RedSoxUK Posted 7 November 2015 Posted 7 November 2015 I'd be interested to know what specific part of this "snooper's charter" people are against, why and what their alternative is? We don't need it. What actually justifies this? The potential of an extreme minimal threat, proventative crime? It's a pathetic attempt at governmental control and an attack on civil liberties. It failed to get through before and I hope something happens for it to fail again. This draft does nothing to the protect the people, it does nothing to help the people. The entire purpose for Edward Snowden's leaks were to oust the NSA's spying and disgusting tracking of America's citizens and state leaders. Now we want to put something in place to actually publicly justify keeping the records of everyone's search history, phone records etc, for the purpose of tracking those few idiots dumb enough to use social media or their Carphone Warehouse phone to plot their evil deeds. It's pointless, there will just be more leaks, more ways of getting around it, a darker, dark web - so who are the government protecting then? who are they tracking and keeping the records of? just everyday people that say they have nothing to hide - a pointless argument. Internet surveilence will not stop terrorism, it won't stop pedophilia - it won't stop the growth of extremism; it attacks liberty, while enforing a form of totalitarianism.
Dr The Singh Posted 7 November 2015 Posted 7 November 2015 Why to foook have BBC published a article on Corbyn wanting to debate Human Rights Issues with regards to China but not India?????? Is the BBC a puppet???? Another point about BBC, they did not cover the human rights abuses of Sikhs, and subsequent deaths of Sikhs by the Indian state and countrywide protest and state media blackout, but go to BBC main page they get a article about a daft women taking going to court over Sikhs jokes, why the fook is it that poeple in India are being killed by the state and not being reported but a daft women lawyer taking the state to court over Sikh jokes is????? I'm not a conspiracy theorist but there is definitely a agenda by the BBC not wanting to upset our ex colonial friends???? So am I talking the truth?Can some fooker on here answer my question 1?
RedSoxUK Posted 7 November 2015 Posted 7 November 2015 So am I talking the truth? Can some fooker on here answer my question 1? Hey I can't even answer your question, the BBC do things which surprise me all the time.. I called that they would make a big deal about two black managers being sacked on the same day; did they need to write up an article about someones "dissapointment"? and that "there's something else going on?" No. Why mainstream delusion; but the BBC does this. They stir shit up - they love it, the entire section on '#trending' is just to comment on stirring shit up, fuelling the fire if you have it, and they dont' pay attention to the logical facts, but the emotional opinions. I do not know many details about the actual human rights problems in India, or the problems Sikhs face - i'll put that down to self disinterest, and a general lack of coverage from the media. Perhaps you can point me in the direction where I can research this further? Maybe then people can answer your question.
Dr The Singh Posted 7 November 2015 Posted 7 November 2015 Hey I can't even answer your question, the BBC do things which surprise me all the time.. I called that they would make a big deal about two black managers being sacked on the same day; did they need to write up an article about someones "dissapointment"? and that "there's something else going on?" No. Why mainstream delusion; but the BBC does this. They stir shit up - they love it, the entire section on '#trending' is just to comment on stirring shit up, fuelling the fire if you have it, and they dont' pay attention to the logical facts, but the emotional opinions. I do not know many details about the actual human rights problems in India, or the problems Sikhs face - i'll put that down to self disinterest, and a general lack of coverage from the media. Perhaps you can point me in the direction where I can research this further? Maybe then people can answer your question. Thats the problem Redsox, there are very few news agencies that would report sikh issues, and hence my post about the BBC. Thankfully we have the Sikh Channel and Sangat TV here in the UK that report on matters. Infact its sad that Modi the PM of India wants David Cameron to shut them down. It's a sad state of affairs for Sikhs as we have no power in the world for anyone to listen to us. Were labeled radicals and fundamentalist just for speaking the truth and asking for our rights http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/narendra-modi-to-raise-issue-of-radical-sikh-elements-with-david-cameron/article7834581.ece
