That's an iffy one - not proven if my memory serves me correctly.:)
It's not been proven but the whole story about him is, as you say, iffy. His deputy and subsequent head was also alledged to be less than loyal. I think it was Gordievski, Mitrokhan or a similar defector that made it less unlikely. Been a while since I read about it.
It's not been proven but the whole story about him is, as you say, iffy. His deputy and subsequent head was also alledged to be less than loyal. I think it was Gordievski, Mitrokhan or a similar defector that made it less unlikely. Been a while since I read about it.
I think MI5 officer Peter Wright and Chapman Pincher, the journalist, were the only ones who were convinced - on circumstantial evidence only - that Hollis was a double agent. And they wrote books about it both of which I read long ago. The defector Oleg Gordievsky denied Hollis was a mole, I believe, and couldn't understand what those two were on about!
In the UK it costs £150 to register a political party and £25 a year to stay on the register. It costs £500 to stand as an MP in a general election so with 650 seats that is £320,000 to stand in every constituency, if an MP gets 5% or more of the vote you get £500 back for that MP. In the scheme of things that is not much money for a popular movement to raise, and on an individual seat basis it is not prohibitive for any Tom, Dick or Harry to stand if they want to.
Come off it. You know as well as I do that if any serious real opposition threatens the Tory-Labour people, they will team up to squeeze that person out. They have lots of donors who all stands to benefit from them remaining in power and they can and do stop real opposition parties from getting off the ground.
It is government by consent and it enables peaceful change of government via the ballot box. That is better than the alternatives.
It doesn't work like that. Any change that is proposed has to go through the current system before being approved, which means if the current system wants to stop it, it will. Sorry but sometimes force is the only way to change government. We shouldn't judge a governments legitimacy by whether or not they used force to take power, but on their reasons for doing so.
They are not planning on legislating against views other people might find hateful.They are legislating against people extolling hate of others or our society in general. It is not the person saying gay people should have rights they would be legislating against but the person promoting and spreading that gay people are going to go to hell and that God said to kill gay people and that people who attack gay people are heroes, the person who is spreading hate. We already have laws intended to protect gay people from hate, they want to give society protection form hate, that is those who promote hate of our society our way of life our population.
This is exactly what I described. If you think someone is extolling "hate" then you find their opinion hateful, therefore you want them to be stopped because YOU think they have hateful beliefs. Which brings us to the big problem of what exactly is "hateful". Opinions change drastically over time. Not so long ago, many would consider you teaching your kids that gays have the same rights as everyone else to be extolling hatred towards society. You wouldn't want your views legislated against like that just because some guy out there thinks you're extolling hate with your beliefs.
If someone wants to preach that gays go to hell I absolutely support his right to do so while I'll make clear that I disagree with the actual content of the speech. I'd do this because I'm smart enough to realization that legislation silencing his opinions could also be used to silence my pro-equal rights counter argument and I wouldn't want that. There is nothing wrong with people voicing their hatred of our way of life and our society. Our way isn't the only way, we can't be so arrogant as to criminalize people who voice their opinions of the way our society works.
Is this only for Islamic extremists or is it for anyone the Government deem to be liable to cause dissent?
There could be serious misuse of this.
For example.Strikes are going to be harder to have, if someone from a union agitates about illegal strikes is that fomenting dissent and thus the union becomes a banned organisation?
This needs a lot of scrutiny.
Exactly, Strikes harder to have, mass surveillance, a redefinition (or not clearly as the case will likely be) of law surrounding freedom of speech. The first week of the next 5 years.
Exactly, Strikes harder to have, mass surveillance, a redefinition (or not clearly as the case will likely be) of law surrounding freedom of speech. The first week of the next 5 years.
I feel really sorry for all those decent Tory voters out there, the millions who were taken in by Cameron's scare tactics about the SNP, and his pathetic 'note' stunt which was so obviously set up.
(ask anyone who knows about setting up a shot on live TV and being able to focus and zoom in on a note being held in someone's hand when you weren't ready and cued up for it, and with a camera angle that was never used again)
Those decent people who are going to wake up, one day in the next 5 years and think..... f-kin HELL, I never voted for this, the rest of us won't be very surprised at all.
Come off it. You know as well as I do that if any serious real opposition threatens the Tory-Labour people, they will team up to squeeze that person out. They have lots of donors who all stands to benefit from them remaining in power and they can and do stop real opposition parties from getting off the ground.
