Quote: Aaron @ 4th May 2015, 6:23 PM BST

China.

View original

No. That's porcelain.

I saw the Animal Welfare Party battle bus.

They were all dressed as snow men.

I know not why.

Quote: Alfred J Kipper @ 4th May 2015, 6:36 PM BST

No. That's porcelain.

View original

Why?
Who's Celine?
And why is she poor?

Quote: Aaron @ 4th May 2015, 6:23 PM BST

I saw the Liberal Democrat bus today. True story.

China.

View original

I'm not arguing for a Chinese style state especially when it comes to the internet. But obviously any sort of internet is an expanding of freedom of rights from the time that we all didn't have an internet.

So nothing they do regarding the internet takes us back to the 1980s/1990s. They were less liberal as it hadn't been invented yet. So London in 1990 was much less liberal than Beijing in 2015. Agree?

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 4th May 2015, 6:34 PM BST

Well, we've had the filters. That's very concrete.
The Tory manifesto now contains a promise on adult websites. Labour concurs.
And with those two in cahoots, a majority is guaranteed either way.

If we see how the filters were designed to catch much more material than was claimed as the initial intention and if we see what is being put in place (ATVOD using BBFC rulings, BBFC now also being placed in charge of music or sports videos, etc) you can see where we're heading.

Now look at the various prevailing agendas in this sphere of current politics and it sends shivers down your spine.

As for cameras everywhere, it's hardly a matter of dogging. It's about the steady creep of the state.

Whereas one once might have been granted parliamentary permission to install cameras on motorways to oversee traffic, no one later bothered ever to ask for permission to link them with number plate recognising software. One simply did it.

The exponential increase of powers which derives from this is self-evident.
A traffic management measure suddenly becomes a tool by which to track and log movement of individual cars.

Hell, in Middlesbrough they even installed speakers to bark out orders at people from the camera operations room.
I think it might also have been Middlesbrough where they installed microphones in the supposed belief that they might pick up conversations of terrorists in public spaces. One can't really make it up.

Do not dismiss the David Davis agenda too lightly.
It took a great deal to get a hardliner like Davis to break with the easy 'law and order' rhetoric.

Blair readily locked suspects up without trial, or without even disclosing to them their supposed crime. Magna Carta is not worth that much anymore. (Yep, she died in vain.)

What is clear is that we should not trust the motives of the political elite on civil liberties. Their recent track record is more than dubious.

View original

One problem concerns the sudden takeover of Britain on a Saturday by actual Nazi storm troopers. They would crack down on opposition. That isn't going to happen any time soon and any monitoring devices could be detached if it did happen. Ditto if folk voted in a Nazi Government. It's a red herring.

Problem two concerns that nice feeling in 1953 when everyone went to the countryside for a picnic in the summer. As each took out his or her sandwich - there was still food rationing at that time - Dick, Jane, Bob and Miranda discussed (i) how beautiful it was to be in somewhere so pleasant on a sunny day and (ii) thank the Lord no one in the Government could see what they were all doing round the tablecloth. I accept such a thing may not be possible now. That is a pity. Is it more than a pity? No.

The third problem is about people who don't want to launch a nuclear device in the middle of Witney but talk very aggressively about Government and its ways. They would be very naive to think that it could be done without ending on some sort of record. Rather than moaning about it, they should have the courage of their convictions and celebrate it. I will be back with three more problems later.

No, I will do it now. The fourth problem is about sexual freedoms, for which translate as the ability to view all kinds of adult pornography. That is not and never will be limited because there is a direct investment link between porn and multinational banking. In other words, it is big money and in fact most kinds of porn are simply symbolic representations of individuals' economic disparities. There is a far greater risk to Page 3 type material as that is what politicians who are also wimmin dislike. And that isn't because it is violent or abusive - see the sad popularity of 50 Shades of Grey or preferably don't - but because the models look stunning. Harman, for example, is only obsessed by that stuff.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 4th May 2015, 8:28 PM BST

I'm not arguing for a Chinese style state especially when it comes to the internet. But obviously any sort of internet is an expanding of freedom of rights from the time that we all didn't have an internet.

So nothing they do regarding the internet takes us back to the 1980s/1990s. They were less liberal as it hadn't been invented yet. So London in 1990 was much less liberal than Beijing in 2015. Agree?

View original

No.

If the internet is controlled as much as it is in China, then it is no different from before the internet. It's simply another form of state-controlled information spreading, brainwashing, and monitoring of the populace.

