The Politics Thread

[Webbo]

GCHQ effectively already have done that by stealth. You might not be concerned by this specific move, but what about what comes next, would you be happy to have a tracking device injected into you and the data stored? If you've not been anywhere you're not supposed to you've got nothing to worry about, right?

You go off Fif comes on,Fif goes off you come back. Hmm.

 

Anyway I can't worry about something that hasn't ,and may never, happen yet.

[Sharpe's Fox]

I suggest you do some research on what entitles you to a grant and how you get it mate

Sorry about the late reply mate haven't looked at the thread for a bit.

I don't have to do any research because I went through the process myself; a separate application was carried out on the Student Finance England website after which my mother sent a tax receipt (I think) to prove that I was eligible to get the grant.

This was in 2013 and I hope there has been no significant reform to the process since or I have made myself look a right prat but if can enlighten me otherwise then feel free.

[cityfanlee23]

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

How is that cold? They don't have to pay the money back until they earn £21,000 a year, which is more than the current average living wage of London.

So if they are not going for the materialistic, thats fine, they don't have to pay a penny back until they can afford to. 

If they ARE going for the education to get a good job, to be able to earn more money than average, then they should pay it back?

 

Is it not cold that Uni students expect the tax payer to pay for their higher education and for them to never have to repay anything back?

At the end of the day, if they are going into higher education for money, they should pay it back. 

If they are going in for a passion, to go into a job they enjoy, if they subsequently earn enough money, they should pay it back (It's not for materialistic purposes is it so whats the problem?) 

If they go for the passion of qualification for a job they enjoy, but they do NOT earn enough money to pay it back, then they can sit safe in the knowledge they have not hit the threshold and don't have to pay it back. 

 

What's the issue?

You can't argue that not all students go to uni to earn lots of money, then make the case that even though they did not go for the money, yet earn it, they don't have to pay it back, how is that fair for the tax payer?

[cityfanlee23]

As I understand it the new rules mean ISPs are required to keep a record of what sites we've been on and who we've emailed for a year. The security services are allowed to access this information if they can show good cause to a judge.

 

To hear some on here you'd think the govt had fitted a camera in everybody's houses.

 

Exactly, 

 

Mainstream media 1 - General public common sense 0

 

I watched the entire debate in the office on Wednesday, They basis of this bill is that they currently keep records of phone calls, yet do not have permission to keep records of internet usage etc.

The main argument is that crime is moving online, crime has advanced with technology, the law has not.

 

They are required by law to keep records of internet usage etc, but at present police do not have access to it, this bill will mean they can get access under extreme circumstances, such as abduction, to investigate these things.

 

They DO NOT, have permission to just sit and access everyone's internet usage and go and charge people.

This information that will be recorded will only be accessible in extreme circumstances when ruled by a judge. 

This is basic common sense that this is beneficial to public safety.

 

If the police approached a judge and said "we need to check internet usage of this person, who we suspect has raped and abducted someone" they'd get the ruling.

 

If they approached the judge and said "We just fancy seeing what dave has been upto this week" they will be ruled against.

Sky news conveniently missed all of this information out to portray a government spying on people, it's bullshit.

Just cannot understand why people read headlines and do not go to the source to check, If they'd watched the commons debate they'd have seen Theresa may setting out the rules.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Sorry about the late reply mate haven't looked at the thread for a bit.

I don't have to do any research because I went through the process myself; a separate application was carried out on the Student Finance England website after which my mother sent a tax receipt (I think) to prove that I was eligible to get the grant.

This was in 2013 and I hope there has been no significant reform to the process since or I have made myself look a right prat but if can enlighten me otherwise then feel free.

It's all done at the same point as the loan, you do no extra for the grant

[Thracian]

If a Labour government was in power some would say that the spying was similar to living in a communist state. Oh the irony.

But as they are not in power the spying is done for national security and our safety. Hurrah hurrah. We cannot have these nasty foreigners running about causing mayhem everyday can we. Not to mention the lefties that speak of equality and fairness. How dare they?

I find it strange agreeing with some of you. The quicker they install cameras on every street corner and in everyones home the better it will be for the good old hard working man.

 

If a Labour government was in power some would say that the spying was similar to living in a communist state. Oh the irony.

But as they are not in power the spying is done for national security and our safety. Hurrah hurrah. We cannot have these nasty foreigners running about causing mayhem everyday can we. Not to mention the lefties that speak of equality and fairness. How dare they?

I find it strange agreeing with some of you. The quicker they install cameras on every street corner and in everyones home the better it will be for the good old hard working man.

 

Since when has the Labour Party represented "equality and fairness"?

