Now you are just being deliberately silly - or are you?

For the zillionth time; :shrug: There is a huge gulf in meaning between Fear and Concern. I have stated that I am concerned about terrorism and also stated that I am not fFrightened - in the sense that you tried to imply.

Fear keeps one awake at nights and robs him of peace of mind and confidence.

I sleep soundly for my few hours per night and I live my life to the max.

I am out of this non-debate now. It has become ludicrous.

'Criminals and terrorists, as well as most legitimate businesses – banking in particular – depend more than ever on encrypted communications, that no amount of cooperation from the tech companies can easily decode. Mr Parker’s suggestion in his BBC interview that communication carriers have an ethical obligation to report suspicious activity carries no weight if they are no more able to detect it than the security agencies. '


'In a shocking revelation, the UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) today notified Amnesty International that UK government agencies had spied on the organization by intercepting, accessing and storing its communications.'

The security services can and do intercept calls and messages... what they want is to be able to do is continue doing this without either adhering to procedure or with the full consent of the UK govt, preferably both.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ne...international/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ortant-to-rush

Yep and at the moment, the UK courts have ruled it legal but are now in a pickle because Amnesty are taking it to the European Court of Human Rights where they will likely rule that the UK's spying programme is in contravention of European law, which would then make it illegal.

I feel like we have more than enough surveillance as it is.

Which is why the govt want rid of the human rights laws too, tories bleat about a nanny state... what would they want in all honesty? A jailer state it seems where everyone is confined to a very narrow path with every movement monitored and recorded :/

The paranoia on this thread is kind of worrying...

Oh don't get me started on this one :joker:

Cameron is meddling with our common/domestic law by telling Joe public we need more power in deportation rights, to have the authority to deport people to countries where there's a reasonable expectation of the deportee being tortured. What Joe public needs to understand is, even if the Human Rights Act was re-written and re-named and even if we withdrew from the ECHR we still couldn't deport such people because we are still bound by the UN convention and the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture.

The Human Rights Act is for everyone and so when our new bill propose new law which will enable the courts to detain Islamic suspects indefinitely and without trial, it also means it holds the right to detain its citizens indefinitely and without trial too.

The HRA permits the public to make peaceful protests. From what I've managed to gather so far, such assemblies won't be permitted under this new law.

This isn't just about criminals. People really do need to research the implications of what will happen if the British Courts break formal links with the European Court of Human Rights’.

The naivety on this thread is astounding.

and don't get me started either. Tony Blair and the previous labour government meddled plenty with peoples personal freedoms, and wanted to go further than they did too!

There has never been any law more exploited by the undeserving than Human Rights Law. As with the Benefits System and a host more, the idea and theory is commendable, the execution and reality, lamentable.

It ends up benefitting the most underserving... which I'm sure isn't what it was meant to do when Cherie Blair got her husband to push it through for her.

Absolutely agree. Traitor Blair did incomprehensible damage whilst he was in power.

I don't understand how anyone could support this, they literally used the two most generic buzz words in the media to try to convince the naive people of the public that this would be a good idea.

'Let us invade your privacy even more than we already do! Because of ugh....Terrorists? AND PEADOPHILES!!!'

Surrendering our rights to fight terrorists is an oxymoron in itself.

The implication that those who are against this are right and everyone else is naïve is getting a little tedious. We all have an opinion based on what we know and what we believe. And terrorists and paedophiles are not myths.

I follow politics and I should point out that I like some of the Tory policies but not all. I also agree with some LD policies but not all and I agree strongly with some of Corbyn's policies but certainly not all.

When labour was in power I was just as vocal about their poor choices and oh boy, did they make some. I'm now pointing out Tory policies that I personally find troublesome and problematic. I've grown not to like Cameron because he's as equally misleading his public as Traitor Blair did back in 2004 but that doesn't cement how I will feel about future Tory parties.

What I won't do is support a party regardless. If people want to do that, carry right on!

Yep, clever marketing!

It is naive though to think that these surveillance powers, if granted, won't be misused. The terrorist/peadophile line is just an excuse, there hasn't been a major attack in the UK for years now so why do we need to ave our privacy invaded even more? Why can't MI5 do their jobs properly without becoming the Gestappo?

People have died to protect our rights, it's an insult to their memory to throw them away out of fear and for a false sense of security.

Why do you think there hasn't been an attack for a long time? It's not a coincidence. If they need more powers and there is a discussion about it and it becomes law... then I really don't have a problem with it. And my own liberty is just as much at risk as yours.

Please Dezzy, don't liken our security services to the gestapo. That truly is ridiculous.

People are STILL dying to protect our rights. Sometimes those defending us need extra help and intelligence from our security services and I'm not against giving them that.

I am somewhat in the middle in all of this. I think the government and agencies are being underhand in linking terrorists with paedophiles to try and get traction for their proposals. They are completely different threats requiring completely different types of detection methods and the threats are handled by separate agencies.

If surveillance techniques need to be enhanced, and it is perfectly possible that it is needed, then the scope and use need to be defined to the n'th degree so that people can be comfortable that the data is being used solely for the purpose intended and cannot be used in relation to any other matter.

I also think that if enhancement is deemed necessary, it needs to be backed up with verifiable metrics showing what threats and incidents would have been stopped if we had these enhanced measures. At the moment, to my knowledge, there has been next to no events on UK soil that have been successful in the last 5 years. Even with the best security in the world, some incidents can always happen, so what exactly will the benefits of increased surveillance be.

Where does human rights protect benefit fraud? and how would a new human rights act deter the exploiters? What on earth has benefit fraud got to do with human rights?

Do you even know what 'The Human Rights Act' is?

It's just a strawman thrown in as leftist ideology, like human rights....

They didn't need these powers before and I'm not gonna believe they need it now because they used a few buzzwords to work people into an hysteria. Like Bitontheside said, if they really need it then they'll give us full and frank justifications of why it's needed and it should be regulated to prevent them becoming even more like the NSA. I'm not willing going to give up my rights because of some boogeyman buzzwords.

Oh Groan. :bored:

The present law in Britain states very clearly 'the right to a private and family life'.

Last year, when the British government got caught collecting and storing data from peoples private lives, they found themselves in breach of The Human Rights Act and told to cease immediately and delete the information they had collected.

I suppose the question is, should the ECHR have jurisdiction over British Human Rights?

The present law in Britain states very clearly 'the right to a private and family life'.

Last year, when the British government got caught collecting and storing data from peoples private lives, they found themselves in breach of The Human Rights Act and told to cease immediately and delete the information they had collected.

I suppose the question is, should the ECHR have jurisdiction over British Human Rights?