Problem five concerns the perception of a dark powerful force - generally unseen but located not a million miles from Offa's Dyke - fixating on everyone's leg movements That is, as soon as they so much have the temerity to venture down to the local Lidl. This is understandable but a truer reading would be that it is a bunch of rather peculiar weirdos who are doing the scrutinising. If they weren't indulging in their busy body tendencies in an official capacity they would probably be being done for public voyeurism. As for the Vietnam style helicopters in the sky, those are "manned" by 17 year olds who have just left school and think the Isle of Skye is south of Portsmouth. I recognise it's a double edged sword, this one. It doesn't reassure - but it is useful to think around the sci-fi lens as it were.

The sixth problem is the notion that somehow if we got rid of all the cameras etc we would all be as free as it feels when listening to key tracks on Primal Scream's "Screamadelica". Actually, we would not be because as soon as you have a real need to step into the doctors' surgery you will have to reveal your magic mushroom or whatever addiction of 60 odd years. Then there is the "convenience" of Oyster. If you don't like it, choose the coracle. Most fools have a mobile phone. I don't and enjoy the fact that with every passing year people regard it as increasingly sinister. It isn't sinister at all but what it does is reveal the sheer extent of paranoia in the system. Self-authority rises accordingly. You will find that if you are one of the more unfortunate souls who have often been treated badly by bureaucrats they will regard you as more of a difficult person than some other sorts of people. That is simply their own aggro flying back in their own faces. It can test tolerance at times as do all juveniles.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 4th May 2015, 8:18 PM BST

I'm not arguing for a Chinese style state especially when it comes to the internet. But obviously any sort of internet is an expanding of freedom of rights from the time that we all didn't have an internet.

So nothing they do regarding the internet takes us back to the 1980s/1990s. They were less liberal as it hadn't been invented yet. So London in 1990 was much less liberal than Beijing in 2015. Agree?

One problem concerns the sudden takeover of Britain on a Saturday by actual Nazi storm troopers. They would crack down on opposition. That isn't going to happen any time soon and any monitoring devices could be detached if it did happen. Ditto if folk voted in a Nazi Government. It's a red herring.

Problem two concerns that nice feeling in 1953 when everyone went to the countryside for a picnic in the summer. As each took out his or her sandwich - there was still food rationing at that time - Dick, Jane, Bob and Miranda discussed (i) how beautiful it was to be in somewhere so pleasant on a sunny day and (ii) thank the Lord no one in the Government could see what they were all doing round the tablecloth. I accept such a thing may not be possible now. That is a pity. Is it more than a pity? No.

The third problem is about people who don't want to launch a nuclear device in the middle of Witney but talk very aggressively about Government and its ways. They would be very naive to think that it could be done without ending on some sort of record. Rather than moaning about it, they should have the courage of their convictions and celebrate it. I will be back with three more problems later.

View original

No need for more 'problems', Horseradish.
I think we're quite clear that to you deem civil liberties are an irrelevance.

That said, the political left as always had a bit of a blind spot there.
Ironically, just as does the hard right.
In that regard it's amusing to think that the further left or right you slide, strangely you end in the same situation; some totalitarian miasma.

Personally I'm appalled at the deterioration of liberties we have witnessed.
More so, regarding the duplicity of governments which have overseen this.
Locking people up without trial, undermining the right to silence, politicising the police force; these are no cavalier delicts with parallels in picnicking.

Niemoeller's motto applies today as much as it ever did.
The idea that any apparent repression doesn't concern you and you can remain comfortable, is a very precarious one.

But then with your post you might just have inspired me to side with Aaron's camp.
Maybe Theresa May is the lesser of two evils.
Maybe the left are in fact the greater threat.

You've definitely got me thinking.

Quote: Aaron @ 4th May 2015, 8:33 PM BST

No.

If the internet is controlled as much as it is in China, then it is no different from before the internet. It's simply another form of state-controlled information spreading, brainwashing, and monitoring of the populace.

View original

I would like to comment but sense your knowledge of China is more considerable than mine.

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 4th May 2015, 8:47 PM BST

No need for more 'problems', Horseradish.
I think we're quite clear that to you deem civil liberties are an irrelevance.

That said, the political left as always had a bit of a blind spot there.
Ironically, just as does the hard right.
In that regard it's amusing to think that the further left or right you slide, strangely you end in the same situation; some totalitarian miasma.

Personally I'm appalled at the deterioration of liberties we have witnessed.
More so, regarding the duplicity of governments which have overseen this.
Locking people up without trial, undermining the right to silence, politicising the police force; these are no cavalier delicts with parallels in picnicking.

