My privacy or freedom is no different than it was 20 years ago.
The key thing with these new ideas is there is no evidence to show that their introduction will actually reduce crime. To blindly accept the argument that they will reduce crime and prevent terrorism is just plain stupid. We need evidence *before* the systems are introduced, rather than simply accepting rhetoric and hype.
My privacy or freedom is no different than it was 20 years ago.
And yes, you have a lot less privacy than 20 years ago. Your face is recorded all day long by cameras, your purchased in supermarkets are tracked, most things are tracked about you in fact.
Also, your freedoms in general are a lot more restricted now. You can no longer have a march through a city without permission. You can't protest outside parliament without permission. You can't contact different people in a business to express your displeasure at their practices. Protests can be controlled to such a level that they are pointless (ie. the police can give time limits, number limits, restrict the use of loud-halers etc...) There are many more examples.
The thing is, you don't seem to actually have any experience of these losses so you don't think they are actual losses. They are major threats against our freedoms, and unless it directly affects you, you don't seem to notice.
So your face is recorded - big deal - I don't do anything wrong so it doesn't matter. Ditto supermarket.
This "civil liberties are infringed" is so much Sun and Daily Mail reader.
Bottom line - if you want to protest and enough people agree you can do it - we are policed by consent.
To be honest I'd quite like to infringe the rights of some people eg. the BNP - the rise of nutters like that is more frightening than anything this government has introduced.
What? That makes no sense. Why does it matter if you don't do anything wrong. You don't have to do anything wrong to be targetted!So your face is recorded - big deal - I don't do anything wrong so it doesn't matter. Ditto supermarket.
Nope, I don't read crap like that. My views are based on hours of research, speaking to people who have had their freedoms restricted at the whim of the police abusing the powers they have been given and from my own experiences. I don't just read a paper and believe everything it says.This "civil liberties are infringed" is so much Sun and Daily Mail reader.
Sorry, but that has got to be the most ignorant statement I have read, ever. Women's rights started out as a fringe protest. Black rights the same. So you are saying that protests are ok to be restricted if they don't have a certain number of supporters? Who are you to say whether or not their complaint is valid?Bottom line - if you want to protest and enough people agree you can do it - we are policed by consent.
I don't like the BNP either, but they have a right to say what they want. Anyone who buys into it is an idiot in my view, but they are entitled to their views - so long as they don't infringe on my freedoms.To be honest I'd quite like to infringe the rights of some people eg. the BNP - the rise of nutters like that is more frightening than anything this government has introduced.
i don't know what the sun's stance on ID cards is, but judging by previous form editorially they're not a great defender of our personal freedoms, plus they're a notorious flag waver of b&b's 'war on terror'....
So i would imagine they actually support ID cards. Don't forget that in the beginning ID cards was all about preventing terrorism....when that began to be questioned we now get govt. ministers talking about it preventing benefit fraud and about the convenience of carrying something small that can identify you. The goalposts have moved, not unlike the original WMD arguments that led us into war. This govt. has a habit of forcing things through despite massive public objection. And believe me jcollings there is massive objection to this scheme.
As for Daily Mail, they have this imigration agenda and seeing as this scheme is already going to create the documenting of people that Witch describes, although not quite to the same extent as in other countries, but nonetheless with foreign nationals outside the eu FORCED to have one before the end of the year. So they'll have it for years whereas i won't have to get one until my passport expires several years from now. And you'll never need to have one jcollings as you seem to be doing alright without a passport. I feel that's downright unfair, it's like saying this group of people are a problem, they must carry a card so that our authorities know who they are.
serious criminals won't give a toss about the ID cards, these are the people who operate in an underworld that doesn't need photo id. They're already get away with carrying guns and dealing drugs - ID cards will not make a blind bit of difference. I
You've got it the wrong way around...the people who are complaining about infringement on personal freedoms aren't the ones scaremongering - it's the govt. who started it all off by insisting we needed these cards to combat terrorism. Just like they scared sun readers witless by insisting Saddam was threat to us with his long range chemical warheads.
You also haven't answered my origianal question about cost. With 40 billion of public cash sunk into a failed high street bank, do you think it's wise to be contemplating 11 billion pound projects that won't improve education, health or other public services ? (not that 11 bilion with this govt. on public spending ever brings value for money or noticeably imroved service).
My point exactly - it doesn't matter what the law says. Both protests were illegal but enough people got behind it and the authorities could do nothing to stop it.Sorry, but that has got to be the most ignorant statement I have read, ever. Women's rights started out as a fringe protest. Black rights the same. So you are saying that protests are ok to be restricted if they don't have a certain number of supporters? Who are you to say whether or not their complaint is valid?
