UK Terrorism

[ReservoirFrog]

Could you explain how we have more freedom now?

Given that lawfully i can't protest in parliament square without permission, my internet communications are logged and accessible by over 300 agencies and thousands of staff, i walk through cctv everyday where my face is logged and cross referenced to a database, where if im arrested but not charged my DNA is held on an illegal database, where owning a book can mean i could be seen to have terroist tendencies and can be held for 28 days and possibly longer with no charges being brought?

Who scrutinises the security services? MP's? The goverment? The same goverment who allowed a british national to be tortured with no proof he was a terrorist? The same goverment who witheld information from a court case due to the nature of our 'transatlantic partnership'? The same goverment who will allow the police into parliament because someone is leaking information for the public good but they dont like the info being released?

Just for the record, im no anti capitalist, tree hugger or anything like that. However at the pace this country is going we will be in a 1984 scenario sooner, rather than later.

The only thing that has changed since the 40s is the technology.
The extra freedom you enjoy now is that if you were interned on suspicion of terrorism then, no body would know. You would have disappeared and they wouldn't have had to ship you to Cuba to torture you. The internet you are so worried about being monitored is part of it too. You would have no awareness of half the things you've mentioned without it.
If there is an illegal DNA database, how do you happen to know about it?

From what you are saying, you think that you should be told everything you want to know, but information about you should be sacred.

What gets me about the 'you're more likely to be struck by lightning than a terrorist' argument is that someone is likely to get hit but as long as it's not likely to be you, you shouldn't be concerned?

Every time there is a terrorist plot, successful or foiled, I feel it personally and I am willing to give whatever it takes to minimise the threat and maximise those charged with protecting me and mine every advantage in the fight.
I believe that there is a damn site more chance of these measures saving lives than destroying them. As I've said before, there are bound to be mistakes and wrongful accusations, just like in every legal system in the world, no system is perfect, but all in all, they will do more good than bad. As a collective we will be better off.

 

[niallist]

Back from getting shot all weekend. Mario and Cusack have given better responses than i could have managed. Cheers for the discussion Reservoir Frog.

As for "banning immigrants", jesus wept, what kind of response is that?

i'm outtahere.

 

[ReservoirFrog]

Who have we brought out of the dark ages and taught to be a real country?

They follow a religion (some closer than others) not stupid laws and the book is called the Qur'an, it was revealed to Muhammad by the angel Jibrīl and was written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive.

Which is a self destruct nation and who have they destroyed?

Who exactly is from the third world? I'm sure a lot of the protesters were born in Britain.
If your referring to others then which country? Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan? I'm sure you'll find they are not third world at all.

I find your comments uneducated and hateful

I agree with the sentiment of your post entirely. But I do think it is worth pointing out that Islam is not just a religion. In it's fullest form, It is a 100% total way of life. It has financial, legal, social, political and military components. The religious side serves to bind the others together and give direction and control.
This is what makes it so dangerous, because the radicals believe that the whole world should live by Islamic ways and mean to spread it by whatever means.

 

[matty s]

the radicals believe that the whole world should live by Islamic ways and mean to spread it by whatever means.

i would hate to be islamic (not slaging of them ) but i also wouldnt want women to dress like rugs with eye holes

 

[AsylumDave]

i would hate to be islamic (not slaging of them ) but i also wouldnt want women to dress like rugs with eye holes

This: http://i509.photobucket.com/albums/s331/francis2k8/10341.gif

 

[Mario]

The only thing that has changed since the 40s is the technology.
The extra freedom you enjoy now is that if you were interned on suspicion of terrorism then, no body would know. You would have disappeared and they wouldn't have had to ship you to Cuba to torture you. The internet you are so worried about being monitored is part of it too. You would have no awareness of half the things you've mentioned without it.
If there is an illegal DNA database, how do you happen to know about it?

From what you are saying, you think that you should be told everything you want to know, but information about you should be sacred.

What gets me about the 'you're more likely to be struck by lightning than a terrorist' argument is that someone is likely to get hit but as long as it's not likely to be you, you shouldn't be concerned?

Its precisely because of technology we have less freedom. Technology allows unrestricted access of our lives by the state. Previously that couldn't happen.