Niemoeller's motto applies today as much as it ever did.
The idea that any apparent repression doesn't concern you and you can remain comfortable, is a very precarious one.

But then with your post you might just have inspired me to side with Aaron's camp.
Maybe Theresa May is the lesser of two evils.
Maybe the left are in fact the greater threat.

You've definitely got me thinking.

View original

I am most certainly not against civil liberties. Economically I am towards the left but that is not how I would describe myself on social policy. There I'm probably "tolerant centre right". This makes me the opposite of almost everything political these days but it was the way many of us originally survived.

Anyhow, when it comes to something like detention without trial someone tends to have put himself somewhere beforehand in order to get to that point. Then what you have is the full weight of media involved. It is probably the case that every day others who experience, I dunno, a panic attack are prosecuted for breach of the peace. No one bats an eyelid on that sort of thing. Liberties don't exist in their own realm. They are closely linked to broad social perceptions which are faddish/inconsistent.

Saw a party election broadcast for Labour earlier with Steve Coogan telling me to vote for them. It wasn't as funny as I thought it would be. I guess I should vote Labour then. Because I do like Alan Partridge, and The Trip was very funny.

Quote: DougWonnacott @ 4th May 2015, 10:33 PM BST

Saw a party election broadcast for Labour earlier with Steve Coogan telling me to vote for them. It wasn't as funny as I thought it would be. I guess I should vote Labour then. Because I do like Alan Partridge, and The Trip was very funny.

View original

Thought it worked well - snappy messages, nice sea etc - although I'm not sure he is just "quite" comfortable as he says. See Nogget's pictures earlier in the thread. I won't be voting for them. It doesn't make any difference to the outcome here in any case. The winner has already been decided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhw5RHvPalk

This to my mind is the really awful news this evening. It's hard to think of anything much worse:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/04/breathtaking-surge-of-tory-tactical-votes-to-save-nick-clegg-in-hallam-poll

Quote: A Horseradish @ 4th May 2015, 9:02 PM BST

I would like to comment but sense your knowledge of China is more considerable than mine.

I am most certainly not against civil liberties. Economically I am towards the left but that is not how I would describe myself on social policy. There I'm probably "tolerant centre right". This makes me the opposite of almost everything political these days but it was the way many of us originally survived.

Anyhow, when it comes to something like detention without trial someone tends to have put himself somewhere beforehand in order to get to that point. Then what you have is the full weight of media involved. It is probably the case that every day others who experience, I dunno, a panic attack are prosecuted for breach of the peace. No one bats an eyelid on that sort of thing. Liberties don't exist in their own realm. They are closely linked to broad social perceptions which are faddish/inconsistent.

View original

The media may be faddish and inconsistent in its portrayal of civil liberties.
But civil liberties themselves are far from faddish. They ought to be our bedrock and apply equally to everyone.

Meanwhile, suggesting anyone who gets into trouble with the law has effectively asked for it, is not your brightest gem of wisdom thus far, Horseradish.

Blair locked up Muslim terrorist suspects for ages without even revealing to them what it was they had done, claiming national security. Such was their ordeal, some of them starting going loopy. After all, how can you even begin to defend yourself against the unknown?

Such cases are far from faddish. These are outrageous abuses of power committed by those who ought to be protecting our rights, not undermining them.
Instead the very people charged with protecting this country's ancient liberties are in fact eager to dismantle them.

Meanwhile, I guess any future government may feel free to abolish the NHS - or even the BBC which you claim to prize.
After all, your argument ran that, if we could do without such things in the past, then we're only losing what we've previously gained.
According to that logic one could even bring back slavery. But never mind.
Let's call it right of centre, shall we?

Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 4th May 2015, 11:02 PM BST

The media may be faddish and inconsistent in its portrayal of civil liberties.
But civil liberties themselves are far from faddish. They ought to be our bedrock and apply equally to everyone.

Meanwhile, suggesting anyone who gets into trouble with the law has effectively asked for it, is not your brightest gem of wisdom thus far, Horseradish.

Blair locked up Muslim terrorist suspects for ages without even revealing to them what it was they had done, claiming national security. Such was their ordeal, some of them starting going loopy. After all, how can you even begin to defend yourself against the unknown?

Such cases are far from faddish. These are outrageous abuses of power committed by those who ought to be protecting our rights, not undermining them.
Instead the very people charged with protecting this country's ancient liberties are in fact eager to dismantle them.

