MPs have even read this legislation, let alone been able to scrutinise it....nobody has had the chance to debate and question.'

The Government are responding to the threat of legal action. They know that there is no legal basis for making Internet Service Providers and phone networks retain our data. It goes against the ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU in April, which stated that this kind of data retention is fundamentally incompatible with our right to privacy and protection of personal data. [2]


Thanks to you we've put pressure on ISPs, telling them to stop retaining your data. We've made it clear that we are willing to challenge continued use of Data Retention Law. Now let's keep the pressure on and make it equally clear that this new law just opens them up to another law suit.

Please take action and write to your MP now!
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-the-data-retention-stitch-up

Whichever way your MP usually votes on security issues, or which party they are in, they should be invited to debate this properly.

Thank you!
Best,
Ed

[1] Updates on Emergency Data Retention Law
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2014/updates-on-emergency-data-retention-law

[2] Briefing to MPs on Data Retention Legislation
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/briefing-to-mps-on-data-retention-legislation

_______________
Yadda 10th July 2014, 15:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So is a proportional response to that a blanket coverage of when, and who every individual communicates with ? Seem like a rather big net to be throwing just in case they stumble upon a radicalised individual.

If you've got a better idea I'm sure GCHQ and MI6 are all ears.:)
Corky42 10th July 2014, 15:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
If you've got a better idea I'm sure GCHQ and MI6 are all ears.:)

As your avatar clearly shows :D
Yadda 10th July 2014, 16:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
As your avatar clearly shows :D

:)

Ear-sinks. Sinks, for ears.
debs3759 10th July 2014, 17:32 Quote
I want to know what the emergency is. Did somebody say something in a private phone call or tweet that stopped a Tory from earning his next million? Shame on you!
debs3759 10th July 2014, 17:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
Please take action and write to your MP now!
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/no-emergency-stop-the-data-retention-stitch-up

Already written to mine. They have been given no notice of this (many of them are already home so won't get the message until Monday), yet my MP tells me it can take 10 days to read and respond to my emails (he is probably sick of hearing from me!).
RedFlames 10th July 2014, 17:58 Quote
XXAOSICXX 10th July 2014, 18:38 Quote
*gives personal details to open rights group in protest....open rights group snooped on by government for political activism...my details captured....me snooped on because of potential for political activism....*

That the repercussions of wanting to have my voice heard is enough to make me reconsider whether or not to actually speak out is precisely the position they want us in, and it's disgusting. Orwell would be waving a giant "I told you so" flag at us all if he were able.

Worse still is that the rationale for needing most of this (we prevented 'x' because of 'y' email) might very well be a work of fiction in and of itself.
Corky42 10th July 2014, 18:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
Worse still is that the rationale for needing most of this (we prevented 'x' because of 'y' email) might very well be a work of fiction in and of itself.

Well it wouldn't be the first time politicians have told us they need to take action because the boogie man will get us if we don't.
Locknload 10th July 2014, 19:26 Quote
One step closer we plod like sheep to the compulsory intravenous implantation of RFID markers.

When will the " nothing to hide" brigade realise we are all being rolled over by JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Deloitte and The Rothschilds.
Porkins' Wingman 10th July 2014, 21:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizzban
Just a slow erosion of our freedoms. They just want control over us. One of these days they'll push us too far..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locknload
One step closer we plod like sheep to the compulsory intravenous implantation of RFID markers.

When will the " nothing to hide" brigade realise we are all being rolled over by JP Morgan, Deloitte and The Rothschilds.

That's the thing, that's what really twists the knife - it's all so obvious and painfully predictable, but we're all too sedated to barely raise an eyebrow over it. Remind me, provided you're not jewish, homo etc. why would a Nazi takeover have been so bad?
Teelzebub 10th July 2014, 21:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porkins' Wingman
. why would a Nazi takeover have been so bad?

I thought they had.

The British people have got so used to being walked over by the government we just accept it as the norm.
Anfield 10th July 2014, 22:51 Quote
And with all the hatemongering against foreigners from Tories / UKIP / Media the UK will leave the EU removing the only safeguard against overly invasive Government spying.
Locknload 10th July 2014, 23:00 Quote
@Anfield.........UK will never leave the EU under Tories, Labour or Liberals.

Money will cease to exist as we know it within 5-8 years.

They want and need us to do all our transactions digitally, so they can track every aspect of our lives,
Close banking premises, lay off people, cut expenditure and maximize profit.
This enables them to sell our consumer profiles to insurers, retailers and merchandisers who systematically target us with offers we cannot refuse.

Do you think your store loyalty card is a valuable asset to you?
Not as valuable to you as it is to the global marketing machine?

The mobile phone u hold is an intrinsic part of your govt surveillance of you, it holds unbelievable power to track, it is gathering information about you at an exponential rate. It has gasped all your social nuances and known associations, your most private thoughts and intimate details.

It will collate these until it is useful or fitting to use this against you, the ubiquitous front-facing camera can not be truly turned off, so while u are looking at your screen it can be remotely accessed in real time to see exactly what you are up to, and who is using the phone.

The same applies to the new TV u just got with a built in camera for Skype (lol), now they see your living room, i hope you ain't shagging on the sofa dude. (Remember the Iranian centrifuge sabotage where the USA remotely destroyed Iran's capability to produce heavy water by corrupting the software that the machines in a secret underground facility operated on). Go google it, you could not make it up! haha.

Also with the up and coming facial recognition sample we will all have to submit to obtain documents like a driving licence, a passport, a birth certificate or probably even a bank account, i hope you all have practiced your selfies..

Paypal recently froze bank accounts and effectively hijacked the money against a kickstarter company that had found a way to encrypt private emails so the NSA and GCHQ could not read them...on the order of the US govt? A Swiss bank being bullied by USA.
In parliament today, an emergency bill was quick fired through and passed immediately without reply, that overturns a EU ruling last week that says: ISP and phone companies are now NOT required to record and keep EVERY communication for at least 3 years.
The UK govt today over rode this EU ruling under the public's nose so it can opt out of this ruling and continue to surreptitiously monitor, record and keep all UK private comm's without restriction against the wishes of EVERY other EU state.
They will tell you this is to counteract terrorism....what a complete load of horse plop.

But the same old people will still stand defiant and say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".
Yeah, good luck with that.
Yadda 11th July 2014, 00:03 Quote
In before chemtrails...
Anfield 11th July 2014, 00:42 Quote
By the way, the but it will stop the Pedophiles if the Government can spy on everyone excuse is rather silly...

Just have a read through this: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/kincora-mi5-must-hand-over-files-on-abuse-at-east-belfast-boys-home-30419926.html
lysaer 11th July 2014, 01:30 Quote
This is so retarded, if they are going to strip us of our freedoms then why are they even bothering to protect us from "terrorists"

The only people this hurts are the public, "terrorists" are going to find a way around it in 2 minutes.

It's like knife and gun laws, they don't help anyone, they only hinder the innocent. If someone is going to use a knife or gun to kill they aren't going to go "wait hold on, if I'm caught carrying a knife twice I could go to prison".

Soon we will be arrested because our minds can be used as dangerous weapons.......

Sent from my SM-T325 using Tapatalk
mi1ez 11th July 2014, 04:41 Quote
I don't think the uk will need a referendum on Europe, at this rate they'll be kicked out!
Corky42 11th July 2014, 06:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
By the way, the but it will stop the Pedophiles if the Government can spy on everyone excuse is rather silly...

This isn't the first time this particular boogie man has been used to scare people into accepting the monitoring of everyone's private lives though is it. It's worked once so why not use it again ?
Flibblebot 11th July 2014, 07:24 Quote
But the phone/mobile companies aren't keeping anything that they wouldn't normally keep, anyway - just the same thing that appears on your phone bill. AFAIK, the ISPs are just keeping records of the websites you visit and who you send emails to. In both cases, no actual data is kept.

As for why the authorities might need that data? It's to track back the contact history of suspects - who were they communicating with, what sites were they looking at? It still requires a warrant for the authorities to be able to access, it's not as though they can go snooping through the data at will.

About the emergency? It's because the ISPs etc. were threatening to delete the data they're holding and stop recording new data after the ECJ ruling. The government didn't want this to happen, so they're acting as quickly as they can to prevent it happening.

This is, of course, separate from the data that GCHQ allegedly gathers, which is a whole different kettle of fish ballgames.
Corky42 11th July 2014, 10:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
But the phone/mobile companies aren't keeping anything that they wouldn't normally keep, anyway - just the same thing that appears on your phone bill. AFAIK, the ISPs are just keeping records of the websites you visit and who you send emails to. In both cases, no actual data is kept.

Do phone/mobile companies keep records for 12 months then ? I would have thought they kept them for a shorter time than that, maybe a month or two. And I'm fairly certain they don't record where you were when you placed a call.

Just because no data is kept on the contents of what your e-mails and SMS messages contain, what web sites you visit, doesn't mean it's a proportional response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
As for why the authorities might need that data? It's to track back the contact history of suspects - who were they communicating with, what sites were they looking at? It still requires a warrant for the authorities to be able to access, it's not as though they can go snooping through the data at will.

There is no questioning the value of being able to track back who a suspect has communicated with.
What is being called into question is if keeping tabs on every single person in the country is proportional, if TPTB suspect someone of being involved in serious crime shouldn't that be when the recording of data begins ? Not this whole sale blanket approach of recording everything and everyone just in case.
Doesn't that, as the ECJ ruled breach my right to privacy ?

And while you are correct in saying they can't go snooping through it at will, doesn't the fact that all this data is there in the first place make it more likely that they will apply for a court order and be granted it ?
From a FOI request we know that in 2009 there were more than 51,000 requests for communications data, rising to more than 56,000 in 2010 and nearly 57,000 the following year, are TPTB really telling us there were 57,000 serious crimes in 2011 that they needed the communications data to resolve ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
About the emergency? It's because the ISPs etc. were threatening to delete the data they're holding and stop recording new data after the ECJ ruling. The government didn't want this to happen, so they're acting as quickly as they can to prevent it happening.

But the ECJ ruling that the data retention law was in breach of a citizens right to privacy was 3 month ago, doesn't it seem a bit suspect that all of a sudden we need emergency legislation.

And if it's an emergency why is the sunset clause set for over two years from now ? Why not 6 or more months so parliament can discuss it properly. Would it be because there is an election next year and the politicians don't want to be shown in a bad light ?

By carrying on with the recording of everyone's communications data are we not breaching those exact same rights ? Has the government not opened it's self up to now being taken to The European Court of Human Rights ?
Yadda 11th July 2014, 11:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
But the phone/mobile companies aren't keeping anything that they wouldn't normally keep, anyway - just the same thing that appears on your phone bill. AFAIK, the ISPs are just keeping records of the websites you visit and who you send emails to. In both cases, no actual data is kept.

As for why the authorities might need that data? It's to track back the contact history of suspects - who were they communicating with, what sites were they looking at? It still requires a warrant for the authorities to be able to access, it's not as though they can go snooping through the data at will.

About the emergency? It's because the ISPs etc. were threatening to delete the data they're holding and stop recording new data after the ECJ ruling. The government didn't want this to happen, so they're acting as quickly as they can to prevent it happening.

This is, of course, separate from the data that GCHQ allegedly gathers, which is a whole different kettle of fish ballgames.