It doesn't work like that. Any change that is proposed has to go through the current system before being approved, which means if the current system wants to stop it, it will. Sorry but sometimes force is the only way to change government. We shouldn't judge a governments legitimacy by whether or not they used force to take power, but on their reasons for doing so.
This is exactly what I described. If you think someone is extolling "hate" then you find their opinion hateful, therefore you want them to be stopped because YOU think they have hateful beliefs. Which brings us to the big problem of what exactly is "hateful". Opinions change drastically over time. Not so long ago, many would consider you teaching your kids that gays have the same rights as everyone else to be extolling hatred towards society. You wouldn't want your views legislated against like that just because some guy out there thinks you're extolling hate with your beliefs.
If someone wants to preach that gays go to hell I absolutely support his right to do so while I'll make clear that I disagree with the actual content of the speech. I'd do this because I'm smart enough to realization that legislation silencing his opinions could also be used to silence my pro-equal rights counter argument and I wouldn't want that. There is nothing wrong with people voicing their hatred of our way of life and our society. Our way isn't the only way, we can't be so arrogant as to criminalize people who voice their opinions of the way our society works.
No explanation of what is "hateful" or of what "British values" are, they are just glib comments used to justify sweeping changes to the freedoms that we ALL enjoy.
I am British, born and bred, but I know this, if I shared the same "values" as May and Cameron, I would be thoroughly ashamed of myself, I certainly have nothing in common with religious extremists and bigots, and nor do I with right wing ones.
I feel really sorry for all those decent Tory voters out there, the millions who were taken in by Cameron's scare tactics about the SNP, and his pathetic 'note' stunt which was so obviously set up.
(ask anyone who knows about setting up a shot on live TV and being able to focus and zoom in on a note being held in someone's hand when you weren't ready and cued up for it, and with a camera angle that was never used again)
Those decent people who are going to wake up, one day in the next 5 years and think..... f-kin HELL, I never voted for this, the rest of us won't be very surprised at all.
I don't normally fall too far on your side of the political sphere OHG, but when the blues and reds went down the beginnings of these (freedoms) routes in the 90s I was equally appalled. Nonetheless, if things turn out as you say (and I tend to agree) then there's easy votes to be picked up by Labour and UKIP if they get their acts together during this window. Plenty of other political factors to drive these votes too if the Tories don't get some other pressing issues sorted, eg: housing.
I remember many years ago some idiot Mail journalist (possibly Littlejohn, or poss before his time) used to keep using the phrase "Thought Police" (from George Orwell's 1984?) but only with regard "pc gone mad" and how "you aren't even allowed to think certain things nowadays".
How i mocked the stupidity of it. Although if Cameron's quoted comments are correct then i'm suddenly not laughing now. But i'm not missing the irony of the DM being correct but only when their beloved leader gets fully into power.
Still at least the Human Rights Act allows us the freedoms to have our own beliefs if we stay within the law............. oh!
We voted for this. We voted for Tory ideology. Enjoy it.
I think that many people were looking at the coalition and thought the Conservatives were the same thing, and did not realise they were something else entirely.
Nasty party is an understatement this time around. Probably the most dangerous political group this country has ever seen (in modern times); currently in power.
I remember many years ago some idiot Mail journalist (possibly Littlejohn, or poss before his time) used to keep using the phrase "Thought Police" (from George Orwell's 1984?) but only with regard "pc gone mad" and how "you aren't even allowed to think certain things nowadays".
More and more people are seeing the direction we are moving in and correctly making the comparison to 1984 but there will always be some who are utterly incapable of accepting the notion that their government may not have their best interests at heart or would play dirty to increase their power. There's something wrong when a "democracy" has legislation criminalizing the "wrong" types of opinion, puts spy cameras in bins to monitor how much rubbish you're putting out, and wants to ban secret communication.
How i mocked the stupidity of it. Although if Cameron's quoted comments are correct then i'm suddenly not laughing now. But i'm not missing the irony of the DM being correct but only when their beloved leader gets fully into power.
With his recent erratic behaviour I'm seriously considering the possibility that Cameron is having some sort of stress related breakdown. The thought of him being in power for another 5 years when he might not be "all with it" for lack of a better phrase, concerns me deeply.
Is the Labour party any different? They are towing the party line with all the Political Correctness, with being pro-EU, pro-mass-immigration. It's the same policies and it came from the same place. The elite plan. The EEC idea was created and funded by them.