Meanwhile, I guess any future government may feel free to abolish the NHS - or even the BBC which you claim to prize.
After all, your argument ran that, if we could do without such things in the past, then we're only losing what we've previously gained.
According to that logic one could even bring back slavery. But never mind.
Let's call it right of centre, shall we?

View original

I didn't suggest that anyone who gets into trouble with the law has effectively asked for it. There was enough in my posts to imply that I think a lot of so-called authority is bad and therefore no authority at all. It is a point that I make on a fairly regular basis to people - and I do believe it very strongly.

On a couple of your other main points, you will find that I am historically strong on race relations so the key words to my mind in your phrase "Muslim terrorist suspect" are "terrorist" and "suspect". I think everyone should have a right to fair treatment under the law and an equal trial. But if you were asking me what sort of priority I would give to a "terrorist suspect" in my list of routine concerns, it would probably be about number 500. There are literally hundreds of injustices occurring daily to people who are not in any way a "terrorist suspect". That was the central point I was trying to make.

On losing what we've gained and it making it no difference, I wasn't saying that at all. I'm not even arguing for greater regulation of the internet. But I do think that in some areas additional regulation equals greater freedom rather than less. If we went back to a stricter, less commercial licencing system for radio, content would be more diverse as it was in the 1970s. I also think vis a vis the net that the greatest constraints in the future will not be via filters etc but by the almost inevitable drift towards sites requiring a subscription which will lock more people - the poor - out of entertainment.

Quote: A Horseradish @ 4th May 2015, 11:13 PM BST

I didn't suggest that anyone who gets into trouble with the law has effectively asked for it. There was enough in my posts to imply that I think a lot of so-called authority is bad and therefore no authority at all. It is a point that I make on a fairly regular basis to people - and I do believe it very strongly.

On a couple of your other main points, you will find that I am historically strong on race relations so the key words to my mind in your phrase "Muslim terrorist suspect" are "terrorist" and "suspect". I think everyone should have a right to fair treatment under the law and an equal trial. But if you were asking me what sort of priority I would give to a "terrorist suspect" in my list of routine concerns, it would probably be about number 500. There are literally hundreds of injustices occurring daily to people who are not in any way a "terrorist suspect". That was the central point I was trying to make.

On losing what we've gained and it making it no difference, I wasn't saying that at all. I'm not even arguing for greater regulation of the internet. But I do think that in some areas additional regulation equals greater freedom rather than less. If we went back to a stricter, less commercial licencing system for radio, content would be more diverse as it was in the 1970s. I also think vis a vis the net that the greatest constraints in the future will not be via filters etc but by the almost inevitable drift towards sites requiring a subscription which will lock more people - the poor - out of entertainment.

View original

But the truth is that to your mind there is a measure of worthiness in 'victims' in regards to civil rights.
Muslim terrorist suspects are to you a lesser concern. So what if they're potentially innocent?

To me in fact they are of equal concern than anyone else.
The idea that we need to sympathise with someone to grant them rights makes a mockery of rights of any kind. These are precisely the games governments have been playing. Liberties and rights belong to those we hate and distrust or they belong to no one at all.
It really is that simple.

He who sets terrorist suspects at priority 500 in fact sets everyone there. For anyone who finds their public image poisoned will invariably find himself at 500, while Horseradish will reserve his support solely for the starving orphan children, should they get into trouble.

Government plays this game beautifully. Which parliamentary bill banned the right to demonstrate outside parliament? The Serious and Organised Crime Bill.
How a right of public gathering came to be curtailed by a bill supposedly containing laws designed for serious and organised crime is unclear.
What is clear, however, is that Horseradish would set serious and organised criminals at priority 500. And so it goes....

The right to silence was qualified by Jack Straw because only hardened lags ever used it. So went the government yarn. It was a right solely for hardened criminals who knew how to play the system. Old hands. Crooks. Organised crime. So again, priority 500, right?
Or do you like hardened professional criminals more than terrorist suspects?

They play this all the time. Much internet law is introduced to combat pornography. Priority 500 again? But the law then turns out to apply to much more material, to set worrying precedents and be applied much, much more widely.

The very fact that the authorities play such games is suspicious.
Why would they use such deceits and card tricks? It suggest they have an agenda and seek to attain their goal by hook or by crook.

But while they're doing it they'll keep playing their trump card. Priority 500.

Horse, Gussie . . Get a room . .

Quote: Oldrocker @ 5th May 2015, 12:24 AM BST

Horse, Gussie . . Get a room . .

View original

Thanks for the encouragement, Rocker.