Exactly. Well put.
Flibblebot 11th July 2014, 13:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Do phone/mobile companies keep records for 12 months then? I would have thought they kept them for a shorter time than that, maybe a month or two. And I'm fairly certain they don't record where you were when you placed a call.

Just because no data is kept on the contents of what your e-mails and SMS messages contain, what web sites you visit, doesn't mean it's a proportional response.
Define "proportional" ;)
If your child is lost, presumed dead, wouldn't you want the police to be using every tool in their arsenal to find potential suspects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
There is no questioning the value of being able to track back who a suspect has communicated with.
What is being called into question is if keeping tabs on every single person in the country is proportional, if TPTB suspect someone of being involved in serious crime shouldn't that be when the recording of data begins ? Not this whole sale blanket approach of recording everything and everyone just in case.
But then the authorities would only be able to track people from the point they became aware of them. No historical tracking would be available, so there'd be less of a chance to find associates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Doesn't that, as the ECJ ruled breach my right to privacy ?
Couldn't say, I'm not a data expert.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And while you are correct in saying they can't go snooping through it at will, doesn't the fact that all this data is there in the first place make it more likely that they will apply for a court order and be granted it ?
That's more to do with the people granting the requests than the bill itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
From a FOI request we know that in 2009 there were more than 51,000 requests for communications data, rising to more than 56,000 in 2010 and nearly 57,000 the following year, are TPTB really telling us there were 57,000 serious crimes in 2011 that they needed the communications data to resolve ?
I agree that there needs to be oversight of the requests, and that the process needs to be tightened to make sure that access is only granted where absolutely necessary. Those numbers in and of themselves don't mean anything without knowing why those requests were made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
But the ECJ ruling that the data retention law was in breach of a citizens right to privacy was 3 month ago, doesn't it seem a bit suspect that all of a sudden we need emergency legislation.
No. It's become an emergency because the telecoms/ISP companies are threatening to start deleting data without a valid piece of legislation that requires them to keep it - so the government is acting to stop that happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And if it's an emergency why is the sunset clause set for over two years from now ? Why not 6 or more months so parliament can discuss it properly. Would it be because there is an election next year and the politicians don't want to be shown in a bad light ?
That is probably a very good reason in the politician's minds ;) I'd also say that it's there to ensure that the bill is reviewed to make sure that it is fit for purpose and still required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
By carrying on with the recording of everyone's communications data are we not breaching those exact same rights ? Has the government not opened itself up to now being taken to The European Court of Human Rights ?
I wouldn't know, IANAL, but I thought that the legislation was being changed (and rushed through) to ensure that it complies with the ECJ ruling.

I'm not saying that the legislation doesn't have its problems, but in my mind it's less to do with the data gathering and more to do with the lack of oversight of who is granted requests and for what reasons, and how many requests have been made.
Corky42 11th July 2014, 15:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
Define "proportional" ;)
If your child is lost, presumed dead, wouldn't you want the police to be using every tool in their arsenal to find potential suspects?
Well it's always more urgent when an emotive spin is put on things, but that isn't how politicians should be passing laws. Politicians should be making judgments based on the facts, not on how they, or the country as a whole feels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
But then the authorities would only be able to track people from the point they became aware of them. No historical tracking would be available, so there'd be less of a chance to find associates.
You mean like in the olden days, when the police and security services actually relied on investigations, and not just recording everything and sorting the mess out after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
That's more to do with the people granting the requests than the bill itself.
If TPTB know it's a simple matter of applying for a court order aren't they more likely to do that, versus getting a court order and then having to spend time gathering evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
I agree that there needs to be oversight of the requests, and that the process needs to be tightened to make sure that access is only granted where absolutely necessary. Those numbers in and of themselves don't mean anything without knowing why those requests were made.
Something that we will never know. Is it right to recorded who, when, and in some cases where everyone is in the country when they have a private conversation, are we not treating everyone as guilty'(ish)
I would disagree that those numbers don't mean anything, it's fairly clear in my mind that the law is being abused. Well unless we really do have 57,000 people each year either intending, or have committed a serious crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
No. It's become an emergency because the telecoms/ISP companies are threatening to start deleting data without a valid piece of legislation that requires them to keep it - so the government is acting to stop that happening.
But they knew this 3 months ago, so why rush through legislation in a single week, with no chance for our elected representatives to discuss the implications.

We hold our selves up as a beacon of a democratic society, yet we are rushing through legislation with no chance for that democratic process to effect anything, and in contravention of the European convention on human rights that we are signatory of. It doesn't speak much of how we value democracy and human rights if we are so willing to throw those principles away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
That is probably a very good reason in the politician's minds ;) I'd also say that it's there to ensure that the bill is reviewed to make sure that it is fit for purpose and still required.
AFAIK the law ceases to be in December 2016, during that time they have to draft a new law with regards to how they want to deal with data retention and how far they want to go when it comes to gathering data or spying on their own citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
I wouldn't know, IANAL, but I thought that the legislation was being changed (and rushed through) to ensure that it complies with the ECJ ruling.
I maybe getting my ECJ mixed up with my CJEU, and my ECtHR So many courts it's hard to keep track of them.
AFAIK the law isn't being changed in the strictest sense of the word, back in 2004 after the Madrid train bombings some European court changed what was a voluntary code for communications providers to store communications details for up to 12 months into a law. As part of the EU we had to adopt this law, but AFAIK we only adopted it into secondary law :?

What the differences between secondary and primary laws are is beyond me, but i think because it was only secondary law and due to the recent ruling by one of the courts in the EU that said blanket data retention was not proportional, and in breach of the rights of EU citizens to a private life the secondary law that we adopted from the first ruling could now be challenged, or was no longer valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flibblebot
I'm not saying that the legislation doesn't have its problems, but in my mind it's less to do with the data gathering and more to do with the lack of oversight of who is granted requests and for what reasons, and how many requests have been made.

To me it seems similar to what we have done with CCTV, watch and record everything then you don't have to prevent crime, or bother gathering evidence as you have everything everyone does recorded just in case.
Teelzebub 11th July 2014, 16:02 Quote
Just received this update

Open Rights Group

We're facing some tough fights for digital freedom at ORG.

When the Data Retention “emergency” legislation was announced ORG staff worked together as fast as possible to stop the Government's attempt to push the ECJ's ruling and the right to privacy under the rug.

You help us fight this now by joining ORG: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/

With 9 years of expertise on Data Retention law we were ready and able to make a stand.

Our Campaigner and Supporter Officer emailed thousands of you to let you know what was happening and created the action to let you contact your MP. We wrote blog posts and tweets to spread the word around the world. Our Policy team drafted a briefing to MPs on the issue. Our Legal Director was able to speak about a Judicial Review of Data Retention to the press. Our Executive Director was on the BBC and Sky debating the need for this legislation.

Between us we made sure that #DRIP was not going to gently trickle through Parliament.

That's what we do.

The rushed through Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill is a deliberate attempt to ignore the courts, and violate human rights.

What makes it particularly galling is that all three parties have backed this in the face of public outrage over mass surveillance.
But the fact is they are breaking the law. So if the Bill is passed, we'll be there taking the UK Government to court. We will fight Data Retention again and again until they get it right.

Joining ORG means that we can challenge this politically and legally. These campaigns are vital to defend human rights.

Thank you for your support.

Best wishes,
Ruth

P.S. To read more about the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill and our past work on Data Retention we have a series of blog posts and briefings on the issue.
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/
Locknload 11th July 2014, 18:55 Quote
@Yadda, flibblebot

You both appear to be a part of the problem. Cattle.

You are getting spam 20 times a day on all your devices because of the illegal collection of your data, it is being whored to everyone especially those with cosy government relations....Google..Facebook...linkedin..All the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies...Paypal.

Do you honestly believe that the information collected is currently not acted on?

Jeez!
Yadda 11th July 2014, 20:06 Quote
Moo!

(That's cow speak for I don't jump on conspiracy bandwagons.) :D
Teelzebub 11th July 2014, 20:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
Moo!

(That's cow speak for I don't jump on conspiracy bandwagons.) :D

No, just under them.:p
Nexxo 11th July 2014, 20:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locknload
@Yadda, flibblebot

You both appear to be a part of the problem. Cattle.

You know, I've found that the best way to persuade people is to insult them. :p
Yadda 11th July 2014, 20:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
No, just under them.:p

Did I jump... or did Google and Facebook push me? :D
Teelzebub 11th July 2014, 21:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
Did I jump... or did Google and Facebook push me? :D

No, I think like a lot of people you was told to just laid down and let it happen.
Yadda 11th July 2014, 21:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
No, I think like a lot of people you was told to just laid down and let it happen.

Let what happen? Let Google show me adverts for walking boots if I've been searching for tents? I can just about live with that.
Teelzebub 11th July 2014, 21:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda
Let what happen? Let Google show me adverts for walking boots if I've been searching for tents? I can just about live with that.

lol let the bandwagon / government walk all over you, who needs free thinking just gives people a headache anyway
Yadda 11th July 2014, 21:47 Quote
Lol yea, I've never seen such hardship. Someone make it stop. :|
Cerberus90 11th July 2014, 23:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locknload


Do you think your store loyalty card is a valuable asset to you?
Not as valuable to you as it is to the global marketing machine?

The mobile phone u hold is an intrinsic part of your govt surveillance of you, it holds unbelievable power to track, it is gathering information about you at an exponential rate. It has gasped all your social nuances and known associations, your most private thoughts and intimate details.

It will collate these until it is useful or fitting to use this against you, the ubiquitous front-facing camera can not be truly turned off, so while u are looking at your screen it can be remotely accessed in real time to see exactly what you are up to, and who is using the phone.

The same applies to the new TV u just got with a built in camera for Skype (lol), now they see your living room, i hope you ain't shagging on the sofa dude. (Remember the Iranian centrifuge sabotage where the USA remotely destroyed Iran's capability to produce heavy water by corrupting the software that the machines in a secret underground facility operated on). Go google it, you could not make it up! haha.


I'm alright then, I got £15 credit on my phone when I bought it 3 years ago, and still have £10 left, it also doesn't have a front facing camera, more than half the time it just sits on my desk, so not much info being collected there, :D.

What do I want a TV with a webcam for, I don't even like talking to people on the phone so why do I want to do it over a webcam? :D :D :D
Nexxo 11th July 2014, 23:32 Quote
You don't want to be monitored on the grid? Go live in a forest in Washington State or something. To be part of a society is to live on the grid. Governments are always going to exploit that, and the Bilderberg lot are always going to do their shady dealings to stay at the top of the food chain, and politicians are always going to be co-opted in that. If that makes them happy, fine. In the next century they will all be dust and bones just like anyone else.

We never had any rights or power than what we took for ourselves. We never had any freedoms than those we grant ourselves. Rely on nobody to be your big daddy, and plant your own vegetables instead of believing in other people's promises of rose gardens. True power is the will to do what other people won't.
Anfield 12th July 2014, 00:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
We never had any rights or power than what we took for ourselves. We never had any freedoms than those we grant ourselves. Rely on nobody to be your big daddy, and plant your own vegetables instead of believing in other people's promises of rose gardens. True power is the will to do what other people won't.