 

I could write a book on the subject but how the hell did "fair and equal" come into Blair's deceiving the British people into supporting the murderous War in Iraq and the consequent wholesale destruction of entire communities, families and friends in so many places.

 

Thousands of lives ended, towns and cities flattened, historical sites destroyed, millions of pounds wasted that could have been spent on hospitals, education, improved services and so on. Where does  "fair and equal" come into it? 

 

The only thing that surprises me about Labour is that there's a single Englishman alive shameless enough to vote for them.                

[Rincewind]

I do not count Blair as true Labour.

[bovril]

Since when has the Labour Party represented "equality and fairness"?

 

I could write a book on the subject but how the hell did "fair and equal" come into Blair's deceiving the British people into supporting the murderous War in Iraq and the consequent wholesale destruction of entire communities, families and friends in so many places.

 

Thousands of lives ended, towns and cities flattened, historical sites destroyed, millions of pounds wasted that could have been spent on hospitals, education, improved services and so on. Where does  "fair and equal" come into it? 

 

The only thing that surprises me about Labour is that there's a single Englishman alive shameless enough to vote for them.                

 

I've always wondered what inspired your name and profile pic. Fan of Spartacus? Interested in pre-Christian history of the Balkans?

[Thracian]

I do not count Blair as true Labour.

 

I do not count Blair as true Labour.

 

 

That's convenient. I suppose you disowned him at the time and supported another Party.

And what about Blair's accomplices in that deception and others?.

Hell there are many Labourites who don't even want to govern a United Kingdom at all, but would rather fight a class war. Some of the more extreme examples might even have been piercing and maiming horses only the other day. How would you equate all that with "fairness and equality?  

[leicsmac]

Exactly, 

 

Mainstream media 1 - General public common sense 0

 

I watched the entire debate in the office on Wednesday, They basis of this bill is that they currently keep records of phone calls, yet do not have permission to keep records of internet usage etc.

The main argument is that crime is moving online, crime has advanced with technology, the law has not.

 

They are required by law to keep records of internet usage etc, but at present police do not have access to it, this bill will mean they can get access under extreme circumstances, such as abduction, to investigate these things.

 

They DO NOT, have permission to just sit and access everyone's internet usage and go and charge people.

This information that will be recorded will only be accessible in extreme circumstances when ruled by a judge. 

This is basic common sense that this is beneficial to public safety.

 

If the police approached a judge and said "we need to check internet usage of this person, who we suspect has raped and abducted someone" they'd get the ruling.

 

If they approached the judge and said "We just fancy seeing what dave has been upto this week" they will be ruled against.

Sky news conveniently missed all of this information out to portray a government spying on people, it's bullshit.

Just cannot understand why people read headlines and do not go to the source to check, If they'd watched the commons debate they'd have seen Theresa may setting out the rules.

 

Again, this is all assuming that the oversight will be perfect and that GCHQ will not simply be allowed to do as it pleases regarding information gathering.

 

You're putting a lot of trust in these people, and that's fair enough, but you have to understand that other people think differently given the power that they hold and how it has been abused by other people in the past.

[Webbo]

Again, this is all assuming that the oversight will be perfect and that GCHQ will not simply be allowed to do as it pleases regarding information gathering.

 

You're putting a lot of trust in these people, and that's fair enough, but you have to understand that other people think differently given the power that they hold and how it has been abused by other people in the past.

You're criticising the govt for putting in place a set of rules because GCHQ might break them?

[leicsmac]

You're criticising the govt for putting in place a set of rules because GCHQ might break them?

No, I'm criticising a long line of governments for not making the accountability process far more transparent than it is already (how can we know that the security services are playing by the rules when accountability isn't made public?), and also those who think that there shouldn't be transparent accountability because such organisations should be trusted blindly with the considerable power that they have.

If they want to work in the dark and believe they have to, that's fine. But they should expect and deal with the flak that comes their way about that and quite frankly, not bitch about it.

[Frank to be]

So if the police suspect someone of abduction, they're going to check their internet history? For what, exactly? Has the suspect googled 'abduction tips'? Even if they had, how would that prove anything. Surely, common sense would suggest that if you suspect someone of abduction, the first thing to do would be to get round there and have a look?

[Guest]

What on earth are you talking about?

 

You're so worried about so little.

 

You've more chance of being killed in a car accident this afternoon.

[Guest]

You go off Fif comes on,Fif goes off you come back. Hmm.

 

Anyway I can't worry about something that hasn't ,and may never, happen yet.

 

You've accused me of being him before.

 

I'm not.

 

Please stop making unfounded and false accusations.

 

I don't go around claiming you are claridge or some other right-wing crackpout because you have similar views.