@localzuk - as I said you don't know me or what I've been involved in. I also don't feel that you need to resort to personal insults as I haven't therefore I think I'm going to ignore your comments from now. I think calling people stuipd and ignorant is way out of line especially when you have no idea what I really believe or stand for.
@torledo - agreed - I can think of much better ways to spend the money but I can also think of much better ways to spend the billions wasted on sending soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan etc. in a pointless and illegal war which I have spent many hours on the street protesting about. On the whole I probably agree that ID cards make little difference to crime etc and are not going to solve any issues (except mean I don't have to have a passport for ID) but the point is neither are we going to suddenly create a police state if we have them. In truth I don't really care if we have them or not. It's the idea (as with all these things) that introducing X,Y or Z measure suddenly restricts us in some way.
The great social movements of our time don't care if the law says it's ok to do something - they just do it. The miners didn't say "oh flying pickets are banned - better not do it then" - they carried on.
And how you can say that you have as much personal freedom as 20 years ago and then agree that cameras etc exist I really don't know. You may not CARE that you are tracked and filmed at every turn, but it does happen and therefore you ARE less free than you were 20 years ago.
And on the one hand you seem happy with a law that requires you to carry an ID card at all times and produce it on demand or face a fine (or a prison sentence some years down the line?) but on the other hand you are happy that people advocating certain things like votes for women or unions or whatever can break a law they don't agree with and that is OK?
That doesn't make any sense at all, does it?
(And it applies to people like the BNP too)
You mention you partook in anti-war protests. Were any of these in parliament? Did you happen to meet Brian Haw? Did you see that his once large and effective protest has been taken away by the police? Did you know that the law to prevent protest near the houses of parilament were introduced specifically to deal with Haw? No civil liberties have been taken away there... How about Barbara Tucker? An anti-war protester who has been in and out of court for trying to protest. Even a protest where she just stood there with tape over her mouth resulted in arrest. Another, where her and another man were reading out the list of dead resulted in both their arrests. The police have attempted to section her. Again, no civil liberties lost there...
How about the introduction of legislation that allows companies to get injunctions against protests? Asahi-Glass, GSK, Oxford University, HLS, the list goes on. All of these companies have had protests, plus illegal activity, and have visited the high court to get injunctions which can be generally applied to any person deemed to be a 'protester'. They prevent them from protesting near their premises, set aside specific places for their protests - usually completely out of public view, set time limts and number limits (for example the Asahi-Glass injunction (for Cleveleys) set a small off-road protest zone, set a limit (IIRC) of 8 people, once a week for (IIRC) 2 hours. It also restricted the use of loud-hailers and took away the right to contact the company to complain about their business practices. All thanks to Timothy Lawson Cruttendon's Protection from Harrassment Act.
Or the legislation for non-protesters which allows the police to simply tell all young people to disburse in an area, at their whim. Doesn't matter if they've done anything wrong they can just have their freedom of assembly removed.
The protests for womens rights, and black rights were not illegal. No-one had to get permission to protest. There was no requirement for those wishing to protest to visit a police station and tell them how many people, how long, where etc... and to then have the permission either denied or to have the protest moved to somewhere where it is ineffective.
The simple fact remains that our civil liberties are being impinged. You just have to look through the law books from the last 20 years to see these restrictions. The Serious Organised Crime Act, The Anti-Social Behaviour Act, The Protection from Harrassement Act, the various public order acts. They all have little bits here and there which prevent us from exercising rights that once existed. Speak to any human rights lawyer, speak to Liberty. They will all agree.
Why am I less free just because I am filmed?
Of course it makes sense - people should and are able to protest at will.
We live in one of the most liberal countries in the world - spend time in China, Zimbabwe,Iraq, Iran et al - they understand what repression is.
Of course you are less free if you are filmed - that's just daft
How does it make sense to say that breaking laws is fine? And if they ARE breaking a law, then they are NOT able to protest at will, are they as they risk arrest.
And as I said before, what about the BNP? Can THEY break laws to protest?
I think our main point is - WHY are the government trying to foist ID cards on us - giving us reasons that have NO basis in fact (weapons of mass destruction, anyone?)?
Why is legitimate protest not allowed these days?
Can you not see that these are all erosions of our rights?
If you really can't, then you may be one of those who will sleepwalk into a situation (which may well be some time in the future, I agree) where you turn around and find that all your personal liberties have disappeared
How do you know the law will be different with ID cards? They may only be asked for if you are suspected of something.
Of course the BNP can break laws to protest - it's called freedom of speech.
I spend a great deal of time in politics so won't be sleepwalking anywhere. Some laws such as ASBO law is very useful and helps control problems.
Please don't talk down to me in future.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)