Yep, we can just go back to living in caves and with no means of transport no one but the next three neighbours will ever hear you scream when you get mauled by a bear and even those three neighbours can be stopped from interfering by simply building a wall and if that fails just remind them how much you hate them.

*disclaimer: Post so far may have been slightly less than 100% serious.

On a more serious note, there has to be some sort of sane middle path between cave dwelling and gchq analysing the contents of your toilet.
Corky42 12th July 2014, 09:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
On a more serious note, there has to be some sort of sane middle path between cave dwelling and gchq analysing the contents of your toilet.

None that can be put in law, or set in stone.
The battle between civil liberties and the state is a battle as old as man himself, the state pushes for more control and society pushes back. Sometimes the state goes to far, other times civil liberties goes to far, ideally we try to find the right balance, IMHO the balance has swung to far in favor of the state in the last decade.
Teelzebub 12th July 2014, 10:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
None that can be put in law, or set in stone.
The battle between civil liberties and the state is a battle as old as man himself, the state pushes for more control and society pushes back. Sometimes the state goes to far other times civil liberties goes to far, ideally we try to find the right balance, IMHO the balance has swung to far in favor of the state in the last decade.

Problem is society is pushing back less and less now days.
Nexxo 12th July 2014, 11:14 Quote
And whose fault is that?

Politicians only say that the public wants to hear. That's how they win votes, no? Now listen to what politicians are saying, and keep in mind, all the time, that this is what the public wants to hear. This is what the public is thinking. The people not only get the government that they deserve; they get the government that they want.

GCHQ doesn't have to spy on my wallet; I'm an NHS employee. They know how much I earn, how much taxes I pay, and have a pretty good idea what I spend my money on. They even know about my beehive if they want, because I'm a registered beekeeper. Then again, my neighbours can find out the same just by looking over the garden fence and checking out on the Agenda For Change website what my going salary is likely to be.

Several supermarkets know what I buy (it's not only the loyalty cards, dude; it's the card you pay with, too), and my ISP, Google and Amazon have a pretty good idea about my browsing interests.

I'm not sure what use that information is to GCHQ or anybody else. It's not a matter of: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear", but: "If you've got nothing to hide, they have no power over you" (It's why MI5 and MI6 have a policy that employees need to openly declare their homosexuality. It's not a barrier to employment --they just don't want it to be a vulnerability to blackmail). Don't play the game in the first place.

And sure, supermarkets can target advertising, but I decide whether I buy or not, don't I? Again: don't play the game in the first place.

At the same time, we live in a society that never has had as much opportunity for people at the lowest socio-econoic rank as it has now. Education in this country is actually pretty good, if you raise your children to value it and make use of it. Health care in this country is still free, and for the largest part pretty good, if you do what you can to look after your own health. Decent food in this country is actually pretty cheap if you know how to cook. Access to good, free information is plentiful if you can be arsed to visit your local library --and read.

Just like expecting a government to nanny you is infantile behaviour, "pushing back" is just teenage rebellion. An adult takes responsibility for their own lives, and recognises that life is compromise. Don't push back; stand on your own two feet. You're not a teenager; you're an adult.
Corky42 12th July 2014, 13:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
And whose fault is that?
Mine, it's all mine. Do i get a prize now ? :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Politicians only say that the public wants to hear. That's how they win votes, no? Now listen to what politicians are saying, and keep in mind, all the time, that this is what the public wants to hear. This is what the public is thinking. The people not only get the government that they deserve; they get the government that they want.
I know what you are trying to say, but what happens when the three main parties, such as with this emergency data retention law, all say exactly the same thing. It wasn't always a case of politicians acting as a mirror to society, there used to be a time that our elected representatives would do what was in our best interests not what we thought was best for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
GCHQ doesn't have to spy on my wallet; I'm an NHS employee. They know how much I earn, how much taxes I pay, and have a pretty good idea what I spend my money on. They even know about my beehive if they want, because I'm a registered beekeeper. Then again, my neighbours can find out the same just by looking over the garden fence and checking out on the Agenda For Change website what my going salary is likely to be.
They don't have to look in anyone's wallet, the TAX man knows how much everyone earns. This isn't about how much people earn, if they keep bees, or anything else as trivial, it's about our private communications being monitored, when they are meant to be private.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I'm not sure what use that information is to GCHQ or anybody else. It's not a matter of: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear", but: "If you've got nothing to hide, they have no power over you" (It's why MI5 and MI6 have a policy that employees need to openly declare their homosexuality. It's not a barrier to employment --they just don't want it to be a vulnerability to blackmail). Don't play the game in the first place.
And what if homosexuality was outlawed again ? Or bee keeping, or if they outlawed gathering in a group and listening to music with a succession of repetitive beats (AKA:Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994) The point is what to hide tomorrow may well change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
And sure, supermarkets can target advertising, but I decide whether I buy or not, don't I? Again: don't play the game in the first place.
I think supermarkets are the least of our worries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Just like expecting a government to nanny you is infantile behaviour, "pushing back" is just teenage rebellion. An adult takes responsibility for their own lives, and recognises that life is compromise. Don't push back; stand on your own two feet. You're not a teenager; you're an adult.
It's not a matter of expecting a government to nanny us, or "pushing back" being just teenage rebellion, it's that politicians are meant to look out for our best interests. Just like a parent should be looking out for the best interests of their child as the child may not know that running out in the road is dangerous, or that playing with fire while it maybe fun, can lead to serious harm.

While "stand on your own two feet" may work for an individual in their own personal life, when it comes to living in a society you are force to depend on some type of body to look after the best interests of the group as a whole.
Nexxo 12th July 2014, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Mine, it's all mine. Do i get a prize now ? :D
I always suspected. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I know what you are trying to say, but what happens when the three main parties, such as with this emergency data retention law, all say exactly the same thing. It wasn't always a case of politicians acting as a mirror to society, there used to be a time that our elected representatives would do what was in our best interests not what we thought was best for us.
Really? When was that? :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
They don't have to look in anyone's wallet, the TAX man knows how much everyone earns. This isn't about how much people earn, if they keep bees, or anything else as trivial, it's about our private communications being monitored, when they are meant to be private.
There was a time when only your post was private (telephone calls had to go through human operated switchboards, so could always be overheard). The internet is not private. Mobile communications are not private. Never were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And what if homosexuality was outlawed again ? Or bee keeping, or if they outlawed gathering in a group and listening to music with a succession of repetitive beats (AKA:Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994) The point is what to hide tomorrow may well change.

Yup, but if enough people disobey those laws, they mean nothing. You can't lock up a whole country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
It's not a matter of expecting a government to nanny us, or "pushing back" being just teenage rebellion, it's that politicians are meant to look out for our best interests. Just like a parent should be looking out for the best interests of their child as the child may not know that running out in the road is dangerous, or that playing with fire while it maybe fun, can lead to serious harm.

While "stand on your own two feet" may work for an individual in their own personal life, when it comes to living in a society you are force to depend on some type of body to look after the best interests of the group as a whole.

The best way to control those bodies is to limit their power. The best way to limit their power is to take that power to yourself and minimise your dependence on them.
Corky42 12th July 2014, 16:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Really? When was that? :p

When not all our politicians came from Oxbridge and got taught debating, how to answer questions without actually giving an answer, and had training in how to deal with the media.
Way back when you and I were little kids :o
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
There was a time when only your post was private (telephone calls had to go through human operated switchboards, so could always be overheard). The internet is not private. Mobile communications are not private. Never were.

Very true, but intercepting private communications is still wrong. A better man than myself pretty much sums it up..
mY95J56xdcU
Fair enough he is talking about actually reading the content of private communications, but is there much difference between reading the contents and recording who, when, where and for how long someone communicated with another person, or what web sites they look at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Yup, but if enough people disobey those laws, they mean nothing. You can't lock up a whole country.

They don't need to lock up a whole country for those laws to effect peoples lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
The best way to control those bodies is to limit their power. The best way to limit their power is to take that power to yourself.

And become the very thing you are fighting against.

You can't take the power to decide what our nuclear deterrent should be, our tax laws, or the law of the land. Part of living in a society from the very small of the single house, to the very large of the whole world comes with rules that everyone agrees to abide by (most of the time), if we didn't there would be anarchy.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
Locknload 12th July 2014, 17:12 Quote
So how about all our information being sifted through and then dumped on the internet for the world to see?
Is this fair and balanced for everyone?
What about the rich and powerful people who can afford to have their "really bad ****" taken off the web and start with a fresh slate, as if nothing happened?
LIke the shmuck who was widely quoted as initiating the giant credit crash paying for all his attached bad news to be deleted?
Is that fair and balanced for society?
Would the same privilege be granted to somebody not rich or influential?...absolutely not.
The police no longer uphold the law, they are just here to protect the investment or tow the political party line.The police are whores of the highest order.
When was stoving a miners/protestors/ecologists/students/strikers head in with a truncheon a function of protecting the public?

Governments are instituted from Men who (largely) attended an elite private school, with the benefit of a private education, who are themselves the product of nepotism, and see themselves as a separate social and economic species from the general electorate.

Until that changes, nothing will ever change.
Nexxo 12th July 2014, 18:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
When not all our politicians came from Oxbridge and got taught debating, how to answer questions without actually giving an answer, and had training in how to deal with the media.
Way back when you and I were little kids :o

No, seriously, when was that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Very true, but intercepting private communications is still wrong. A better man than myself pretty much sums it up..
mY95J56xdcU
Fair enough he is talking about actually reading the content of private communications, but is there much difference between reading the contents and recording who, when, where and for how long someone communicated with another person, or what web sites they look at.

Again: only your written letters are reasonably secure. Nobody ever said that the internet was, or phones. Even encryption does not come with absolute guarantees. Then again, neither do locks or safes. It's all relative, you know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
They don't need to lock up a whole country for those laws to effect peoples lives.
Homosexuality was illegal before. Why did that change? Because people stopped playing along. If enough people challenge a law through simply ignoring it, the law changes. It has to, lest the government is revealed as powerless as it really is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And become the very thing you are fighting against.
I don't see how that follows. If I look after my own health as much as possible, I do not have to depend so much on the NHS. If I raise my kids to value education and involve myself in their school, they are more likely to get a good education, a high-status job with money and power, and they will be less dependent on the vagaries of the benefit system.

That sink estate? If the locals banded together and looked after each other and each other's homes, they would be a harder target for criminals --especially if they ditched that ridiculous notion that talking to the police makes you a "grass" (it's like sheep buying into the wolf's propaganda that talking to the hunter makes you disloyal to the wolf that wants to eat you). They could raise their kids not to vandalise the place, and treat it a bit better themselves --they wouldn't live in such a dump then.

There is a lot that people can do themselves to take control of their lives. But sitting on your arse complaining about the government is admittedly easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
You can't take the power to decide what our nuclear deterrent should be, our tax laws, or the law of the land. Part of living in a society from the very small of the single house, to the very large of the whole world comes with rules that everyone agrees to abide by (most of the time), if we didn't there would be anarchy.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...

Yeah, it's that compromise thing again. But governments could not go to war if its citizens simply refused to sign up and fight, no?