[cityfanlee23]

Again, this is all assuming that the oversight will be perfect and that GCHQ will not simply be allowed to do as it pleases regarding information gathering.

 

You're putting a lot of trust in these people, and that's fair enough, but you have to understand that other people think differently given the power that they hold and how it has been abused by other people in the past.

 

 

I can see what you're saying and others are less trustful of government than me, I don't particularly trust them... But I have nothing to hide, I don't go on anything dodgy so I don't care if they see what I go on... The point is, This will fundamentally improve our current policing situation, at the moment they have no access to desperately important information when they need it in extreme cases....

 

Best case scenario - The police now have more info to help tackle crimes like rape/abduction.

 

Worse case scenario - They secretly give access to peoples private internet usage and other similar information, and those that do wrong get caught.... Unless there's something to hide I don't see the issue really, obviously to some people that is a policy they don't like and don't trust, but that's absolute worse case scenario.. and i'm sure there will be very close eyes on the process, with people (media and opposition especially) just waiting for the first slip up.

 

 

For me the risk of someone finding out I went on foxestalk is a risk worth taking if it means a bill is passed to help police in cases like abduction where they would usually have their hands tied behind their backs... 

The same resistance was given at the bill for phone records, Now nobody really complains about it, people have come to accept that those records have been used in extreme circumstances to great effect in most cases.

[cityfanlee23]

So if the police suspect someone of abduction, they're going to check their internet history? For what, exactly? Has the suspect googled 'abduction tips'? Even if they had, how would that prove anything. Surely, common sense would suggest that if you suspect someone of abduction, the first thing to do would be to get round there and have a look?

 

 

It's not just internet history is it, 

Chat logs on social media that they would not have access to. Surely you can't lack that much common sense? Frank come on.... 

 

There are plenty of ways police can use peoples internet history, social media messaging, emails etc... 

Obviously to access these would take a higher judge ruling, but at present they cannot access it. 

 

 

Pretty sure if you had a close family member that was abducted, and police suspected he/she had been speaking to somebody on facebook, but you did not have any access to it, you'd want police to have the ability to talk to companies to access that information quickly and swiftly, currently it's not simple for them to do so. 

 

Again, This is where my trust comes in, that this is available to them in extreme circumstances ruled by a judge to access, rather than just have a look at franks private messages with no suspicion.

[Darkon84]

There was a good session on the BBC Parliament channel last night around 6ish (I think the 3rd reading began around 5 but I didn't get in until 6) with my local MP Alberto Costa taking it to the SNP over the Scotland Bill.

He was a one man band and all the SNP could muster in response were jibes about the fact he is Scottish himself but living in England and a Conservative MP (despite the fact he's lived this side of the border for over 15 years), completed, of course, with constant interruptions. Incredibly mature, though to be expected from that lot. When pressed time and time again regarding what their plans were and where all the extra money has gone since they received further devolution, they simply huffed and puffed and blamed it all on London and the English Some things will never change.

[cityfanlee23]

There was a good session on the BBC Parliament channel last night around 6ish (I think the 3rd reading began around 5 but I didn't get in until 6) with my local MP Alberto Costa taking it to the SNP over the Scotland Bill.

He was a one man band and all the SNP could muster in response were jibes about the fact he is Scottish himself but living in England and a Conservative MP (despite the fact he's lived this side of the border for over 15 years), completed, of course, with constant interruptions. Incredibly mature, though to be expected from that lot. When pressed time and time again regarding what their plans were and where all the extra money has gone since they received further devolution, they simply huffed and puffed and blamed it all on London and the English Some things will never change.

 

 

The hilarious thing is that they managed to convince nearly half of scotland they would be better off under these idiots 

 

Scotland took a 16bn subsidy last year, since then oil prices have dropped, and they have been given full devolution over taxes, They don't want to pay their own subsidy by taxing the scottish people heavier, yet they still take their subsidy   

 

They are absolutely spineless, I remember in PMQ's about 5 weeks ago or something, The SNP stood up, and said that the PM had lied and not given the powers in the "vow" to the scottish parliament, They based this claim on the fact that "Only 9% of scots believe it's been fulfilled" I nearly spat my drink out laughing, 

PM stood up and said along the lines of "Which vows have not been fulfilled" and they could not answer! they just regurgitated 3x that the scottish people "THINK" the vow has now been met!

 

The fact of the matter is, Scotland was never going to run a surplus as it was, and the fact they now have had a huge hit on oil prices means they will more than likely need that subsidy again this year, Yet they refuse to put taxes up to pay for it! They want it both ways, As a nation I hope Scotland do get their independence, If they feel we hold them back then so be it, they can have their bloody independence and deal with the consequences should they arise.