cityfanlee23 Posted 7 November 2015 Posted 7 November 2015 The fact that the maintenance grant is being got rid of and now all of it will be a loan. It means you get more money overall to help you at uni (better for the poor) but you have to pay it back now instead. I'd be delighted if I was paying it all back cos it means I'm making a decent amount of money in life and then I should pay for the education that afforded be the privilege to earn that wedge. I'm actually quite annoyed that I will be locked under the old system and still get the grant, I'd much rather an extra 600 quid that I may have to pay back later in life. I really struggle to understand student politics, a majority of the active ones have such an inability to reason with anything and I really don't get where all their anger comes from. Some of them just need to go out and get absolutely wankered once in a while and forget life. It's also mind boggling how out of touch they are, you can see why some politicians just don't get real life when you realise these are the future. I was speaking to a guy in my halls, he's one of the wannabe career politicians and went to Harrow. I tried to explain to him that people are fed up with these people going to uni and then working in politics all their life and not having a clue what life is like on the outside and he just wouldn't listen or accept it. As for the protests last night, I saw a bit of it as I passed through Trafalgar Square, it was an odd bunch of people to say the least. I didn't see much untoward but there's always a minority that take the headlines in things like this. What do they actually achieve by setting police cars on fire? It's just an excuse for grown men to act like animals really The only thing that frustrates me with the fact Uni students are mad about this, Is the fact that they are complaining, even though they are going to uni with the promise of earning more than the average wage in the future, and if they don't they don't have to start paying it back until they earn above the living wage, a full £2,000 more than the average living wage in London is. They aren't going to be worse off from paying it back, and they are the ones that are supposedly better qualified than those that did not attend, so what's the problem? If I wanted to start a new business, I go to the bank and get a loan, and I have to start paying it back immediately.. Not as and when I can afford to.. Maybe this will start forcing uni students to pick their future carefully, and pick their course/uni carefully, too many go to uni for the "experience" on the taxpayers expense, with no goal, no career decisions, just to have some fun, partaking in utterly pointless degrees. Quality over Quantity. Too many Average students coming out of university that are no better qualified than the average uk resident. Minimum wage is less than £14,000 per year, if you cannot afford to live on £21,000 a year (this is before repayments are due) then something is wrong. The main issue is affordable housing, meaning these students are struggling to live when they leave, if we had affordable housing, their bills would drop and they would be better off, Conveniently, Labour and the conservatives don't use housing and rent prices in the index used to calculate inflation.
sphericalfox Posted 7 November 2015 Posted 7 November 2015 The only thing that frustrates me with the fact Uni students are mad about this, Is the fact that they are complaining, even though they are going to uni with the promise of earning more than the average wage in the future, and if they don't they don't have to start paying it back until they earn above the living wage, a full £2,000 more than the average living wage in London is. They aren't going to be worse off from paying it back, and they are the ones that are supposedly better qualified than those that did not attend, so what's the problem? If I wanted to start a new business, I go to the bank and get a loan, and I have to start paying it back immediately.. Not as and when I can afford to.. Maybe this will start forcing uni students to pick their future carefully, and pick their course/uni carefully, too many go to uni for the "experience" on the taxpayers expense, with no goal, no career decisions, just to have some fun, partaking in utterly pointless degrees. Quality over Quantity. Too many Average students coming out of university that are no better qualified than the average uk resident. Minimum wage is less than £14,000 per year, if you cannot afford to live on £21,000 a year (this is before repayments are due) then something is wrong. The main issue is affordable housing, meaning these students are struggling to live when they leave, if we had affordable housing, their bills would drop and they would be better off, Conveniently, Labour and the conservatives don't use housing and rent prices in the index used to calculate inflation.
Rincewind Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 http://leadersoftheopposition.com/2015/11/07/why-have-there-been-so-many-attacks-on-jeremy-corbyns-office-staff/
Claridge Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 http://leadersoftheopposition.com/2015/11/07/why-have-there-been-so-many-attacks-on-jeremy-corbyns-office-staff/ Typical rubbish,trying to defend Corbyn's terrible appointments.
Rincewind Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/idss-people-slammed-after-revealed-6779232
Thracian Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 Frightening to see Dave "private conversations should not be allowed" Cameron pushing on with recording everybody's internet history without much of a resistance this week. How would you tackle the high level security threat to the UK? Especially given that we seem to be inviting further threat day in and day out with a naivity it's hard to comprehend.