@LocknLoad: you really have to let go of the idea that life is fair. It isn't. Live righteously, but watch your back.
Corky42 12th July 2014, 20:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Again: only your written letters are reasonably secure. Nobody ever said that the internet was, or phones. Even encryption does not come with absolute guarantees. Then again, neither do locks or safes. It's all relative, you know?

Secure and private are very different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Homosexuality was illegal before. Why did that change? Because people stopped playing along. If enough people challenge a law through simply ignoring it, the law changes. It has to, lest the government is revealed as powerless as it really is.

So we should be a society that sets laws based on how the majority feels ? Passing laws against a minority that happens to be annoying, or thought to be dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I don't see how that follows. If I look after my own health as much as possible, I do not have to depend so much on the NHS. If I raise my kids to value education and involve myself in their school, they are more likely to get a good education, a high-status job with money and power, and they will be less dependent on the vagaries of the benefit system.

What has someones personal health, or how they raise their kids, got to do with limiting the power of a governing body ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
That sink estate? If the locals banded together and looked after each other and each other's homes, they would be a harder target for criminals --especially if they ditched that ridiculous notion that talking to the police makes you a "grass" (it's like sheep buying into the wolf's propaganda that talking to the hunter makes you disloyal to the wolf that wants to eat you). They could raise their kids not to vandalise the place, and treat it a bit better themselves --they wouldn't live in such a dump then.

Still not following how this would limit the power that a governing body has over them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
There is a lot that people can do themselves to take control of their lives. But sitting on your arse complaining about the government is admittedly easier.

Then how would you go about effecting change in the governing body that is meant to be looking after your best interests ? Let's not forget your hypothetical sink estate can't go about setting up their own police force, or dictate what their taxes are spent on, or effect any change outside of their own sphere of influence without "complaining" to those that do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Yeah, it's that compromise thing again. But governments could not go to war if its citizens simply refused to sign up and fight, no?

Tell that to the guys that were conscripted during WWI & WWII.
And by compromise, do you mean like "government to nanny you is infantile behaviour, "pushing back" is just teenage rebellion." thing ? :|
Nexxo 12th July 2014, 21:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Secure and private are very different things.
Only to the pedant. :p For the purposes of this conversation I mean the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So we should be a society that sets laws based on how the majority feels ? Passing laws against a minority that happens to be annoying, or thought to be dangerous.

That is a totally different debate. A society that governs itself wisely does not need a government to do so. Thus it can limit the powers it bestows upon such a government. Moreover because in a democracy, politicians get into office by promising what the people want to hear, they have to make wise-sounding promises. Then they have to follow through to stay in power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
What has someones personal health, or how they raise their kids, got to do with limiting the power of a governing body ?

The power of a governing body is determined by our dependence on it. The more you empower yourself, the less you need to rely on a governing body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Then how would you go about effecting change in the governing body that is meant to be looking after your best interests ? Let's not forget your hypothetical sink estate can't go about setting up their own police force, or dictate what their taxes are spent on, or effect any change outside of their own sphere of influence without "complaining" to those that do.

Of course they can: neighbourhood watch. Police will have to do the heavy lifting, but my neighbourhood for instance has close liaison with the neighbourhood constable. By being educated and informed, you can access legal advice, and your local MP is more likely to take you seriously. I would make sure that I make use of the services that my taxes pay for in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Tell that to the guys that were conscripted during WWI & WWII.
You know, if people had not got swept up in the jingoism of WWI, and simply not signed up en masse, there would have been very little war. If the Germans hadn't followed Hitler like sheep (and the Japanese Hirohito as if he was a god), there wouldn't have been a WWII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And by compromise, do you mean like "government to nanny you is infantile behaviour, "pushing back" is just teenage rebellion." thing ? :|

Not following you, sorry.
Teelzebub 12th July 2014, 21:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
And whose fault is that?

Politicians only say that the public wants to hear. That's how they win votes, no? Now listen to what politicians are saying, and keep in mind, all the time, that this is what the public wants to hear. This is what the public is thinking. The people not only get the government that they deserve; they get the government that they want.

GCHQ doesn't have to spy on my wallet; I'm an NHS employee. They know how much I earn, how much taxes I pay, and have a pretty good idea what I spend my money on. They even know about my beehive if they want, because I'm a registered beekeeper. Then again, my neighbours can find out the same just by looking over the garden fence and checking out on the Agenda For Change website what my going salary is likely to be.

Several supermarkets know what I buy (it's not only the loyalty cards, dude; it's the card you pay with, too), and my ISP, Google and Amazon have a pretty good idea about my browsing interests.

I'm not sure what use that information is to GCHQ or anybody else. It's not a matter of: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear", but: "If you've got nothing to hide, they have no power over you" (It's why MI5 and MI6 have a policy that employees need to openly declare their homosexuality. It's not a barrier to employment --they just don't want it to be a vulnerability to blackmail). Don't play the game in the first place.

And sure, supermarkets can target advertising, but I decide whether I buy or not, don't I? Again: don't play the game in the first place.

At the same time, we live in a society that never has had as much opportunity for people at the lowest socio-econoic rank as it has now. Education in this country is actually pretty good, if you raise your children to value it and make use of it. Health care in this country is still free, and for the largest part pretty good, if you do what you can to look after your own health. Decent food in this country is actually pretty cheap if you know how to cook. Access to good, free information is plentiful if you can be arsed to visit your local library --and read.

Just like expecting a government to nanny you is infantile behaviour, "pushing back" is just teenage rebellion. An adult takes responsibility for their own lives, and recognises that life is compromise. Don't push back; stand on your own two feet. You're not a teenager; you're an adult.


Well, I guess reality is what you make of it


d1nDBQYSL4Q
Nexxo 12th July 2014, 22:01 Quote
Isn't it just:

http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20131116/335049_Sudan-Darfur.jpg

http://tour-nk.com/North_Korea_Cuisine_3.jpg

http://lebbeuswoods.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/slum-mumbai1a.jpg



For us it's another day in paradise. We live in a Western affluent democracy --which, for all its flaws, still allows us to influence who will be in government in 2016; with clean drinking water, ready access to food, a welfare system, free health care and free education. So why don't we stop bitching already that MI5 can see just who we talked to on our £500,-- iPhone last Friday and use those gifts to shape our reality. You know, like smart and wise adults who don't vote for caricatures like Farrage, who don't go on riots that offer justification for politicians to bestow more powers on the police, who first learn to read and write properly so they can articulate a decent argument when they visit their MP. We still have that choice.

A government should be afraid of its people? You should ask yourself why this one isn't.
Teelzebub 12th July 2014, 22:25 Quote
Isn't this thread about the UK and the erosion of our rights?

I'm thankful for things I have which is why I don't want to lose the rights and freedom's our ancestors fought so hard for

Tbh your post of the poverty of the third world countries in irrelevant sad yes but nothing to to with this thread
theshadow2001 12th July 2014, 22:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
Isn't this thread about the UK and the erosion of our rights?

Tbh your post of the poverty of the third world countries in irrelevant sad yes but nothing to to with this thread

Indeed, appeal to emotion is a common logical fallacy. Common among politicians.
Nexxo 12th July 2014, 22:36 Quote
It is very relevant: it reminds you of the privileged and empowered position we enjoy. Do you think those people can influence their governments (such as they are)? Nope --they are truly ****ed.

We're not. Any kid from the sink estate can in principle make it to one of those fancy Oxbridge universities that our politicians enjoyed. Not saying it would be easy, but they still can. We can still talk to our MP and many of them are idealistic enough to listen. We are still relatively empowered. But rights have to be exercised to keep them from eroding, and I do not see this population exercising its rights: it's right to be healthy, educated, informed, politically aware and behave and vote accordingly.

Simple example: remember the internet filter that all ISPs now have to implement? If every user now called their ISP and demanded for the filter to be turned off, then it simply would not work anymore. Because everybody would do it, nobody would have to feel embarrassed about their request, or defend it.

You don't want your mobile phone company to keep records of your calls? If every mobile user decided not to use their mobile for a week: simply do without, like back in the 90's (we survived guys, honest), how much money do you think operators would lose? How long before they'd be caving in to customer demand? How long before politicians would be lobbied by those companies to abandon their monitoring schemes?
Teelzebub 12th July 2014, 22:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It is very relevant: it reminds you of the privileged and empowered position we enjoy. Do you think those people can influence their governments (such as they are)? Nope --they are truly ****ed.

We're not. Any kid from the sink estate can in principle make it to one of those fancy Oxbridge universities that our politicians enjoyed. Not saying it would be easy, but they still can. We can still talk to our MP and many of them are idealistic enough to listen. We are still relatively empowered. But rights have to be exercised to keep them from eroding, and I do not see this population exercising its right: it's right to be healthy, educated, informed, politically aware and vote.

We are all entitled to our opions, I still say its not relevant.

Just because one sector of the world has little or no control of their lives doesn't mean we should have to tolerate it too
Teelzebub 12th July 2014, 22:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
Indeed, appeal to emotion is a common logical fallacy. Common among politicians.

Yeah it's a common tactic to win an argument
Teelzebub 12th July 2014, 23:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It is very relevant: it reminds you of the privileged and empowered position we enjoy. Do you think those people can influence their governments (such as they are)? Nope --they are truly ****ed.

We're not. Any kid from the sink estate can in principle make it to one of those fancy Oxbridge universities that our politicians enjoyed. Not saying it would be easy, but they still can. We can still talk to our MP and many of them are idealistic enough to listen. We are still relatively empowered. But rights have to be exercised to keep them from eroding, and I do not see this population exercising its rights: it's right to be healthy, educated, informed, politically aware and behave and vote accordingly.

Simple example: remember the internet filter that all ISPs now have to implement? If every user now called their ISP and demanded for the filter to be turned off, then it simply would not work anymore. Because everybody would do it, nobody would have to feel embarrassed about their request,

Well I have phoned my ISP and told them not to put the filters on my internet I certainly don't feel embarrassed why would I be?

Also I handed a letter to my GP demanding that my medical details kept private and I will oppose what the government is trying to do now, I'm exercising my rights, how about you?
debs3759 13th July 2014, 00:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
At the same time, we live in a society that never has had as much opportunity for people at the lowest socio-econoic rank as it has now.

I guess that's why people are getting evicted for not paying their bedroom tax. The same people who want to move to smaller homes but can't because nobody is building the. Great opportunity for the people who are being made homeless just for being poor.

Or perhaps you were thinking about the disabled who had their benefits stopped for not looking for the not existent jobs they are incapable of doing? The people who, in this rich country, have died of hunger because they have no money and no way of getting any?

Talk about people having opportunity after we get a government who understand poverty well enough to do something about it. The only people with opportunity in this country are those with money. The poor are being treated as a sub class. And that includes people working and earning less than a living wage.
Nexxo 13th July 2014, 10:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
We are all entitled to our opions, I still say its not relevant.

Just because one sector of the world Hhas little or no control of their lives doesn't mean we should have to tolerate it too

I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that we do have some control, and should exercise it. LocknLoad basically is arguing that people are sheep for accepting the current state, and should do something. I'm arguing for some of the things we can do. Interesting that this meets with such opposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
Well I have phoned my ISP and told them not to put the filters on my internet I certainly don't feel embarrassed why would I be?

Also I handed a letter to my GP demanding that my medical details kept private and I will oppose what the government is trying to do now, I'm exercising my rights, how about you?