Come off it. You know as well as I do that if any serious real opposition threatens the Tory-Labour people, they will team up to squeeze that person out. They have lots of donors who all stands to benefit from them remaining in power and they can and do stop real opposition parties from getting off the ground..
Once we got universal suffrage the establishment failed to stop Labour from gaining power. And in more recent times Labour and the Conservatives have failed to stop the LibDems, the SNP, UKIP, the Greens, Sinnn Fein, etc. from having MPs elected.. The reason the main two parties stay in power is because more of their candidates manage to attract the most voters in their constituencies we have government by the will of the people and by consent. With universal suffrage and it only costing £500 to stand as an MP and £150 to form a political party there is no substantial barrier to new people and new parties. if you can gander public support for your political aims you can run the UK you do not need to use force of arms.
It doesn't work like that. Any change that is proposed has to go through the current system before being approved, which means if the current system wants to stop it, it will. Sorry but sometimes force is the only way to change government. We shouldn't judge a governments legitimacy by whether or not they used force to take power, but on their reasons for doing so.
I was talking about change in government rather than system of government But even the system can be altered devolution for example, and the referendum on AV voting, and even the up coming in/out vote on the EU.
You think it is OK for someone to take power not by the way of the will of the people but to seize power by force of arms guns and bombs and rule by undemocratic means with no freely given consent of the people. As it is what they do when in power that counts, whatever warped vision of Utopia they could not convince the masses to agree with that they want to impose on the masses by force.
I think I will stick with democracy and hope that those who want to overthrow it by force do not succeed.
This is exactly what I described. If you think someone is extolling "hate" then you find their opinion hateful, therefore you want them to be stopped because YOU think they have hateful beliefs. If someone wants to preach that gays go to hell I absolutely support his right to do so while I'll make clear that I disagree with the actual content of the speech. I'd do this because I'm smart enough to realization that legislation silencing his opinions could also be used to silence my pro-equal rights counter argument and I wouldn't want that. There is nothing wrong with people voicing their hatred of our way of life and our society. Our way isn't the only way, we can't be so arrogant as to criminalize people who voice their opinions of the way our society works.
If someone is saying burn in hell British people, three cheers to the murderers of British people, and spreading propaganda that encourages people to join a Jihad against British people. They hate British people and want to see them dead according to their own words and deeds not some observers subjective opinion of what they think and how they feel. The intention of the new legislation is to lower the threshold from blatantly inciting murder lets go now and kill some people, or directly funding terrorism money for guns to go kill people or directly recruiting terrorists arranging transport and training of would be terrorists.
Which brings us to the big problem of what exactly is "hateful". Opinions change drastically over time. Not so long ago, many would consider you teaching your kids that gays have the same rights as everyone else to be extolling hatred towards society. You wouldn't want your views legislated against like that just because some guy out there thinks you're extolling hate with your beliefs.
The plan is legislation against those who are the cheerleaders and promoters and propagandists of terrorism, the violent overthrow of our society and murder of our citizens. It is not about people who have views other people hate.
Is this only for Islamic extremists or is it for anyone the Government deem to be liable to cause dissent?
There could be serious misuse of this.
For example.Strikes are going to be harder to have, if someone from a union agitates about illegal strikes is that fomenting dissent and thus the union becomes a banned organisation?
This needs a lot of scrutiny.
As indeed there was for the ill thought out piece of legislation under the last Labour Government that allowed Councils to follow parents around to make sure they were not lying about where the lived. There were other abuses as well. It is typical of the Tories that they want to go that step further, and some people on here get upset when you mention a certain historic German political party.
The plan is legislation against those who are the cheerleaders and promoters and propagandists of terrorism, the violent overthrow of our society and murder of our citizens. It is not about people who have views other people hate.
Well that's all very interesting and worthy, but Britain has faced terrorism on a grander scale than the current threat, and there was no need for draconian laws that ultimately do restrict the rights and freedoms of the entire Country. It is a matter of perspective. If you tell everyone they are in danger enough times they will believe it and give you a licence to do whatever you want. It's a dangerous philosophy that is utterly undefendable.
Well that's all very interesting and worthy, but Britain has faced terrorism on a grander scale than the current threat, and there was no need for draconian laws that ultimately do restrict the rights and freedoms of the entire Country. It is a matter of perspective. If you tell everyone they are in danger enough times they will believe it and give you a licence to do whatever you want. It's a dangerous philosophy that is utterly undefendable.