 

The only thing I don't want, is for the Scottish people to then get worse off because of the SNP. 

They come across as "Anti Austerity" to get votes from the scottish people, yet they vote for austerity measures, and vote against proposed bills that do not require austerity, they are a spineless party and just regurgitate what that fool Alex salmond feeds them.

[leicsmac]

The hilarious thing is that they managed to convince nearly half of scotland they would be better off under these idiots 

 

Scotland took a 16bn subsidy last year, since then oil prices have dropped, and they have been given full devolution over taxes, They don't want to pay their own subsidy by taxing the scottish people heavier, yet they still take their subsidy   

 

They are absolutely spineless, I remember in PMQ's about 5 weeks ago or something, The SNP stood up, and said that the PM had lied and not given the powers in the "vow" to the scottish parliament, They based this claim on the fact that "Only 9% of scots believe it's been fulfilled" I nearly spat my drink out laughing, 

PM stood up and said along the lines of "Which vows have not been fulfilled" and they could not answer! they just regurgitated 3x that the scottish people "THINK" the vow has now been met!

 

The fact of the matter is, Scotland was never going to run a surplus as it was, and the fact they now have had a huge hit on oil prices means they will more than likely need that subsidy again this year, Yet they refuse to put taxes up to pay for it! They want it both ways, As a nation I hope Scotland do get their independence, If they feel we hold them back then so be it, they can have their bloody independence and deal with the consequences should they arise.

 

The only thing I don't want, is for the Scottish people to then get worse off because of the SNP. 

They come across as "Anti Austerity" to get votes from the scottish people, yet they vote for austerity measures, and vote against proposed bills that do not require austerity, they are a spineless party and just regurgitate what that fool Alex salmond feeds them.

 

Yep. Let this be a learning experience of what happens when nationalism of any screed gets too big a voice in the larger political process.

[Guest MattP]

There was a good session on the BBC Parliament channel last night around 6ish (I think the 3rd reading began around 5 but I didn't get in until 6) with my local MP Alberto Costa taking it to the SNP over the Scotland Bill.

He was a one man band and all the SNP could muster in response were jibes about the fact he is Scottish himself but living in England and a Conservative MP (despite the fact he's lived this side of the border for over 15 years), completed, of course, with constant interruptions. Incredibly mature, though to be expected from that lot. When pressed time and time again regarding what their plans were and where all the extra money has gone since they received further devolution, they simply huffed and puffed and blamed it all on London and the English Some things will never change.

 

Costa is great isn't he? I don't know how he kept his cool throughout the bill with the amount of giving way . It hasn't had much coverage down here but Labour not voting with the SNP last night is another nail in the coffin, they really don't seem to realise the damage that this causes.

 

Labour now just 1% ahead of the Tories in Scotland in the latest polls. Next spring will be very interesting.

[Guest MattP]

Yep. Let this be a learning experience of what happens when nationalism of any screed gets too big a voice in the larger political process.

 

Or what happens when a nation's people want more independence and they are lied too in order to try and convince them they don't need or want it.

 

I hope that's taken on board during the Euro referendum, I won't hold my breath.

[leicsmac]

Or what happens when a nation's people want more independence and they are lied too in order to try and convince them they don't need or want it.

 

I hope that's taken on board during the Euro referendum, I won't hold my breath.

 

Hang on, are you saying that all this isn't the SNP's fault? They want independence and they're running the show up there, after all...

[Guest MattP]

Hang on, are you saying that all this isn't the SNP's fault? They want independence and they're running the show up there, after all...

 

What is the SNP's fault? Have I ever blamed them for anything?

 

The behaviour of the Westminster MP's was absolutely appalling during the referendum, one rogue poll and they all travelled up together promising devo-max, something that was agreed to be taken off the ballot paper to have a straight yes/no question, it was an appalling piece of procedural prestidigitation.

 

I fully expect something similar in the summer of 2017 as well when the people start to decided they can't still be hoodwinked by the establishment.

[leicsmac]

What is the SNP's fault? Have I ever blamed them for anything?

 

The behaviour of the Westminster MP's was absolutely appalling during the referendum, one rogue poll and they all travelled up together promising devo-max, something that was agreed to be taken off the ballot paper to have a straight yes/no question, it was an appalling piece of procedural prestidigitation.

 

I fully expect something similar in the summer of 2017 as well when the people start to decided they can't still be hoodwinked by the establishment.

 

You seem pretty leery of their attitude in Westminster if some of your posts are anything to go by. Is it that you're unhappy with their image, rather than their message and policy?