I've also rejected the filter, but decided not to refuse sharing of my medical notes. This is because (working in the NHS) I know that my notes are already shared in all sorts of ways that most people are not even aware of (LHA's, DoH, commissioning groups and private heath care providers as part of monitoring and planning health care policies). The new government rules actually change very little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debs3759
I guess that's why people are getting evicted for not paying their bedroom tax. The same people who want to move to smaller homes but can't because nobody is building the. Great opportunity for the people who are being made homeless just for being poor.

Labour is keen for our vote. If all these people (after all, how many are we talking about) now visits their local Labour MP and promise them their vote in return for abolition of the bedroom tax, that would be an interesting incentive. But if I ask how many of these same people voted in the last election, what would I find?
Quote:
Originally Posted by debs3759
Or perhaps you were thinking about the disabled who had their benefits stopped for not looking for the not existent jobs they are incapable of doing? The people who, in this rich country, have died of hunger because they have no money and no way of getting any?
And yet their government feels it can do that, because they were voted into power. UK general election turnout in 1950: 84%. Turnout in 2010: 65%. See what I'm saying?

Also, this is the conversation I have with my disabled patients when I help them fill out the disability benefit form:

"can you walk 200 yards on a level surface?"

"Yeah, slowly, but I'll be breathless and ache all over and be no good for the rest of the day..."

"So can you walk 200 yards on a level surface?"

"Well... yeah, I suppose. With difficulty."


(Now looking them directly in the eyes) "So can you walk 200 yards, normally, like I or any other ordinary person can?"

"Well, if you put it like that, no"


I tick "No" in the box. The penny drops.

I am reminded of the woman who at a disability assessment was asked to get up off the floor unassisted. She ended up breaking her arm while doing so. She was nonetheless declared fit and able, because she got up off the floor. My question was: "Why did you try so hard if you knew you couldn't do it?"

Seriously: acknowledge the system, understand the system, use the system to your advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by debs3759
Talk about people having opportunity after we get a government who understand poverty well enough to do something about it. The only people with opportunity in this country are those with money. The poor are being treated as a sub class. And that includes people working and earning less than a living wage.

Oh, hai: I'm a mixed-race mongrel from a broken home on a council estate. My mother drummed into me all my life that education is power. I went to University (where I took a subject relevant to a career) and worked my socks off. No pubs. No girls. No parties. No "student life". The last year I sofa-surfed my way to graduation as I was effectively homeless. When no good jobs were forthcoming in the Netherlands I packed the suitcase out of which I was living and moved to the UK, where there was a shortage of my skills. I paid my study debts off about a decade later. The rest is history.

I know all about the poor being treated as a sub-class. That is not going to change by shaking your fist at the injustice of overprivileged politicians. It will change if all of them appeal the bedroom tax process, as is their right. It will change if that same sub-class gets their kids to school (ironically, several Labour councils have now decreed that you can avoid bedroom tax by reclassifying the bedroom as a study) and makes sure they get qualifications so they can get the jobs that them foreigners strangely seem to find (hai again). It will change if they go out and vote.

I know, I know: who do you vote for, they're all the same. Why, the other guy, of course! It doesn't matter what a party proclaims to stand for --if they get the message that if they piss off the population, they are out on their ear in four years' time and their opposition is in, they will start taking an interest in not pissing it off. Negative reinforcement principle at work.
Teelzebub 13th July 2014, 11:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I've also rejected the filter, but decided not to refuse sharing of my medical notes. This is because (working in the NHS) I know that my notes are already shared in all sorts of ways that most people are not even aware of (LHA's, DoH, commissioning groups and private heath care providers as part of monitoring and planning health care policies). The new government rules actually change very little..

I'm not against my medical records being shared with other medical organisations but that isn't what's going to happen just about anybody that pays will get access to it, it's being done for the government to gain revenue not to benefit the people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo

Oh, hai: I'm a mixed-race mongrel from a broken home on a council estate. My mother drummed into me all my life that education is power. I went to University (where I took a subject relevant to a career) and worked my socks off. No pubs. No girls. No parties. No "student life". The last year I sofa-surfed my way to graduation as I was effectively homeless. When no good jobs were forthcoming in the Netherlands I packed the suitcase out of which I was living and moved to the UK, where there was a shortage of my skills. I paid my study debts off about a decade later. The rest is history...

Oh, hai:
I left school at 14 university was for the rich and privileged not for the working classes , to young to be employed I worked as a mobile welder till I was old enough to get a job I got a electrical apprenticeship and went to collage 3 days a week while working as a apprentice electrician I also did a evening class to get my welding qualifications.

Some years later I spend nearly a year living on the streets a single person was not a priority for housing so I know about poverty and hardship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
get the jobs that them foreigners strangely seem to find (hai again)...


It's true they do get the work and work for far less money which is why they get the work, mind you the fact that they live 20 to a room and pay a fraction of the rent and living cost that other people do and it's unlikely they pay tax etc, they eat the cheapest possible food, it makes it possible to do the work so cheap. Where as other people have a mortgage to pay their tax's council tax feed their families and put their children though uni they couldn't live on the kind of money the foreign workers do they just can't compete.
Corky42 13th July 2014, 11:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Only to the pedant. :p For the purposes of this conversation I mean the same thing.

You may mean the same thing, but secure and private are still very different concepts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
That is a totally different debate. A society that governs itself wisely does not need a government to do so. Thus it can limit the powers it bestows upon such a government. Moreover because in a democracy, politicians get into office by promising what the people want to hear, they have to make wise-sounding promises. Then they have to follow through to stay in power.

If a society does not need a government, who is the governing body of that society ?
This one sentence "A society that governs itself wisely does not need a government to do so., is a contradiction. Getting into office is often very different than what happens once they are in office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
The power of a governing body is determined by our dependence on it. The more you empower yourself, the less you need to rely on a governing body.

Only true to a very limited extent, it doesn't apply to everything outside your sphere of influence, such as TAX, defense, spending, policing, laws, utility's such as water and power, street lighting, transport, etc, etc. In fact most things we depend on in our day-to-day lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Of course they can: neighbourhood watch. Police will have to do the heavy lifting, but my neighbourhood for instance has close liaison with the neighbourhood constable. By being educated and informed, you can access legal advice, and your local MP is more likely to take you seriously. I would make sure that I make use of the services that my taxes pay for in the first place.

That is a long way from setting up their own police force, or dictating how much or what their taxes are spent on, setting up their own power station, army, or transport system.

All you seem to be saying is that it's fine to liaise with the neighbourhood constable, to educate yourself, or access legal advice so you can talk to your MP, who might i remind you is part of the very governing body that you seem to be saying should have it's powers limited by people taking charge of their own lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You know, if people had not got swept up in the jingoism of WWI, and simply not signed up en masse, there would have been very little war. If the Germans hadn't followed Hitler like sheep (and the Japanese Hirohito as if he was a god), there wouldn't have been a WWII.

The scale of a war is not in question. What is, is the claim that a governing body couldn't go to war if citizens simply refused to sign up and fight, something that has been proven not to be so throughout history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Not following you, sorry.

Well you seem to be saying that expecting a government to nanny you is infantile behaviour, and "pushing back" is just teenage rebellion, but whatever emotive words you wish to use, it all seems to boil down to what you say is "that compromise thing again"

So are you saying people are behaving in an infantile manner and acting like a teenager when they seek compromise, it seems you are saying anyone who complains is acting like a child, yet at the same time saying that people need to seek a compromise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
For us it's another day in paradise. We live in a Western affluent democracy --which, for all its flaws, still allows us to influence who will be in government in 2016; with clean drinking water, ready access to food, a welfare system, free health care and free education. So why don't we stop bitching already that MI5 can see just who we talked to on our £500,-- iPhone last Friday and use those gifts to shape our reality. You know, like smart and wise adults who don't vote for caricatures like Farrage, who don't go on riots that offer justification for politicians to bestow more powers on the police, who first learn to read and write properly so they can articulate a decent argument when they visit their MP. We still have that choice.

And how do you think people created this western affluent democracy with clean water, ready access to food, a welfare system, free health care and free education, this "paradise" we currently live in ? Was it by keeping quiet about a wrong, an injustice, the corrupt, those without a voice. Or was it by pushing back against the state, by making sacrifices, by making our voices heard, in other words acting like rebellious teenagers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
Isn't this thread about the UK and the erosion of our rights?

I'm thankful for things I have which is why I don't want to lose the rights and freedom's our ancestors fought so hard for
Indeed it is.
Rights and freedom's that we should all be standing up for, lest we fall backwards into a society depicted in those emotive pictures Nexxo posted, as that is what can happen when citizens don't stand up for their rights, don't let it be know they are not happy and make their voices heard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It is very relevant: it reminds you of the privileged and empowered position we enjoy. Do you think those people can influence their governments (such as they are)? Nope --they are truly ****ed.
And how do you think that privileged and empowered position we enjoy came to be ?
Those people are in a similar situation that the western world was in many years ago, how do you think we changed things for the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
We're not. Any kid from the sink estate can in principle make it to one of those fancy Oxbridge universities that our politicians enjoyed. Not saying it would be easy, but they still can.

While somewhat true that any kid from a sink estate could make it to Oxbridge, the chance of that happening are infinitesimally small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Simple example: remember the internet filter that all ISPs now have to implement? If every user now called their ISP and demanded for the filter to be turned off, then it simply would not work anymore. Because everybody would do it, nobody would have to feel embarrassed about their request, or defend it.

And who is to say this has not happened, just because an uninformed minority maybe making use of it doesn't mean it wouldn't work anymore. The government would still back it even if everyone turned it off, why ? Because it's good PR and because it makes the monitoring of what web sites citizens visit much easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You don't want your mobile phone company to keep records of your calls? If every mobile user decided not to use their mobile for a week: simply do without, like back in the 90's (we survived guys, honest), how much money do you think operators would lose? How long before they'd be caving in to customer demand? How long before politicians would be lobbied by those companies to abandon their monitoring schemes?

It would take a lot longer than a single week, and not only would it be harmful to the telecoms companies, it would also be harmful to the customers.

This is something we have seen when people take strike action, what happened to the miners, what is going to happen to all those public sector works that recently held strike action. Did the government change course with the miners ? Is it going to change course with the public sector workers.
Nexxo 13th July 2014, 12:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
I'm not against my medical records being shared with other medical organisations but that isn't what's going to happen just about anybody that pays will get access to it, it's being done for the government to gain revenue not to benefit the people.

Well, yes and no. Those records will be anonymised --they have to be, else the government is violating its own Data Protection Act. As NHS services get increasingly privatised (which is something that worries me more, for all sorts of reasons), our records will increasingly be handled by private companies anyway.

My question is: what happens to the money? In principle I have no problem with the NHS leveraging its resources (such as anonymised demographic medical stats) to fund its health care services, but I would be annoyed if the money goes somewhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
I left school at 14, to young to be employed I worked as a mobile welder till I was old enough to get a job I got a electrical apprenticeship and went to collage 3 days a week while working and apprentice electrician I also did a evening class to get my welding qualifications.