We had draconian laws in Northern Ireland during the troubles and we had and have anti terrorism laws already that apply across the whole of the UK to terrorism suspects that have removed what were considered quite fundamental rights in the name of keeping the nation safe.
The threat of Islamic extremism is to the whole of the UK. They are using the whole of the UK as a recruiting ground. From school girls and boys via the internet to men and women in the streets and mosques. And they are a deadly threat responsible for mass murder of civilians here and abroad who hate our society and want to overthrow it. Should we wait for the UK to suffer a terrorist attack that kills many thousands or more, or for terrorist attacks to become a common part of our nation's life, before we seek to curtail the spread of their vile hate of us. Tackling the problem at the early stages to stop the spread and prevent attacks before they are even plotted is far better than trying to stop at the last minute people about to commit terrorist attacks or directly fund terrorism money for guns or directly recruit terrorists arrange transport and training, or only becoming aware after the fact.
Lets take the example of the school girls who went to Syria. Should the person or person's over the internet who befriended and persuaded them be guilty of any offence or should they be able to carry on persuading more children in the name of freedom of speech. What about the hate preachers who have had congregation members become terrorists.
We had draconian laws in Northern Ireland during the troubles and we had and have anti terrorism laws already that apply across the whole of the UK to terrorism suspects that have removed what were considered quite fundamental rights in the name of keeping the nation safe.
The threat of Islamic extremism is to the whole of the UK. They are using the whole of the UK as a recruiting ground. From school girls and boys via the internet to men and women in the streets and mosques. And they are a deadly threat responsible for mass murder of civilians here and abroad who hate our society and want to overthrow it. Should we wait for the UK to suffer a terrorist attack that kills many thousands or more, or for terrorist attacks to become a common part of our nation's life, before we seek to curtail the spread of their vile hate of us. Tackling the problem at the early stages to stop the spread and prevent attacks before they are even plotted is far better than trying to stop at the last minute people about to commit terrorist attacks or directly fund terrorism money for guns or directly recruit terrorists arrange transport and training, or only becoming aware after the fact.
Lets take the example of the school girls who went to Syria. Should the person or person's over the internet who befriended and persuaded them be guilty of any offence or should they be able to carry on persuading more children in the name of freedom of speech. What about the hate preachers who have had congregation members become terrorists.
Again I understand the contention, but although it is being sold as a way to curb the problems you describe it is a disingenuous use of legislation.
I will give you some reasons why I think that this is unnecessary, the biggest problems we have had to date with Islamic terrorists are from those who have left Britain to fight in the Middle East. These people are known to the authorities and they have had methods at their disposal to deal with any issues they have had on their return. However these ones have no only not been correctly identified but where they have they have been ignored.
Going back to past threats, all of Britain was under attack from the IRA and other terrorist groups. My home Town had two pubs blown up in the late 70's and it is a Country Town an hour away from London by train. I was in London in the early 80's when the siege of the Libyan Embassy was going on. So please don't tell me that it worse now than it was then.
The problem is that we are a bunch of lily livered chickens now, be strong British public!
I will give you some reasons why I think that this is unnecessary, the biggest problems we have had to date with Islamic terrorists are from those who have left Britain to fight in the Middle East. These people are known to the authorities and they have had methods at their disposal to deal with any issues they have had on their return. However these ones have no only not been correctly identified but where they have they have been ignored.
We are obviously failing to stop people being persuaded by the supporters of terrorism and recruited. And while many maybe known to the security services some obviously are not unless the school girls who went to Syria did so with the security services letting them. And even amongst those who are known to the security services the security services obviously are not able to monitor and track them all and stop them at the point they are plotting an attack, as we have had terrorist attacks by people known to the security services. We need less people being swayed by the supporters of terrorism and so less suspects for the security services to keep track of.
Going back to past threats, all of Britain was under attack from the IRA and other terrorist groups. My home Town had two pubs blown up in the late 70's and it is a Country Town an hour away from London by train. I was in London in the early 80's when the siege of the Libyan Embassy was going on. So please don't tell me that it worse now than it was then.
The IRA recruited mostly Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland. The Muslim extremists are recruiting across the UK. And the UK government in regards to IRA did everything from mass arrest and interment, to a blanket ban on Sinn Fein being able to speak on air, to detention without charge or trial of terrorist suspects, to illegally acting in league with Unionist terrorists murdering suspected IRA members, to the government breaking its international treaties in regards to human rights and engaging in SAS shoot to kill, and engaging in torturing suspects. The idea that we did not resort to "draconian" measures against the IRA so we do not need to now is false.
