Thoughts?
Moderators: Benn, Calix, senji
What's funny is they try and pretend it has something to do with terrorism.
Gordon Brown is a fucking idiot and the biggest control freak on the planet. He wants to know what we do, how much money we have, what countries and where it is kept, do we have stashes of cash under our beds and when we shit is it a floater, sinker or pebble dasher.
Gordon Brown is a fucking idiot and the biggest control freak on the planet. He wants to know what we do, how much money we have, what countries and where it is kept, do we have stashes of cash under our beds and when we shit is it a floater, sinker or pebble dasher.
_______________________________________
NEVER enter Felucca.
Denied victims the evil turns upon itself. It whines, cries, and wails for more victims.
Deny evil its prey.
NEVER enter Felucca.
In time, Felucca will die AND evil will die with it
NEVER enter Felucca.
Denied victims the evil turns upon itself. It whines, cries, and wails for more victims.
Deny evil its prey.
NEVER enter Felucca.
In time, Felucca will die AND evil will die with it
Pre 9/11 this would have beggared belief. Although they state 'content' won't be monitored, this is another step towards enveloping us in a dystopic Orwellian nightmare.
I presume that this database will record who has called whom & at what time, which i.p has sent an email to which i.p and so on, without revealing a great deal of information regarding the relevant exchange.
The next step will be to keep transcripts of phone conversations & a record of e-mails, the motives of which will be hidden in a moral trojan-horse of legislation that promises to protect us from terrorists and paedophiles and short-sellers, and which promises that only complete governmental omnipotence can prevent us from waking up in horror to find we're being spitroasted by Osama bin Laden and Ian Huntley.
After that they'll start picking up buzz-words like 'bomb' or 'anarchy' or 'al jazeera' and appearing on the door-step to ask a few quick questions designed to protect you.
Exaggerative, obviously, but no longer strictly fantastical; no longer a distant dream in the mind of politicians who dream of suzerainty. I would say it's exponentially more likely that we will pursue voyeuristic tyranny than take a reflective step back.
The notion of giving up freedom for our own protection is staggeringly ridiculous. What is that they think the people of this country want - to live in a giant womb where we are fed and constantly looked after and never have to think anything or do anything and it's all warm and fuzzy and an easy ride to the graveyard. That's what we seem to be moving towards - and I'm neither surprised nor appalled that there exist contingents that want to bomb us into the fucking ground.
I presume that this database will record who has called whom & at what time, which i.p has sent an email to which i.p and so on, without revealing a great deal of information regarding the relevant exchange.
The next step will be to keep transcripts of phone conversations & a record of e-mails, the motives of which will be hidden in a moral trojan-horse of legislation that promises to protect us from terrorists and paedophiles and short-sellers, and which promises that only complete governmental omnipotence can prevent us from waking up in horror to find we're being spitroasted by Osama bin Laden and Ian Huntley.
After that they'll start picking up buzz-words like 'bomb' or 'anarchy' or 'al jazeera' and appearing on the door-step to ask a few quick questions designed to protect you.
Exaggerative, obviously, but no longer strictly fantastical; no longer a distant dream in the mind of politicians who dream of suzerainty. I would say it's exponentially more likely that we will pursue voyeuristic tyranny than take a reflective step back.
The notion of giving up freedom for our own protection is staggeringly ridiculous. What is that they think the people of this country want - to live in a giant womb where we are fed and constantly looked after and never have to think anything or do anything and it's all warm and fuzzy and an easy ride to the graveyard. That's what we seem to be moving towards - and I'm neither surprised nor appalled that there exist contingents that want to bomb us into the fucking ground.
Pre 9/11 this would have beggared belief. Although they state 'content' won't be monitored, this is another step towards enveloping us in a dystopic Orwellian nightmare.
I presume that this database will record who has called whom & at what time, which i.p has sent an email to which i.p and so on, without revealing a great deal of information regarding the relevant exchange.
The next step will be to keep transcripts of phone conversations & a record of e-mails, the motives of which will be hidden in a moral trojan-horse of legislation that promises to protect us from terrorists and paedophiles and short-sellers, and which promises that only complete governmental omnipotence can prevent us from waking up in horror to find we're being spitroasted by Osama bin Laden and Ian Huntley.
After that they'll start picking up buzz-words like 'bomb' or 'anarchy' or 'al jazeera' and appearing on the door-step to ask a few quick questions designed to protect you.
Exaggerative, obviously, but no longer strictly fantastical; no longer a distant dream in the mind of politicians who dream of suzerainty. I would say it's exponentially more likely that we will pursue voyeuristic tyranny than take a reflective step back.
The notion of giving up freedom for our own protection is staggeringly ridiculous. What is that they think the people of this country want - to live in a giant womb where we are fed and constantly looked after and never have to think anything or do anything and it's all warm and fuzzy and an easy ride to the graveyard. That's what we seem to be moving towards - and I'm neither surprised nor appalled that there exist contingents that want to bomb us into the fucking ground.
I presume that this database will record who has called whom & at what time, which i.p has sent an email to which i.p and so on, without revealing a great deal of information regarding the relevant exchange.
The next step will be to keep transcripts of phone conversations & a record of e-mails, the motives of which will be hidden in a moral trojan-horse of legislation that promises to protect us from terrorists and paedophiles and short-sellers, and which promises that only complete governmental omnipotence can prevent us from waking up in horror to find we're being spitroasted by Osama bin Laden and Ian Huntley.
After that they'll start picking up buzz-words like 'bomb' or 'anarchy' or 'al jazeera' and appearing on the door-step to ask a few quick questions designed to protect you.
Exaggerative, obviously, but no longer strictly fantastical; no longer a distant dream in the mind of politicians who dream of suzerainty. I would say it's exponentially more likely that we will pursue voyeuristic tyranny than take a reflective step back.
The notion of giving up freedom for our own protection is staggeringly ridiculous. What is that they think the people of this country want - to live in a giant womb where we are fed and constantly looked after and never have to think anything or do anything and it's all warm and fuzzy and an easy ride to the graveyard. That's what we seem to be moving towards - and I'm neither surprised nor appalled that there exist contingents that want to bomb us into the fucking ground.
This. I fail to see how anyone can support or even attempt to justify this kind of government 'policy'Sonez wrote:
The notion of giving up freedom for our own protection is staggeringly ridiculous.
Once they've got these powers there's no going back, and they'll use the next 'terror' attack to tighten/increase them even more.
He used those laws as part of them means you can freeze the assets of said company/people/country. he wasnt accusing them of terrorism it was a legal way of holding there money. even if it was morally wrong!Villa wrote:Gordon Bown used the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in order to seize Icelandic assets in the UK the other day.
Either Iceland is full of secret terrorists that we knew nothing about, or our Government is getting more and more insane every week.
[img]http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/AlieBarnes/Korea1.jpg[/img]
If you can use an anti-terrorism law in a non-terrorism scenario like this, it should make you wonder what other ridiculous scenario the government might use it in.Padaxus wrote:He used those laws as part of them means you can freeze the assets of said company/people/country. he wasnt accusing them of terrorism it was a legal way of holding there money. even if it was morally wrong!Villa wrote:Gordon Bown used the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in order to seize Icelandic assets in the UK the other day.
Either Iceland is full of secret terrorists that we knew nothing about, or our Government is getting more and more insane every week.
It's pathetic and scary at the same time.
Signatures broken since 2009...