Some years later I spend nearly a year living on the streets a single person was not a priority for housing so I know about poverty

And see where you are now. Because you did not just complain; you did something about it. Hard work? You betcha. Unfair? And then some. But life is what it is, and the only way that will change is to do something to change it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
It's true they do get the work and work for far less money, mind the fact that they live 20 to a room and pay a fraction of the rent cost and it's unlikely they pay tax etc,and they eat the cheapest possible food it makes it possible to do the work so cheap. Where as other people have a mortgage pay their tax's council tax feed their families and couldn't live on the kind of money the foreign workers do.

Not necessarily. Many foreign residents work in ordinary UK jobs paid at UK wages and pay UK taxes --like yours truly. But if said people with mortgages, council tax and families to feed cannot afford to work for such low wages, that kind of begs the question what they are living on instead. Benefits? That means that we have a system where it is financially more advantageous to stay on benefits than to get a job. How is that working out for everybody?

Not only does it make benefit claimants extremely vulnerable to the whims of government, it also disempowers them because it marginalises them in society. If anything, that is what the Tory government wants: cheap foreign labour with no civil rights (a mere 150 years ago we'd call them slaves), a marginalised, dumb and disempowered working class (remember Dickens: ignorance and want) and a wealthy, powerful upper class to reap the benefits. The way to fight that is for the poor working class to not kick down at the foreign slaves but to empower itself through the resources, hard-won in the last century, that it still has at its disposal --but are disappearing fast. Use them or lose them!
Nexxo 13th July 2014, 12:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
If a society does not need a government, who is the governing body of that society ?
Society itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Only true to a very limited extent, it doesn't apply to everything outside your sphere of influence, such as TAX, defense, spending, policing, laws, utility's such as water and power, street lighting, transport, etc, etc. In fact most things we depend on in our day-to-day lives.
Governed by the council. When is the last time you voted in a local election, or talked to your MP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
That is a long way from setting up their own police force, or dictating how much or what their taxes are spent on, setting up their own power station, army, or transport system.
Not the example you raised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
All you seem to be saying is that it's fine to liaise with the neighbourhood constable, to educate yourself, or access legal advice so you can talk to your MP, who might i remind you is part of the very governing body that you seem to be saying should have it's powers limited by people taking charge of their own lives.
Correct. I see no contradiction in that. I consult my GP, but I still look after my own health and inform myself about my own medical conditions. Thus I limit my dependence on him, and his power over me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The scale of a war is not in question. What is, is the claim that a governing body couldn't go to war if citizens simply refused to sign up and fight, something that has been proven not to be so throughout history.
It simply has never happened yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Well you seem to be saying that expecting a government to nanny you is infantile behaviour, and "pushing back" is just teenage rebellion, but whatever emotive words you wish to use, it all seems to boil down to what you say is "that compromise thing again"

So are you saying people are behaving in an infantile manner and acting like a teenager when they seek compromise, it seems you are saying anyone who complains is acting like a child, yet at the same time saying that people need to seek a compromise.

I think we have different understandings about compromise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And how do you think people created this western affluent democracy with clean water, ready access to food, a welfare system, free health care and free education, this "paradise" we currently live in ? Was it by keeping quiet about a wrong, an injustice, the corrupt, those without a voice. Or was it by pushing back against the state, by making sacrifices, by making our voices heard, in other words acting like rebellious teenagers.

No, acting like informed adults, by informed challenge through the social, legal and political processes available to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And how do you think that privileged and empowered position we enjoy came to be ?
Those people are in a similar situation that the western world was in many years ago, how do you think we changed things for the better.
Is a good question. How has that happened in the past?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
While somewhat true that any kid from a sink estate could make it to Oxbridge, the chance of that happening are infinitesimally small.

Oh, hai again (I went to the Dutch equivalent). Not enough reason for not even trying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And who is to say this has not happened, just because an uninformed minority maybe making use of it doesn't mean it wouldn't work anymore. The government would still back it even if everyone turned it off, why ? Because it's good PR and because it makes the monitoring of what web sites citizens visit much easier.
But if everybody turns it off, it doesn't work anymore, does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
It would take a lot longer than a single week, and not only would it be harmful to the telecoms companies, it would also be harmful to the customers.
No, seriously: it would take a week, and I question how it would be harmful to the customers. I remember society functioning just fine before mobile phones came along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
This is something we have seen when people take strike action, what happened to the miners, what is going to happen to all those public sector works that recently held strike action. Did the government change course with the miners ? Is it going to change course with the public sector workers.

Nope, so "pushing back" didn't work, did it? What could they do instead?
Corky42 13th July 2014, 15:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Society itself.

So every individual sets their own laws and rules then ? That would be known as anarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Governed by the council. When is the last time you voted in a local election, or talked to your MP?

The council is just another governing body.
So instead of expecting the government to nanny you, you are relying on the council to nanny you.
And instead of pushing back against the government, you are pushing back against the council, how is that any less "just teenage rebellion" ?

Not that i see it as being relevant when i last voted, or talked to my MP.
But if you must know, i last voted in the recent local elections, and depending on what your definition of "talked" is, it would have been last week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Not the example you raised.

That's because it wasn't the example i raised, it was the example you raised, right here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Correct. I see no contradiction in that. I consult my GP, but I still look after my own health and inform myself about my own medical conditions.

And how is that limiting the power of a governing body, or taking that power to yourself and minimising your dependence on them ? As you stated here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It has never happened yet.

So when one nation declares war on another the country being invaded had a choice in the matter ? Or in country's with conscription people had a choice ? Both situations that have seen governing body's go to war without the citizens having a choice in the matter, or because they refused to sign up and fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I think we have different understandings about compromise.

I don't think so, we just seem to have a different understand of how compromise is reached.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, acting like informed adults. Anybody can walk up and down the street with a protest sign. Anyone can riot. The adult and informed challenge through the social, legal and political processes available to them.

And that is what happens most of the time, unfortunately challenging through the social, legal and political processes available to them doesn't always work, sometimes people are forced to take more visible, or direct action. Such as the poll TAX riots, the suffragette movement, etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Is a good question. How has that happened in the past?

By people fighting for what they see as basic rights, such as the above mentioned suffragette movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Oh, hai again (I went to the Dutch equivalent). Not enough reason for not even trying.

No one ever said it's a reason not to try, IIRC you said...
Quote:
It is very relevant: it reminds you of the privileged and empowered position we enjoy. Do you think those people can influence their governments (such as they are)? Nope --they are truly ****ed.

We're not. Any kid from the sink estate can in principle make it to one of those fancy Oxbridge universities that our politicians enjoyed. Not saying it would be easy, but they still can.

So contrary to what you said about us not being truly ****ed, for the vast majority of the population they are truly ****ed. Sure they may not be as truly ****ed as those people in the emotive pictures you posted, but with only around %10 of children from underprivileged backgrounds making it to university, they are still ****ed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
But if everybody turns it off, it doesn't work anymore, does it?

Depends what that "work" was meant to be.
Was it intended for the 1 in 5 parents that found installing filtering software to difficult, or were unaware of it, or was it done to win votes, or to make monitoring the internet easier ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, seriously: it would take a week, and I question how it would be harmful to the customers. I remember society functioning just fine before mobile phones came along.

That's a matter of opinion, the miners strikes lasted for over a year and changed nothing.
And to claim it wouldn't effect customers is very short sighted IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Nope, so "pushing back" didn't work, did it? What could they do instead?

Pushing back isn't just about strikes :? Pushing back is as simple as not accepting what is being forced on you, as in someone pushes you and you push back, in one form or another saying NO.
Nexxo 13th July 2014, 17:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So every individual sets their own laws and rules then ? That would be known as anarchy.
If done wisely and with mutual respect and consideration, anarchies can work. But I am talking more about a matter of degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The council is just another governing body.
So instead of expecting the government to nanny you, you are relying on the council to nanny you.
And instead of pushing back against the government, you are pushing back against the council, how is that any less "just teenage rebellion" ?

Shall I just let you speak for me as well and get on with it while I go and do something else? :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So when one nation declares war on another the country being invaded had a choice in the matter ? Or in country's with conscription people had a choice ? Both situations that have seen governing body's go to war without the citizens having a choice in the matter, or because they refused to sign up and fight.
The people of the invading country do. Every politician knows this, which is why they work so hard at whipping the population up into a jingoistic frenzy first. And the people buy it every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I don't think so, we just seem to have a different understand of how compromise is reached.

OK, let's see where we agree. I agree that the government should act in our interest, but (people being people, and power corrupting as it does) mostly it doesn't. It never has. Not even in the good old days. I agree that's unjust.

I agree that our civil liberties are being eroded. I agree that is wrong. I agree that we should resist that. I also agree that our options for doing so are rather limited.

However, in many fundamental aspects of our lives we do have some control. We do have access to some resources and information. We do have some rights. We are not totally helpless and at the mercy of our government. But I think that the argument that we are powerless to stop the government eroding our civil rights loses considerable strength when we, the people, do not even bother to take responsibility for, and control of those aspects of our lives and our government that we still can take control of.

Every time we relinquish personal responsibility and control over an aspect of our life, we are basically handing it to a government that doesn't care about us. We put ourselves in a vulnerable position of dependence on some remote, ineffectual and somewhat corrupt bureaucratic system. We live in an obese nation that drinks too much; people can't be bothered to look after their own health. So they put ourselves ever more at the mercy of what the government decides to do with the NHS. They don't raise their kids to respect (free) education, so (apart from undermining that education system for future generations) they can't compete in the workplace and end up at the mercy of what the government decides to do with the benefits system, with council housing, with minimum wage. And if their rights are being violated, they wouldn't even know how to challenge that.

Instead people vote for Nigel Farrage under the vague notion that if the UK exits the EU, it will stop them foreigners taking their jobs. Of course they are too outraged to ask themselves why politicians wish to exit the EU, given that, as we have established, they don't act in our best interests. Why, it's to concentrate all governmental control back in Westminster of course, so they can violate our rights even more. But you know, keep voting for Fascist clowns. It worked so well for the Germans of the 1930's.

Seriously, the UK population needs to get its own **** together so it can confront the government from a position of independence, knowledge and strength.
Locknload 13th July 2014, 18:37 Quote
Lol..."speak to your MP, if you have concerns"

The local councils are creaming their collective pants at the level of access to information that has been granted by central government.
The local councils do not currently have the expertise to collate the information, the problem for us all will become all to clear in times ahead.
At the last recent census, where we were all threatened with massive fines or/and imprisonment for not filling in the forms, we were bullied and promised court, bailiffs and police etc.
A large group of people filled the forms in under the name of Darth Vader, which i thought was quite amusing, and while i was looking into the case of a 71 year old man who set himself on fire rather than be dragged through the courts, i was perplexed by what i found.
All the information from the millions and millions of people who filled out the forms and returned them as ORDERED was sent to its ultimate destination....where do you think that was?

Local council HQ?........No!
Regional central council?........No!
Central government?.....No!
The EU?............No!

All of the information contained in the last UK census was eventually sent to the major American defense contractor.

Northrop Grumman Corporation.

Why did our Government, who is supposed to be run for the people, by the people, send all of our private information ( which was in contradiction to the Data Protection Act), to an American Defense Contractor?

Our country is run by a puppet government on behalf of the Americans, make no mistake about that.

In Today's England, money is the only God.
Merrell Lynch, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, this is where the fate of the UK will rest, with these 3 entities.