Frank to be Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 How would you tackle the high level security threat to the UK? Especially given that we seem to be inviting further threat day in and day out with a naivity it's hard to comprehend. How many legitimate threats to the uk are going to leave workable evidence in their personal Internet browsing history? It's so easy to circumvent a child could do it.
cityfanlee23 Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 I'm confused, whats so funny? Surely if people think Uni students are allowed huge amounts of money that they don't have to pay back is fair, then every single person in this country should be allowed the same? Why not huge grants of £10,000 a year to people wanting to start businesses? Uni students are going to university to get qualifications which will allow them to earn well above the average wage, paid for by people who in theory would earn much less than the people they have paid for, why shouldn't they pay society back? If this is not the case, and these students are NOT earning more than the average wage, then it's pretty evident that University is a waste of time in the majority of cases. As I said, Quality over Quantity. Too many people are being pushed into higher education at astronomical rates, and the universities are making fortunes from it, only for this hugely growing number of people to earn nothing at the end of it, the tax payer loses, private universities win. Pretty simple to me.
Webbo Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 How many legitimate threats to the uk are going to leave workable evidence in their personal Internet browsing history? It's so easy to circumvent a child could do it. If a child could do it so could the rest of us. what are you worried about?
Thracian Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/idss-people-slammed-after-revealed-6779232 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/idss-people-slammed-after-revealed-6779232 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/idss-people-slammed-after-revealed-6779232 Honestly Ken this forum could be filled with articles by different people with their own vested interests highlighting the faults of those they oppose. What are you trying to convince us of? That, somehow, Corbyn and friends should be free to run the UK?. Well, Blair and his friends had a long shot at it and there's a good many think he and others should be answerable in the courts cos the consequencies have been appalling. And no this is not an alternative party political speech. Unlike you I don't really have a political persuasion. But I do think Labour are as great a danger to this country as any other group of enemies even if they're not one and the same in some ways and in some quarters. My problem is that I don't trust anyone else either. In fact, nowadays, I don't trust many people at all.
Thracian Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 How many legitimate threats to the uk are going to leave workable evidence in their personal Internet browsing history? It's so easy to circumvent a child could do it. How many legitimate threats to the uk are going to leave workable evidence in their personal Internet browsing history? It's so easy to circumvent a child could do it. More than you'd imagine in different ways but I really can't say more on the subject.
Frank to be Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 If a child could do it so could the rest of us. what are you worried about? That's true and I could stick a bit of tape over my webcam in case gchq are watching it as well and I could make sure I only talk in whispers away from my computer in case they've hacked my microphone, both of which they've been caught doing illegally. It's easy to get around, but why should ordinary citizens have to take preventative measures to avoid being spied on by their own government? And if the spying is so rudimentary and obviously useless for its stated purpose then doesn't that make you wonder what it's really for?
Thracian Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 That's true and I could stick a bit of tape over my webcam in case gchq are watching it as well and I could make sure I only talk in whispers away from my computer in case they've hacked my microphone, both of which they've been caught doing illegally. It's easy to get around, but why should ordinary citizens have to take preventative measures to avoid being spied on by their own government? And if the spying is so rudimentary and obviously useless for its stated purpose then doesn't that make you wonder what it's really for? No-one should mock or under-estimate GCHQ. Their work - in tandem with others - has already saved countless lives but that doesn't justify making their job harder than it needs to be. Sadly they're always gone to lose some battles but, overall, we should all be damned grateful for the ones they win.
cityfanlee23 Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 That's true and I could stick a bit of tape over my webcam in case gchq are watching it as well and I could make sure I only talk in whispers away from my computer in case they've hacked my microphone, both of which they've been caught doing illegally. It's easy to get around, but why should ordinary citizens have to take preventative measures to avoid being spied on by their own government? And if the spying is so rudimentary and obviously useless for its stated purpose then doesn't that make you wonder what it's really for? Not heard of that, would like to read up on it, could you give me a source please? The recent bill was stated for the purpose of cases such as abduction and not general use. I've not had chance to read back as to what this discussion was about, so assuming it's for the bill being discussed in commons on wednesday? Will have chance to go back through soon so apologies if that's not what you're discussing!