 

[ReservoirFrog]

Its precisely because of technology we have less freedom. Technology allows unrestricted access of our lives by the state. Previously that couldn't happen.

And yet you choose to create extra presence on it, like this. Other than CCTV, the use of most forms of technology are opted for. Mostly for convenience.
Can you imagine how powerful a tool the internet would be to criminal elements if it went unmonitored? Sadly, those elements don't put flags on their emails etc. saying 'of interest to law enforcement' so everything has to be watched so we can spot or recall the important stuff when it occurs.
As was mentioned in another thread about the recording of online activity, it takes massive resources to do so. Even more to use that information and turn it into intelligence.
So as much as it has created new ways to collect information, I think opening up the internet to the public has made it more difficult to monitor potentially dangerous comunications. This coupled with the unfathomable amount of information you now have instant access to and I'd say the freedom balance is still tipped in your favour.

 

[Whitt8211]

I agree with the sentiment of your post entirely. But I do think it is worth pointing out that Islam is not just a religion. In it's fullest form, It is a 100% total way of life. It has financial, legal, social, political and military components. The religious side serves to bind the others together and give direction and control.
This is what makes it so dangerous, because the radicals believe that the whole world should live by Islamic ways and mean to spread it by whatever means.

Christianity, Judaism.... these are also ways of life, but radicals are dangerous, full stop. The very word radical implies danger because it suggests a lack of compassion and an inability to consider other viewpoints. Radicals are blinded by the strength of their own beliefs.

 

[Matski]

I think it's hard to draw the line clearly between protecting society and trampling all over freedom. At the end of the day you can only stop/prevent this kind of thing via intelligence gathering. It's hard to achieve one without doing the other to some extent, but they are definitely going too far in some instances...keeping DNA after acquittal for example has no legal basis, it's profiling for the sake of it.

As for torture, many may disagree but I feel this is justified in some instances given the nature of the threat. The press fail to highlight that these people are not randomly picked up going into Marks and Spencer's to buy a meal deal, they have good reason to pick them up and interrogate them - the guy released recently was travelling under a false identity despite also having a real British passport, he had also spent a lot of time in regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan known for terrorist groups/training. If somebody burgles your house and the police pick the guy up but do not have enough evidence to charge him, then he is legally innocent of any crime. This does not mean he is not a burglar and it does not mean houses are any safer. Just because there is insufficient evidence (or lack evidence submissible in court - often the case with surveillance) to charge some of these people, does not mean they are innocent of wrong-doing, they are innocent in legal terms and people should keep that in mind before jumping on the "he's the victim/human rights bandwagon".

 

[Mario]

And yet you choose to create extra presence on it, like this. Other than CCTV, the use of most forms of technology are opted for. Mostly for convenience.
Can you imagine how powerful a tool the internet would be to criminal elements if it went unmonitored? Sadly, those elements don't put flags on their emails etc. saying 'of interest to law enforcement' so everything has to be watched so we can spot or recall the important stuff when it occurs.
As was mentioned in another thread about the recording of online activity, it takes massive resources to do so. Even more to use that information and turn it into intelligence.
So as much as it has created new ways to collect information, I think opening up the internet to the public has made it more difficult to monitor potentially dangerous comunications. This coupled with the unfathomable amount of information you now have instant access to and I'd say the freedom balance is still tipped in your favour.

I agree with matski a lot of the time cause he's a real soulful dude. My real problem isn't with the gathering of intelligence. Its the amount of people who have access to it who shouldn't have access to it.

I still think a lot of our freedoms are slowly being whittled away but as one person i dont make any difference. I think 10 years from now, people will start to realise what they have given up and will start to wonder what they have given it up for...

RF, you're an intelligent dude and i respect your viewpoint. Im not going to agree with it entirely, so i'll agree to disagree with you on some of your points Hopefully, some more threads like this will come up. They give me something to think about and to sometimes make an idiot of myself in

p.s. i do realise the hypocrisy in some of my posts just to be clear. I think that realistically only three groups of people who should be able to acces my info on the net. The police, MI5 and MI6. They are the ones dealing with terrorism. Local councils and other public bodies have no right looking at anything about me online.