William Blake: "until we can build Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant land"


We sold our soul many years/wars ago.
Nexxo 13th July 2014, 18:50 Quote
You've heard the bell chime, but you don't know where the clapper hangs (as they say in Holland). Lockheed Martin won the £150m contract to run the census on behalf of the Office for National Statistics. Not quite the same thing, although of course still objectionable.
siliconfanatic 13th July 2014, 19:28 Quote
:|I hate to barge in on the carried-away discussion here, but shouldn't this be argued in the Serious forum? And not the Article discussion forum?

Also, this explains why the recent windows article didn't inflate by 5 pages overnight...
Corky42 13th July 2014, 19:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
If done wisely and with mutual respect and consideration, anarchies can work. But I am talking more about a matter of degree.

Groups of people don't act wisely, it's hard enough for some people to treat another person with respect and consideration, let alone a whole group of people doing that, most of the time it's each man, or woman out for them selves.
I have never known anarchism to work, unless you consider civil war to be working. Most of the time anarchism, at some point, gives way to the establishment of some form of governing body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
The people of the invading country do. Every politician knows this, which is why they work so hard at whipping the population up into a jingoistic frenzy first. And the people buy it every time.

That maybe true for the invading army, but that was not you original premiss.
Your original premiss was that no governments could go to war if its citizens simply refused to sign up and fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
OK, let's see where we agree. I agree that the government should act in our interest, but (people being people, and power corrupting as it does) mostly it doesn't. It never has. Not even in the good old days. I agree that's unjust.

Whereas I think the government does act in a citizens best interests (most of the time), it's just a matter of who that citizen, or citizens are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I agree that our civil liberties are being eroded. I agree that is wrong. I agree that we should resist that. I also agree that our options for doing so are rather limited.

Indeed they are, sadly though civil liberties are the type of thing most people don't know they have lost until the day comes that they need them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
However, in many fundamental aspects of our lives we do have some control. We do have access to some resources and information. We do have some rights. We are not totally helpless and at the mercy of our government. But I think that the argument that we are powerless to stop the government eroding our civil rights loses considerable strength when we, the people, do not even bother to take responsibility for, and control of those aspects of our lives and our government that we still can take control of.

Very true, but as mentioned above, civil liberties are the type of thing you don't miss until you want, or need them. They don't effect people in the same way as raising, or lowering the TAX rate, cutting public services, building new railway lines, or privatising public services.

When a government makes changes, most people ask a single question, does it effect me, or my life ?
Nexxo 13th July 2014, 19:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Groups of people don't act wisely, it's hard enough for some people to treat another person with respect and consideration, let alone a whole group of people doing that, most of the time it's each man, or woman out for them selves.
I have never known anarchism to work, unless you consider civil war to be working. Most of the time anarchism, at some point, gives way to the establishment of some form of governing body.

Ergo: people get the government that they deserve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
That maybe true for the invading army, but that was not you original premiss.
Your original premiss was that no governments could go to war if its citizens simply refused to sign up and fight.
Indeed. And if no country can go to war, no country can get invaded. Logical, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Whereas I think the government does act in a citizens best interests (most of the time), it's just a matter of who that citizen, or citizens are.
I think it was premised that they are not us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Very true, but as mentioned above, civil liberties are the type of thing you don't miss until you want, or need them. They don't effect people in the same way as raising, or lowering the TAX rate, cutting public services, building new railway lines, or privatising public services.
They do, because they are what allows us to challenge the raising of the TAX rate, cutting public services, building new railway lines, or privatising public services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
When a government makes changes, most people ask a single question, does it effect me, or my life ?

I refer you back to: people get the government they deserve. If they won't take responsibility for, and control of those aspects of their lives that they can control, then why should government do so? If they don't think beyond their own personal interests, why would politicians?
Corky42 14th July 2014, 07:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Ergo: people get the government that they deserve.

Try sticking to the original point you were trying to make, the one when you originally said "A society that governs itself wisely does not need a government to do so"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Indeed. And if no country can go to war, no country can get invaded. Logical, no?

That is as weak an argument as saying if everyone stopped using their phones for a week, or saying that anarchies can work. You seem to be under the impression that one person isn't going to kill his next door neighbor because he want what they have, or that a group of people have morals and wisdom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I think it was premised that they are not us.

Well that all depends on what group "they" belong to, one day the "us" group may find themselves in the "they" group, and visa versa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
They do, because they are what allows us to challenge the raising of the TAX rate, cutting public services, building new railway lines, or privatising public services.

So you agree that civil liberties don't have a direct effect on people, or is the "They do" statement indicating that you believe when i said "They don't effect people in the same way as raising, or lowering the TAX rate, cutting public services, building new railway lines, or privatising public services." That i was incorrect in saying they don't effect people in the same way :?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I refer you back to: people get the government they deserve. If they won't take responsibility for, and control of those aspects of their lives that they can control, then why should government do so? If they don't think beyond their own personal interests, why would politicians?

Not your original premiss (again), although this one probably makes more sense now you have refined it somewhat.
Nexxo 14th July 2014, 08:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Try sticking to the original point you were trying to make, the one when you originally said "A society that governs itself wisely does not need a government to do so"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Politicians only say that the public wants to hear. That's how they win votes, no? Now listen to what politicians are saying, and keep in mind, all the time, that this is what the public wants to hear. This is what the public is thinking. The people not only get the government that they deserve; they get the government that they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
That is as weak an argument as saying if everyone stopped using their phones for a week, or saying that anarchies can work. You seem to be under the impression that one person isn't going to kill his next door neighbor because he want what they have, or that a group of people have morals and wisdom.

Just because it is unlikely to happen does not mean it wouldn't work. But if groups of people are unlikely to act morally or wise, why would you expect any better from a group of political leaders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So you agree that civil liberties don't have a direct effect on people, or is the "They do" statement indicating that you believe when i said "They don't effect people in the same way as raising, or lowering the TAX rate, cutting public services, building new railway lines, or privatising public services." That i was incorrect in saying they don't effect people in the same way :?

It is your civil rights that allow you to challenge government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Not your original premiss (again), although this one probably makes more sense now you have refined it somewhat.

Actually it was; see above. You just couldn't hear me over the sound of your disagreeing with me. :p
Corky42 14th July 2014, 08:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You really have not been following the conversation, have you? :)

I have a pot here with your name on it, or was it a kettle, i know i have it here somewhere.
Like i said you are contradicting yourself, you say "The people not only get the government that they deserve" And then you contradict that by saying "A society that governs itself wisely does not need a government to do so" So what is it ? Either they get the government they deserve, or they don't need one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Just because it is unlikely to happen does not make it a bad argument. But if groups of people are unlikely to act morally or wise, why would you expect any better from a group of political leaders?

It is a bad argument, you may as well be saying if only we could travel through time, or any other ludicrous statement.

The reason you expect a group of political leaders to act morally or wisely is because they are meant to look after the best interests of the group, just as a parent does with a child, or a councilor does for his ward, or a tribal elder does for his tribe, or any of the other basic forms of governance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It is your civil rights that allow you to challenge government.
And until you have something to challenge them over you don't use those civil rights, ergo: civil rights don't have a direct, or immediate effect on people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Actually it was; see above. You just couldn't hear me over the sound of your disagreeing with me. :p

Actually it wasn't; see here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Politicians only say that the public wants to hear. That's how they win votes, no? Now listen to what politicians are saying, and keep in mind, all the time, that this is what the public wants to hear. This is what the public is thinking. The people not only get the government that they deserve; they get the government that they want.
I'm not sure how you got from ^this^ to this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
people get the government they deserve. If they won't take responsibility for, and control of those aspects of their lives that they can control, then why should government do so? If they don't think beyond their own personal interests, why would politicians?
As you can see two very different statements.
Nexxo 14th July 2014, 08:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I have a pot here with your name on it, or was it a kettle, i know i have it here somewhere.
Like i said you are contradicting yourself, you say "The people not only get the government that they deserve" And then you contradict that by saying "A society that governs itself wisely does not need a government to do so" So what is it ? Either they get the government they deserve, or they don't need one.

How are the two statements mutually exclusive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
It is a bad argument, you may as well be saying if only we could travel through time, or any other ludicrous statement.
No, because time travel is impossible. The other is just unlikely to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The reason you expect a group of political leaders to act morally or wisely is because they are meant to look after the best interests of the group, just as a parent does with a child, or a councilor does for his ward, or a tribal elder does for his tribe, or any of the other basic forms of governance.

In the same way I expect people to take adult responsibility for their lives and act in the interest of the community that they are part of, because its wellbeing is vital to their own. Doesn't happen either. Turns out people are not that rational (but thanks for illustrating why I used the term 'infantile').
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I'm not sure how you got from ^this^ to this...

As you can see two very different statements.

How are they different?
Corky42 14th July 2014, 09:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
How are the two statements mutually exclusive?

Because the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, because time travel is impossible. The other is just unlikely to happen.

Time travel is not impossible, it's just unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
In the same way I expect people to take adult responsibility for their lives and act in the interest of the community that they are part of, because its wellbeing is vital to their own. Doesn't happen either. Turns out people are not that rational.

A single person deciding to take responsibility for their lives and act in the interest of the community is a personal decision, a community leader is chosen because because they have made it public knowledge that they will act in the best interests of the group, so some form of agreement between the group and its leader is made to reflect that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
How are they different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Politicians only say that the public wants to hear. That's how they win votes, no? Now listen to what politicians are saying, and keep in mind, all the time, that this is what the public wants to hear. This is what the public is thinking. The people not only get the government that they deserve; they get the government that they want.
Emphasis added to highlight what has changed, not that it's needed, as anyone can see the only similarity between the two is when you say "people get the government they deserve"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
people get the government they deserve. If they won't take responsibility for, and control of those aspects of their lives that they can control, then why should government do so? If they don't think beyond their own personal interests, why would politicians?
Nexxo 14th July 2014, 13:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Because the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other.

People who govern themselves get the government they deserve. QED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Time travel is not impossible, it's just unlikely.
I'm not even going there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
A single person deciding to take responsibility for their lives and act in the interest of the community is a personal decision, a community leader is chosen because because they have made it public knowledge that they will act in the best interests of the group, so some form of agreement between the group and its leader is made to reflect that.

And people always do what they say, no? The bigger and better the promises...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Emphasis added to highlight what has changed, not that it's needed, as anyone can see the only similarity between the two is when you say "people get the government they deserve"

The second statement is continuation of the first. I see no inconsistency.
Corky42 14th July 2014, 13:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
People who govern themselves get the government they deserve. QED.

The only governing a person can do is to govern themselves, as soon as you govern over more than one person you have established a government of one form or another. Like i said the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other, either they get the government they deserve, or they don't need one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
And people always do what they say, no? The bigger and better the promises...

Some people may not do what they say, but that is why MP's are addressed in the house of commons as right honorable, because like i said...

It wasn't always a case of politicians acting as a mirror to society, there used to be a time that our elected representatives would do what was in our best interests not what we thought was best for us.

There was a time when honor was more important that acting as a mirror to society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
The second statement is continuation of the first. I see no inconsistency.