Webbo Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 That's true and I could stick a bit of tape over my webcam in case gchq are watching it as well and I could make sure I only talk in whispers away from my computer in case they've hacked my microphone, both of which they've been caught doing illegally. It's easy to get around, but why should ordinary citizens have to take preventative measures to avoid being spied on by their own government? And if the spying is so rudimentary and obviously useless for its stated purpose then doesn't that make you wonder what it's really for? Why would they want to spy on you? Don't you think they've got better things to do? As I understand this, this is just providing a legal framework for what's been happening for the last 10 years.
Frank to be Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 No-one should mock or under-estimate GCHQ. Their work - in tandem with others - has already saved countless lives but that doesn't justify making their job harder than it needs to be. I find it difficult to come to any conclusions about the effectiveness of gchq given that direct and publicly available evidence of it is practically non-existent. If the ability to view someone's browsing history is so important then why can't the government provide numerous, or even one example of where having that ability would have saved lives?
leicsmac Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 I'm confused, whats so funny? Surely if people think Uni students are allowed huge amounts of money that they don't have to pay back is fair, then every single person in this country should be allowed the same? Why not huge grants of £10,000 a year to people wanting to start businesses? Uni students are going to university to get qualifications which will allow them to earn well above the average wage, paid for by people who in theory would earn much less than the people they have paid for, why shouldn't they pay society back? If this is not the case, and these students are NOT earning more than the average wage, then it's pretty evident that University is a waste of time in the majority of cases. As I said, Quality over Quantity. Too many people are being pushed into higher education at astronomical rates, and the universities are making fortunes from it, only for this hugely growing number of people to earn nothing at the end of it, the tax payer loses, private universities win. Pretty simple to me. You're assuming the sole purpose of going to university is the materialistic, and that has a bearing on the lives of people from then onward. Isn't that a bit cold? No-one should mock or under-estimate GCHQ. Their work - in tandem with others - has already saved countless lives but that doesn't justify making their job harder than it needs to be. Sadly they're always gone to lose some battles but, overall, we should all be damned grateful for the ones they win. Sorry, by the nature of what they do and the power that they hold they must assume that some people are going to be inherently suspicious of those who hold that power, because it has been shown so often in the past that power like that corrupts - and so seek to protect themselves from them. If they didn't want that, they didn't have to go into that line of work. Indeed, if they follow the argument of what they're supposedly fighting for through to its logical conclusion, then they should think that every single person in the UK should have the right to question how their freedom is defended, because that is one of the fundamental freedoms they purport to protect.
Webbo Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/idss-people-slammed-after-revealed-6779232 Just shows the number of people fraudulently claiming benefits in this country. Thank you for highlighting this problem Ken. I find it difficult to come to any conclusions about the effectiveness of gchq given that direct and publicly available evidence of it is practically non-existent. If the ability to view someone's browsing history is so important then why can't the government provide numerous, or even one example of where having that ability would have saved lives? The secret services tend to keep things secret. The clue is in the name.
leicsmac Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 Why would they want to spy on you? Don't you think they've got better things to do? As I understand this, this is just providing a legal framework for what's been happening for the last 10 years. Who knows? It's the power to do so that (rightly) makes some people a bit nervous. Power like that tends to lead to trust issues as it has been abused so many times in the past.
Frank to be Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 Not heard of that, would like to read up on it, could you give me a source please? There's a lot about it out there but this is one article discussing about them using people's webcams to collect images without their knowledge inside their own homes. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
Webbo Posted 8 November 2015 Posted 8 November 2015 Who knows? It's the power to do so that (rightly) makes some people a bit nervous. Fair enough, in an ideal world we wouldn't need these powers but lets not pretend that there are no terrorists who want to cause harm to this country and it's citizens.If we can do anything to stop/disrupt them we should. I guarantee that people who are most against this will be the first to blame the govt if an atrocity occurs.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.