And during the Troubles over 30 years the IRA murdered about 650 civilians who were not members of other paramilitary organisations or the UK security forces. Muslim extremists in 2001 killed in one day 2,977 people, of which only about 125 were at the pentagon so that is over four times the civilian death toll the IRA caused over 30 years in one day. Mass carnage of civilians is their preferred method, Muslim extremists in Madrid blow up packed commuter trains in 2005. And when they targeted us it was packed commuter trains that were the targets. Abroad they are actively engaged in large scale terrorist attacks and mass murder and have slaughters over a hundred thousands civilians. The terrorist threat we face from Muslim extremists is in a different league as far as potential death toll and impact on our way of life.
The problem is that we are a bunch of lily livered chickens now, be strong British public!
Strong in what standing up against the government trying to protect us, strong in defending the principle of free speech including the freedom for others to spread hate against us and celebrate our murder. We do not want to be chickens to the slaughter, easy prey to those who would have us dead.
Terrorism is really not a thing to give up hard fought for freedoms over. You've more chance of dying by tripping over your shoelaces, walking down your stairs in the morning, or being stung by a bea than you have terrorism. Let's get it in perspective folks.
Once we got universal suffrage the establishment failed to stop Labour from gaining power. And in more recent times Labour and the Conservatives have failed to stop the LibDems, the SNP, UKIP, the Greens, Sinnn Fein, etc. from having MPs elected.. The reason the main two parties stay in power is because more of their candidates manage to attract the most voters in their constituencies we have government by the will of the people and by consent. With universal suffrage and it only costing £500 to stand as an MP and £150 to form a political party there is no substantial barrier to new people and new parties. if you can gander public support for your political aims you can run the UK you do not need to use force of arms.[
I was talking about change in government rather than system of government But even the system can be altered devolution for example, and the referendum on AV voting, and even the up coming in/out vote on the EU.
But that change would be required to go through this current system before being approved, and if the current system doesn't want that change to happen it will be blocked. That may not be fair.
You think it is OK for someone to take power not by the way of the will of the people but to seize power by force of arms guns and bombs and rule by undemocratic means with no freely given consent of the people. As it is what they do when in power that counts, whatever warped vision of Utopia they could not convince the masses to agree with that they want to impose on the masses by force.
No I don't, but "against the will of the people" and "against the democratic process" are two different things. You're talking as though democracy reflects the will of the people and it doesn't, at least not in the flawed version we have. The big parties can and do block genuine opposition through a combination of the FPTP system, and the fact that they have massive donors and big backers like newspapers/news channels giving them plenty of coverage while smearing their opponents, in return for special favours when they take power.
In a democracy, when the government has lost legitimacy and no longer represents the will of the people (which can and does happen in democracies around the world) and you can't get needed change through the ballot box I think it's absolutely right for people to overthrow them using force.
The plan is legislation against those who are the cheerleaders and promoters and propagandists of terrorism, the violent overthrow of our society and murder of our citizens. It is not about people who have views other people hate.
Yes it is, you already said it was about legislating against views that YOU considered to be "extolling hate". What happens here if I decide that your opinions on anything are extolling hate, do you get locked up for that as well? If people shout the "british soldiers burn in hell" chants or people loudly voice support for ISIS then let them. It alerts MI5 to that person to keep an eye on them. We should never outlaw people who propose the overthrow of governments they consider illegitimate because we all have that right. Of course we should never actually act on that thought unless we are 100% sure in our consideration that they have lost legitimacy. Just because we have a mildly democratic system in place, you think that it's not possible for our government to lose legitimacy to govern? That's very naive and foolish.
Comments
It's not been proven but the whole story about him is, as you say, iffy. His deputy and subsequent head was also alledged to be less than loyal. I think it was Gordievski, Mitrokhan or a similar defector that made it less unlikely. Been a while since I read about it.
I think MI5 officer Peter Wright and Chapman Pincher, the journalist, were the only ones who were convinced - on circumstantial evidence only - that Hollis was a double agent. And they wrote books about it both of which I read long ago. The defector Oleg Gordievsky denied Hollis was a mole, I believe, and couldn't understand what those two were on about!