While placing a load of caveats after your initial statement may make for a more refined statement, it doesn't change that the original statement had a very different premiss than the one with the caveats added.
Locknload 14th July 2014, 14:08 Quote
@CORKY42......(That maybe true for the invading army, but that was not you original premiss.
Your original premiss was that no governments could go to war if its citizens simply refused to sign up and fight).
They would just actively develop an "INCIDENT" like 9/11 ( for example), and bolster the outcry of public opinion.
Nexxo 14th July 2014, 14:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The only governing a person can do is to govern themselves, as soon as you govern over more than one person you have established a government of one form or another. Like i said the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other, either they get the government they deserve, or they don't need one.
The Amish are a nice example of a community that governs itself: every adult in the community is part of its own government; in other words, its members consist of all the people it governs. People are governing themselves through the government that they are all part of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
It wasn't always a case of politicians acting as a mirror to society, there used to be a time that our elected representatives would do what was in our best interests not what we thought was best for us.

There was a time when honor was more important that acting as a mirror to society.

There was never such a time. That's a nostalgic fantasy. And wishing for it is the manifestation of the infantile desire for a perfect parent to look after us (which we all have, but the adult in us should know better).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
While placing a load of caveats after your initial statement may make for a more refined statement, it doesn't change that the original statement had a very different premiss than the one with the caveats added.

They are not caveats; they are an elaboration of the original statement. Still not hearing me over the sound of you disagreeing with me. :)
Corky42 14th July 2014, 17:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locknload
They would just actively develop an "INCIDENT" like 9/11 ( for example), and bolster the outcry of public opinion.

The proper conspiracy theorist ain't you :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
The Amish are a nice example of a community that governs itself: every adult in the community is part of its own government; in other words, its members consist of all the people it governs. People are governing themselves through the government that they are all part of.

They govern them selves by adhering to the Ordnung, that is based on a book, that the local people decide upon. They still follow rules and laws laid down by their local Ordnung, so they are still being governed, they are still conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
There was never such a time. That's a nostalgic fantasy. And wishing for it is the manifestation of the infantile desire for a perfect parent to look after us (which we all have, but the adult in us should know better).

So when MP's refer to each other as the Rt Hon that's just for fun ? Nothing to do with honor (honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
They are not caveats; they are an elaboration of the original statement. Still not hearing me over the sound of you disagreeing with me. :)

Placing IF after your original statement is adding caveats, as IF implies a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.
Nexxo 14th July 2014, 18:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
They govern them selves by adhering to the Ordnung, that is based on a book, that the local people decide upon. They still follow rules and laws laid down by their local Ordnung, so they are still being governed, they are still conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority.

Where they get their rules from is immaterial. They are still imposing them on themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So when MP's refer to each other as the Rt Hon that's just for fun ? Nothing to do with honor (honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions)

What people call themselves and how they actually behave are two different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Placing IF after your original statement is adding caveats, as IF implies a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.

"Emergency exits need to be kept clear. If we need to suddenly evacuate, we need a quick way out".

Elaboration of the first statement, involving the word IF. Isn't language wonderful it its diverse and varied application?


(Pro tip: stop digging when you hit China)
Corky42 14th July 2014, 20:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Where they get their rules from is immaterial. They are still imposing them on themselves.

No. They are being governed, they are conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
What people call themselves and how they actually behave are two different things.

Yet with a name, or title comes some form of meaning.
In this case Rt Hon used to mean MP's acted honorably, to claim they never have is straw man argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
"Emergency exits need to be kept clear. If we need to suddenly evacuate, we need a quick way out".

Elaboration of the first statement, involving the word IF. Isn't language wonderful it its diverse and varied application?

That isn't a caveat, it's an expound, an elaboration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
(Pro tip: stop digging when you hit China)

The only one digging here is you, I'm merely going along with prevaricatory statements.
Nexxo 14th July 2014, 21:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
No. They are being governed, they are conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority.

Repeating yourself does not make you less wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Yet with a name, or title comes some form of meaning.
In this case Rt Hon used to mean MP's acted honorably, to claim they never have is straw man argument.

No, it's the central argument. You said that in the good ol' days politicians used to act in the interest of the people, with honesty and integrity. I refute that. Your counterargument is that they refer to each other as 'Rt Honourable'. That's a straw man argument.

You really need to read up on history, dude. Here is a convenient starting point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
That isn't a caveat, it's an expound, an elaboration.
Gosh yes, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The only one digging here is you, I'm merely going along with prevaricatory statements.

Sorry, but I'm done taking part in the Special Olympics now. :p

http://krazycook.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/welcome-to-china.jpg
RedFlames 15th July 2014, 01:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So when MP's refer to each other as the Rt Hon that's just for fun ? Nothing to do with honor (honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions)

Pretty much... It's one of the many quirks of parliament, like it being illegal to die, the red lines to prevent sword fights and not being able to call your opponent a liar or [iirc] a hypocrite... also MPs don't refer to each other as 'Right Honourable', except for certain higher-ups in the commons and other parts of the government... MPs can and often do refer to each other as 'The Honourable...', but there's no outright obligation to do so...
Corky42 15th July 2014, 06:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Repeating yourself does not make you less wrong.

Who is it that can't hear over the sound of his own disagreement ? Projecting much.
Even after you have been proved wrong on most of your statements, you still want to argue with the dictionary meaning of the word "govern", even after someone does you the courtesy of repeating it for you, and placing an emphasis on the part you can't understand.

Instead you prefer to ignore the meaning of a word, and point out how wrong someone else is. Who is it that can't hear over the sound of their own disagreement, with the dictionary no less, you may as well be standing in the corner shouting at a book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, it's the central argument. You said that in the good ol' days politicians used to act in the interest of the people, with honesty and integrity. I refute that. Your counterargument is that they refer to each other as 'Rt Honourable'. That's a straw man argument.
You really need to read up on history, dude. Here is a convenient starting point.

No. what is though is to say here and here that there has never been a time that politicians have acted in our best interests, even though throughout history there has been millions of them, and apparently according to you, none of them have acted in our best interests. Speaking statistically that is an impossibility.

And AFAIK the central argument isn't if politicians have ever acted in the best interest of the people they serve, it's that the are rushing though and emergency law on data retention but it seems you are more invested in proving you are right and i am wrong to actually bother discussing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Sorry, but I'm done taking part in the Special Olympics now. :p

Wasn't it you who said, "You know, I've found that the best way to persuade people is to insult them." Ohh wait, yes it was, right here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You know, I've found that the best way to persuade people is to insult them. :p
Nexxo 15th July 2014, 07:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Who is it that can't hear over the sound of his own disagreement ? Projecting much.
Even after you have been proved wrong on most of your statements, you still want to argue with the dictionary meaning of the word "govern", even after someone does you the courtesy of repeating it for you, and placing an emphasis on the part you can't understand.

Instead you prefer to ignore the meaning of a word, and point out how wrong someone else is. Who is it that can't hear over the sound of their own disagreement, with the dictionary no less, you may as well be standing in the corner shouting at a book.

Straw man argument. The meaning of the word is not under debate. Whether a group of people can be said to govern themselves is. A group can have authority over itself (pro tip: look up the definition for: self-governing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
No. what is though is to say here and here that there has never been a time that politicians have acted in our best interests, even though throughout history there has been millions of them, and apparently according to you, none of them have acted in our best interests. Speaking statistically that is an impossibility.

Another straw man argument. You said that there used to be a time when politicians acted in our best interest, unlike politicians now. As you did not specify "some", "most" or "all" this was a general statement (moreover a comparative one). I said that generally speaking, they did not (and certainly not more than current politicians), and refer you to historical fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And AFAIK the central argument isn't if politicians have ever acted in the best interest of the people they serve, it's that the are rushing though and emergency law on data retention but it seems you are more invested in proving you are right and i am wrong to actually bother discussing that.

Changing the subject. If it is not central to your argument, why do you keep harping on about it --until you are proved wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Wasn't it you who said, "You know, I've found that the best way to persuade people is to insult them." Ohh wait, yes it was, right here...

If that's how you want to interpret it, be my guest. At least it gives you an out, no?
Corky42 15th July 2014, 09:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Straw man argument. The meaning of the word is not under debate. Whether a group of people can be said to govern themselves is. A group can have authority over its own members (pro tip: look up the definition for: self-governing).

Definition of self-governing in English: Exercising control over one’s own affairs, in particular.
Emphasis added, just to point out that self-governing means, as if the word self doesn't give you enough of a clue, that self-governing mean to exercise control over yourself.

And because i know you like argue the point of every little thing just so you can feel content in the belief you are always right, the Definition of govern in English: Conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Another straw man argument. You said that there used to be a time when politicians acted in our best interest, unlike politicians now. As you did not specify "some", "most" or "all" this was a general statement (moreover a comparative one). I said that generally speaking, they did not (and certainly not more than current politicians), and refer you to historical fact.

As you seem to like giving pro tips, here is one for you.
Pro tip: Politician means a single MP, politicians means many, some, most, or all MP's. As you say, Isn't language wonderful it its diverse and varied application?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Changing the subject. If it is not central to your argument, why do you keep harping on about it --until you are proved wrong?

How is trying to steer you back towards the OT changing the subject. If, to put in your words you want to keep harping on about vegetables, rose gardens, nanny states, teenage rebellion, sink estates, wars, neighbourhood watch, Hitler, or any other unrelated subject, just so you can prove how you are right, and everyone else is wrong then feel free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
If that's how you want to interpret it, be my guest. At least it gives you an out, no?

So please do elaborate on what you meant when you said "Sorry, but I'm done taking part in the Special Olympics now." Was that not you seeking an out ? Was that not your veiled attempt at an insult ?
Nexxo 15th July 2014, 11:44 Quote
"Arguing on the internet is like taking part in the Special Olympics: even if you win you're still a retard."

As you can see, it was a reference to myself. At some point it's better to be sensible and walk away than to persist in pointless and undignified bickering.
Locknload 15th July 2014, 15:39 Quote
It does not appear to be pointless, undignified bickering if it has succeeded in outing somebody's true face.
Some people inherently assume that power and influence are what makes a man stand tall, they are wrong!

Deeds will always outdo the talking.
You appear to offer sound and informative responses but i cannot help thinking that you would be up for the job of sending the troops out of the trenches into certain hell, while staying back in the bunker drinking tea and talking cricket, impatiently waiting for the phone to ring again.
Nexxo 15th July 2014, 16:16 Quote
Projection is an interesting psychological phenomenon. :)

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." --Anaïs Nin
siliconfanatic 15th July 2014, 18:45 Quote
Nexxo 15th July 2014, 18:49 Quote
Actually, this thread is more like:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tHiBlanzTTI/T3nKv5QgrqI/AAAAAAAAAtc/8Oau3Mk9hI4/s1600/bitch-fight-466x302.jpg

Only Corky45 and I look way hotter in leopard skin.

:p
siliconfanatic 15th July 2014, 18:55 Quote
Both would be closer to this:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3850/14446579434_2a3af5c2dd_o.jpg
In that case. :p
siliconfanatic 15th July 2014, 20:06 Quote
Too bad you threw out the red dress and fishnet stockings Nexxo, That's far classier than leopardskin. :D
Nexxo 15th July 2014, 21:06 Quote
Are you kidding?!? I wouldn't risk that classy outfit getting torn in a scrap. That one is for going out only.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums