Stella Rimington criticises "police state"

Ministers 'using fear of terror'

Allelujah! A prominent former member of the establishment (an ex-head of MI5) has spoken out against the creeping undermining of our civil liberties. But will she be a lone voice? This subject really winds me up, and I find it infuriating that there's so little public debate about it, or even apparent interest.

Is the Government trying to balance the safety of its' subjects with their security?

Or are they drunk on power after so many years and think they have the right to own our lives, with terrorism as a convenient pretext?

I think the latter obviously. What do you think? Do you care? Maybe one day you will have to...

 

When was the last time the this gov did anything in the interest of the electorate?

1/2 the country is run by capita, previously owned by tony's mate
brought out the banks on the taxpayers coin and then lets them on their merry way
runs scotland like an independant socialist state funded by the english
throws cash at wars that no fucker supports and justifies it with bullshit

and then just to take the piss a bit more they decide they want to criminalise everything and watch us while we take a shit. Oh yeah, and god forbid MP's should have to account for their expenses or anything like that.

We seriously need to start realising as a nation how the government is accountable to no one and does very little in the public interest unless the sun stirs up a moral panic.

 

I don't know about "drunk on power" and thinking they have "the right to own our lives". I'm sure on some level they have convinced themselves they are acting in the best interests of the country. I suspect in politics you get caught up in a cycle of of acting and thinking in a certain way dictated by the logic of the Westminster bubble and the vagaries of party politics. Yes, if they were to step outside of their logic bubble and look at the sum total of actions they have taken and policies they have enacted, it does indeed have the character of a serious erosion of civil liberties and an undermining of international law. I doubt this is designed, it's just the build-up of many small steps, taken for different reasons; some for show in the aftermath of 9/11 and 7/7, some for political posturing. These accumulated changes in attitude and policy build up with a certain kind of inexorable logic into what seems to be a designed programme of change towards the instigation of a police state.

 

I think there has perhaps been overkill on this subject.
There is endless debate on this issue via the internet, newspapers and dedicated forums: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/modern-liberty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral
Not discounting that within Parliament, itself.
How much debate and interest do you want?

Ofcourse, the Government would say they are trying to balance the safety of its' subjects with their security.
But how many critics believe that to be true?
What would convince them the Government is not lying?

Perhaps, along with looking at the sum total of actions they have taken and policies they have enacted - that some say - are a serious erosion of civil liberties and an undermining of international law.
You also have to look at the actions they have taken and policies they have enacted that are an attempt to belay perceptions they don't.

I tend to agree with this sentiment: Britain is not a police state, but it is disturbing that what would once have been crushingly obvious needs spelling out today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/25/data-protection-privacy-government-policy

Yes.

 

from outside of the UK, the UK is looking a LOT like a police state.

 

Why?

 

cameras everywhere, spy drones on the horizon, no guns allowed, nationalized health care.

 

4 million at the last count.
Next time you are in London go to liberty's HQ and see if they have any CCTV - then ask them why. http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/3-privacy/index.shtml

Really?

Yes, what we need is lots and lots of guns.

lol.

 

hehe.

though one of the things people worry about is what in their lifestlye is going to be nannied in order to keep the cost of nationalized health care down.

 

People like a good ol' moan.

I suspect some smokers were saying the smoking ban (for e.g) was a sign of the "nanny State", as they coughed up a huge mouthful of flem.
Then if they wanted a new heart and lungs they would moan if they were told the NHS could not afford the operation and they would have to go on a very long waiting list.
Then have another moan about their council rates going up.

There is a differnce being told what to do and imparting sensible sound advice.

 

then there's the "how much salt people can eat." "how much people can weigh." "people who do drugs shouldn't get health care." "anyone who drinks shouldn't get health care." any number of things to be bossed about.

 

The smoking ban was like some Victorian "treatise on the health of the working classes" and was supported almost exclusively by people on which it frankly had fuck all to do with. Pre-ban there was not a single place I can think of where non-smokers were required to be that allowed smoking. Even in a works van I'm sure the lads could come to some agreement before one was mandated for them by the company. It is / was a 100% case of "I want to go to some little 1 room pub and displace the regulars and not smell of smoke the next day" coupled with a healthy dose of "nanny knows best"

 

yeah, there's a bit of upset about that heppening here, too. it just kinda rubs you raw that a private business owner can't decide what sort of legal activities can go on in their own establishment. if you don't want to go to a smokey bar, go somewhere else. there were loads of them before the indoor smoking ban.

 

If anybody watches demolition man, they'll see where we're headed. A world where anything that is bad for you is illegal. Where you are required by law to exercise. Anything so that they don't have to put money into public health and can spend it on millenium domes, olympics and just general embezlement.

Hell, if you haven't noticed, most of the politicians who come up with these laws are breaking them within a week.

Now jump through the hoop. Go on. There's a good public.

 

lol. Are you suggeting that the RDA (recommended daily amount/allowance) and the recommended body weight, is a bad thing?
I can't remember the government forcing me to not put salt on my chips (not that I would) or telling me not to eat chips. Again, you are talking about good advice over telling people what to do.

As for: "people who do drugs shouldn't get health care." "anyone who drinks shouldn't get health care." - perhaps you could show me NHS guidlines an/or protocol that backs up this. Good luck with that one

 

mamaKCita, pypes have either one of you heard of: http://www.hse.gov.uk/

 

it will, you silly git. that's how this shit goes. sure, it's okay when it's not YOUR favorite foods/activities/etc being infringed upon....

 

Things like the smoking ban I don't see as people's rights being infringed upon as much as protecting people's rights - the route of least harm, in accordance with John Stuart Mill's harm principle. People are still free to do their favourite activities in places where exercising this right does not harm others.

 

If you don't want to be smoked on don't go to a pub without a no smoking section. Whatever happened to "my gaff my rules" you can do an awful lot of things in the name of the "greater good of the people", like eugenics and involuntary euthanasia.

 

A law is a blunt instrument, it won't be ideal in all cases, but the point is that it applies to public spaces where people have to work. Consider the case of a long term unemployed person, offered a job in a pub where the landlord has decided people can smoke. Should she have to decide between a job and her health? As I said, the route of least harm, protecting the right not to have to sacrifice your health for your work...