Come off it. You know as well as I do that if any serious real opposition threatens the Tory-Labour people, they will team up to squeeze that person out. They have lots of donors who all stands to benefit from them remaining in power and they can and do stop real opposition parties from getting off the ground.
It doesn't work like that. Any change that is proposed has to go through the current system before being approved, which means if the current system wants to stop it, it will. Sorry but sometimes force is the only way to change government. We shouldn't judge a governments legitimacy by whether or not they used force to take power, but on their reasons for doing so.
This is exactly what I described. If you think someone is extolling "hate" then you find their opinion hateful, therefore you want them to be stopped because YOU think they have hateful beliefs. Which brings us to the big problem of what exactly is "hateful". Opinions change drastically over time. Not so long ago, many would consider you teaching your kids that gays have the same rights as everyone else to be extolling hatred towards society. You wouldn't want your views legislated against like that just because some guy out there thinks you're extolling hate with your beliefs.
If someone wants to preach that gays go to hell I absolutely support his right to do so while I'll make clear that I disagree with the actual content of the speech. I'd do this because I'm smart enough to realization that legislation silencing his opinions could also be used to silence my pro-equal rights counter argument and I wouldn't want that. There is nothing wrong with people voicing their hatred of our way of life and our society. Our way isn't the only way, we can't be so arrogant as to criminalize people who voice their opinions of the way our society works.
Exactly, Strikes harder to have, mass surveillance, a redefinition (or not clearly as the case will likely be) of law surrounding freedom of speech. The first week of the next 5 years.
I feel really sorry for all those decent Tory voters out there, the millions who were taken in by Cameron's scare tactics about the SNP, and his pathetic 'note' stunt which was so obviously set up.
(ask anyone who knows about setting up a shot on live TV and being able to focus and zoom in on a note being held in someone's hand when you weren't ready and cued up for it, and with a camera angle that was never used again)
Those decent people who are going to wake up, one day in the next 5 years and think..... f-kin HELL, I never voted for this, the rest of us won't be very surprised at all.
No explanation of what is "hateful" or of what "British values" are, they are just glib comments used to justify sweeping changes to the freedoms that we ALL enjoy.
I am British, born and bred, but I know this, if I shared the same "values" as May and Cameron, I would be thoroughly ashamed of myself, I certainly have nothing in common with religious extremists and bigots, and nor do I with right wing ones.
It won't be until it all actually happens that the general public will understand this.
I don't normally fall too far on your side of the political sphere OHG, but when the blues and reds went down the beginnings of these (freedoms) routes in the 90s I was equally appalled. Nonetheless, if things turn out as you say (and I tend to agree) then there's easy votes to be picked up by Labour and UKIP if they get their acts together during this window. Plenty of other political factors to drive these votes too if the Tories don't get some other pressing issues sorted, eg: housing.
How i mocked the stupidity of it. Although if Cameron's quoted comments are correct then i'm suddenly not laughing now. But i'm not missing the irony of the DM being correct but only when their beloved leader gets fully into power.
Still at least the Human Rights Act allows us the freedoms to have our own beliefs if we stay within the law............. oh!
I think that many people were looking at the coalition and thought the Conservatives were the same thing, and did not realise they were something else entirely.
Nasty party is an understatement this time around. Probably the most dangerous political group this country has ever seen (in modern times); currently in power.
More and more people are seeing the direction we are moving in and correctly making the comparison to 1984 but there will always be some who are utterly incapable of accepting the notion that their government may not have their best interests at heart or would play dirty to increase their power. There's something wrong when a "democracy" has legislation criminalizing the "wrong" types of opinion, puts spy cameras in bins to monitor how much rubbish you're putting out, and wants to ban secret communication.
With his recent erratic behaviour I'm seriously considering the possibility that Cameron is having some sort of stress related breakdown. The thought of him being in power for another 5 years when he might not be "all with it" for lack of a better phrase, concerns me deeply.
Carry on...
Well, 37% of us voted for Tory ideology. Most of us didn't!
Not this again Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I was talking about change in government rather than system of government But even the system can be altered devolution for example, and the referendum on AV voting, and even the up coming in/out vote on the EU.
You think it is OK for someone to take power not by the way of the will of the people but to seize power by force of arms guns and bombs and rule by undemocratic means with no freely given consent of the people. As it is what they do when in power that counts, whatever warped vision of Utopia they could not convince the masses to agree with that they want to impose on the masses by force.
