MP bugged visiting contituent in prison..........

[Head Honcho]

It is.

Believe me Raj it is not illegal to bug an MP.

The Wilson doctrine will explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Doctrine

[Rincewind]

To bug or not too bug that is the question. What is bugging? Each time you get throught to an answering machine your voice is being recorded. What about 'This conversation is being rtecorded for training purposes'? what kind of training? How far are private detectives allowed to go? each time you shop at Tescos or Asda and use a credit/debit card your details are recorded. Very soon it may be possible for the authorities to know whose logged onto porn sites on the net. So there could be a drastic fall of Foxestalk members signed in soon after.

[Steven]

Steven, your posts are becoming less and less credible.

The very fact that terrorism has occurred in this country in London and Glasgow shows there is a threat from Islamist groups. You only have to read their literature and speak to them to see their belief and see the actions they are prepared to take. If you believe MI6 tried to blow up Glasgow airport or blew up London, or that those gentlemen under trial in Leicester Crown Court for plotting to kidnap Muslims serving in the armed forces to "cut their head off like a pig", then I think you foolish.

If you think fantasists are a threat then you must be paranoid. The events in Glasgow were that of desperate men where any reasonable person could not call them a "terrorist" attack unless they wanted to induce fear. The single bombing in July proves that there is little threat, certainly in the style of the IRA, and that to call it a continuing threat is an attempt to induce fear to continue with policies that authoritarians in the Government, Police and Intelligence services will use to enslave and control formerly free peoples.

Currently these people are using their powers disproportionally and are doing the very work that the terrorists themselves seek to do. That is why there is no threat.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

[Head Honcho]

If you think fantasists are a threat then you must be paranoid. The events in Glasgow were that of desperate men where any reasonable person could not call them a "terrorist" attack unless they wanted to induce fear. The single bombing in July proves that there is little threat, certainly in the style of the IRA, and that to call it a continuing threat is an attempt to induce fear to continue with policies that authoritarians in the Government, Police and Intelligence services will use to enslave and control formerly free peoples.

Currently these people are using their powers disproportionally and are doing the very work that the terrorists themselves seek to do. That is why there is no threat.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

I think it's you who's paranoid Steven!

Are you telling me the Al Kaeda videos we see on Al Jazeera are faked?

Osama Bin Laden isn't some fictitious patsy dreamed up by the security forces to keep us all in check.

[LeeCovFox]

I think it's you who's paranoid Steven!

Are you telling me the Al Kaeda videos we see on Al Jazeera are faked?

Osama Bin Laden isn't some fictitious patsy dreamed up by the security forces to keep us all in check.

Actually there is an awful lot of professional doubt about the Al-Qaeda videos shown on televison. And how can people take your argument seriously if you cannot even spell Al Qaeda?

[breadandcheese]

If you think fantasists are a threat then you must be paranoid. The events in Glasgow were that of desperate men where any reasonable person could not call them a "terrorist" attack unless they wanted to induce fear. The single bombing in July proves that there is little threat, certainly in the style of the IRA, and that to call it a continuing threat is an attempt to induce fear to continue with policies that authoritarians in the Government, Police and Intelligence services will use to enslave and control formerly free peoples.

Currently these people are using their powers disproportionally and are doing the very work that the terrorists themselves seek to do. That is why there is no threat.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

I did not once say fantasists are a threat. I do however think those who spread an ideology based on hatred are a potential threat.

If you would not call the attack in Glasgow a terrorist attack, what would you call it? How would you define a terrorist attack? If the men in Glasgow had been successful in their aim and killed a good number of innocent people, would it then be a terrorist attack? How about if it only killed 2 people, would it then not be a terrorist attack?

The IRA threat was also a continuing threat until the decision by the IRA to cease violent means. Just because bombs are not exploding, does not mean that logistical efforts are not going on behind the scenes to re-arm, train, secure funding, pick targets, track movements of targets, etc. So security forces must be constantly monitoring these groups at all times, until the cessation of violence.

I agree that the police and government need no more new powers, that ID cards are an invasion of right to anonymity, that legislation to detain people without charge is wrong. However, this does not mean that the threat is not real.

"Currently these people are using their powers disproportionally and are doing the very work that the terrorists themselves seek to do. That is why there is no threat." - This line confuses me, are you saying that because the government and police are using disproportionate powers, there is no threat? In which case, you are making a strong argument to suggest we should allow the police these powers as it is working to keep us safe.

[Steven]

"Currently these people are using their powers disproportionally and are doing the very work that the terrorists themselves seek to do. That is why there is no threat." - This line confuses me, are you saying that because the government and police are using disproportionate powers, there is no threat? In which case, you are making a strong argument to suggest we should allow the police these powers as it is working to keep us safe.

The only people inducing fear and disrupting the democratic way of life, so called terrorist aims, are the Government and their allies.

[Head Honcho]

Actually there is an awful lot of professional doubt about the Al-Qaeda videos shown on televison. And how can people take your argument seriously if you cannot even spell Al Qaeda?

There is no literal English spelling of al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah Einstein

[l444ry]

Al -Quaeda Admits mistake:"It was the Irish we were after"

In a video released to news organisations, global terror group Al Quaeda has apologised to Western democracies, Christians and Jews for all recent bombings, murders and terror attacks.

Said a masked spokesman. "It was the Irish we were after. There was a typing error somewhere. Sorry about all the fuss."

[LeeCovFox]

There is no literal English spelling of al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah Einstein

Either way, it certainly isn't Al-Kaeda is it?

[LeeCovFox]

Look, to be honest. I have no desire to get drawn into a petty row about spelling, or personal insults on any level. And yes, I know that it was me who went down that route first, and I shouldn't have. We are having a debate and we should respect each others differences on the matter. I disagree strongly with your views on this matter, but I respect your right to hold them and I do not right them off as ridiculous and im plausible. I simply do not believe the things that you believe. Thats fine. I'm sure you're a nice chap and all that. But I have felt that you have been very dismissive of the views which I and Steven, amongst others, have expressed. That is more than a little disrespectful in my opinion. I do not expect your agreement on the opinions which I express, but I do expect them to be treated as something more than laughable by other intelligent adults, of which I'm sure you are one.

[Head Honcho]

Look, to be honest. I have no desire to get drawn into a petty row about spelling, or personal insults on any level. And yes, I know that it was me who went down that route first, and I shouldn't have. We are having a debate and we should respect each others differences on the matter. I disagree strongly with your views on this matter, but I respect your right to hold them and I do not right them off as ridiculous and im plausible. I simply do not believe the things that you believe. Thats fine. I'm sure you're a nice chap and all that. But I have felt that you have been very dismissive of the views which I and Steven, amongst others, have expressed. That is more than a little disrespectful in my opinion. I do not expect your agreement on the opinions which I express, but I do expect them to be treated as something more than laughable by other intelligent adults, of which I'm sure you are one.

Well at least we agree on some things