I think I will stick with democracy and hope that those who want to overthrow it by force do not succeed.
If someone is saying burn in hell British people, three cheers to the murderers of British people, and spreading propaganda that encourages people to join a Jihad against British people. They hate British people and want to see them dead according to their own words and deeds not some observers subjective opinion of what they think and how they feel. The intention of the new legislation is to lower the threshold from blatantly inciting murder lets go now and kill some people, or directly funding terrorism money for guns to go kill people or directly recruiting terrorists arranging transport and training of would be terrorists.
The plan is legislation against those who are the cheerleaders and promoters and propagandists of terrorism, the violent overthrow of our society and murder of our citizens. It is not about people who have views other people hate.
As indeed there was for the ill thought out piece of legislation under the last Labour Government that allowed Councils to follow parents around to make sure they were not lying about where the lived. There were other abuses as well. It is typical of the Tories that they want to go that step further, and some people on here get upset when you mention a certain historic German political party.
Well that's all very interesting and worthy, but Britain has faced terrorism on a grander scale than the current threat, and there was no need for draconian laws that ultimately do restrict the rights and freedoms of the entire Country. It is a matter of perspective. If you tell everyone they are in danger enough times they will believe it and give you a licence to do whatever you want. It's a dangerous philosophy that is utterly undefendable.
The threat of Islamic extremism is to the whole of the UK. They are using the whole of the UK as a recruiting ground. From school girls and boys via the internet to men and women in the streets and mosques. And they are a deadly threat responsible for mass murder of civilians here and abroad who hate our society and want to overthrow it. Should we wait for the UK to suffer a terrorist attack that kills many thousands or more, or for terrorist attacks to become a common part of our nation's life, before we seek to curtail the spread of their vile hate of us. Tackling the problem at the early stages to stop the spread and prevent attacks before they are even plotted is far better than trying to stop at the last minute people about to commit terrorist attacks or directly fund terrorism money for guns or directly recruit terrorists arrange transport and training, or only becoming aware after the fact.
Lets take the example of the school girls who went to Syria. Should the person or person's over the internet who befriended and persuaded them be guilty of any offence or should they be able to carry on persuading more children in the name of freedom of speech. What about the hate preachers who have had congregation members become terrorists.
Again I understand the contention, but although it is being sold as a way to curb the problems you describe it is a disingenuous use of legislation.
I will give you some reasons why I think that this is unnecessary, the biggest problems we have had to date with Islamic terrorists are from those who have left Britain to fight in the Middle East. These people are known to the authorities and they have had methods at their disposal to deal with any issues they have had on their return. However these ones have no only not been correctly identified but where they have they have been ignored.
Going back to past threats, all of Britain was under attack from the IRA and other terrorist groups. My home Town had two pubs blown up in the late 70's and it is a Country Town an hour away from London by train. I was in London in the early 80's when the siege of the Libyan Embassy was going on. So please don't tell me that it worse now than it was then.
The problem is that we are a bunch of lily livered chickens now, be strong British public!
The IRA recruited mostly Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland. The Muslim extremists are recruiting across the UK. And the UK government in regards to IRA did everything from mass arrest and interment, to a blanket ban on Sinn Fein being able to speak on air, to detention without charge or trial of terrorist suspects, to illegally acting in league with Unionist terrorists murdering suspected IRA members, to the government breaking its international treaties in regards to human rights and engaging in SAS shoot to kill, and engaging in torturing suspects. The idea that we did not resort to "draconian" measures against the IRA so we do not need to now is false.
And during the Troubles over 30 years the IRA murdered about 650 civilians who were not members of other paramilitary organisations or the UK security forces. Muslim extremists in 2001 killed in one day 2,977 people, of which only about 125 were at the pentagon so that is over four times the civilian death toll the IRA caused over 30 years in one day. Mass carnage of civilians is their preferred method, Muslim extremists in Madrid blow up packed commuter trains in 2005. And when they targeted us it was packed commuter trains that were the targets. Abroad they are actively engaged in large scale terrorist attacks and mass murder and have slaughters over a hundred thousands civilians. The terrorist threat we face from Muslim extremists is in a different league as far as potential death toll and impact on our way of life.
Strong in what standing up against the government trying to protect us, strong in defending the principle of free speech including the freedom for others to spread hate against us and celebrate our murder. We do not want to be chickens to the slaughter, easy prey to those who would have us dead.