New legislation in light of Woolwich attacks

Two major course corrections for Parliament are on the cards. Both are a direct result of the Woolwich attacks last week.

1) Revival of the Internet snoopers bill

http://rt.com/news/woolwich-snoopers-charter-murder-811/

2) £3Bn diverted from Welfare Bill to bolster security services

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10083049/Iain-Duncan-Smith-cut-welfare-to-fund-police-and-Forces.html

This one is particularly cynical; cost-savings measures like no housing benefits for under 25s and limitation of state payments to families with more than two children. These plans were shelved previously, but are now back on the agenda.

Does one exceptional event justify this sort of legislation?

Does one exceptional event justify this sort of legislation?

How much is an innocent life worth?

How much is an innocent life worth?

I'm sure he joined the army in the first place to protect the country and its people. I think part of that is making sure that people in the welfare system can afford to look after themselves and feed their families. Trying to justify welfare cuts on the back of a freak attack like this is odd to say the least.

And wasn't that 'snooper's charter' laughed out of parliament in the first place? All those who complain about there being a nanny culture in the UK trying to bring in laws like that...

How much is an innocent life worth?

How much are 600,000 lives worth?

How much are 600,000 lives worth?

Whats your position on intervention in Syria?

How much are 600,000 lives worth?

Indeed

Whats your position on intervention in Syria?

I don't have a position on that. It's very complicated. It's almost impossible to know what's really happening there. But the place is a key geo-political area: all the major powers will be busy behind the scenes trying to influence the outcome in one direction or another. And the fate of the civilian population may not be uppermost in their considerations. For certain there are governments of all types surreptitiously arming different factions within the country. Undoubtedly, it's a brutal regime in power there, but how to ensure that the toppling of one despotic regime does not lead to the imposition of something just as bad - or a state of extended chaos? Look what happened in Iran, after the Shah was toppled. Look what happened in Iraq. It's a quandary.

Military intervention seldom achieves the stated end, and often only makes things worse for the civilian population. I have no confidence in recommending any action there.

I don't have a position on that. It's very complicated. It's almost impossible to know what's really happening there. But the place is a key geo-political area: all the major powers will be busy behind the scenes trying to influence the outcome in one direction or another. And the fate of the civilian population may not be uppermost in their considerations. For certain there are governments of all types surreptitiously arming different factions within the country. Undoubtedly, it's a brutal regime in power there, but how to ensure that the toppling of one despotic regime does not lead to the imposition of something just as bad - or a state of extended chaos? Look what happened in Iran, after the Shah was toppled. Look what happened in Iraq. It's a quandary.

 

Military intervention seldom achieves the stated end, and often only makes things worse for the civilian population. I have no confidence in recommending any action there.

So your position is to sit back and on the evidence of previous failures you wont advocate intervention?

What about African forces in the Congo?

So you wouldn't of advocated forces into East Timor to advance the progression of democracy? Some nations may not be ready for freedom but every nations citizens have the right to dictate their future, if thats taken away then others should act, especially powerful ones.

So your position is to sit back and on the evidence of previous failures you wont advocate intervention?

As I said, I don't have a position. I don't advocate intervention, not primarily because of "the evidence of previous failures", but because I don't fully understand the nuances of the political situation there and I don't trust that we're getting the full story.

The Middle East is a quagmire. And much of the news we get is misinformation or propaganda.

Bad news, and not quite the 'keep calm and carry on' line that Cameron delivered in the wake. But we shouldn't be surprised!

Two major course corrections for Parliament are on the cards. Both are a direct result of the Woolwich attacks last week.

 

1) Revival of the Internet snoopers bill

 

http://rt.com/news/woolwich-snoopers-charter-murder-811/

 

2) £3Bn diverted from Welfare Bill to bolster security services

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10083049/Iain-Duncan-Smith-cut-welfare-to-fund-police-and-Forces.html

 

This one is particularly cynical; cost-savings measures like no housing benefits for under 25s and limitation of state payments to families with more than two children. These plans were shelved previously, but are now back on the agenda.

 

Does one exceptional event justify this sort of legislation?

If it goes through parliament than that's democracy for you. You call it a "snoopers charter" but the way I look at it is our political leaders know a bit more about security and protection of the people than you or I . If both Tory and labour vote to pass this, that's pretty convincing in my opinion . Labour would not vote with Tory unless absolutely necessary.

As for welfare, its spread too thinly and needs reform. The bill is way too high and if some money is redistributed to keep us safer , then so be it. I would start with universal benefits that are given to people who don't need them.

If it goes through parliament than that's democracy for you. You call it a "snoopers charter" but the way I look at it is our political leaders know a bit more about security and protection of the people than you or I . If both Tory and labour vote to pass this, that's pretty convincing in my opinion . Labour would not vote with Tory unless absolutely necessary.

 

As for welfare, its spread too thinly and needs reform. The bill is way too high and if some money is redistributed to keep us safer , then so be it. I would start with universal benefits that are given to people who don't need them.

As knee-jerk, last minute additions, these bills will get nothing like the Parliamentary scrutiny they deserve. The political steak tenderiser is already going after the Lib Dems on this:-

“The Liberal Democrats will block it — and it will be for them to explain why it is more important for teenagers to be given council flats rather than for the nation and its citizens to be protected.”

As for the snooper's charter, it's a load of crap, and I hope that Labour leave it alone. Problem is, they've actually got worse form than the Tories for passing draconian legislation.

Pass either of these and the so-called terrorists win.

.

 

As I said, I don't have a position. I don't advocate intervention, not primarily because of "the evidence of previous failures", but because I don't fully understand the nuances of the political situation there and I don't trust that we're getting the full story.

 

The Middle East is a quagmire. And much of the news we get is misinformation or propaganda.

So you sit back and dither for fear of doing the right thing whilst 1000's get ethnically cleansed? Answer the question, dont comment on something and then balk at the answer, typical far left, have all the comments yet no answers.

As knee-jerk, last minute additions, these bills will get nothing like the Parliamentary scrutiny they deserve. The political steak tenderiser is already going after the Lib Dems on this:-

 

“The Liberal Democrats will block it — and it will be for them to explain why it is more important for teenagers to be given council flats rather than for the nation and its citizens to be protected.”

 

As for the snooper's charter, it's a load of crap, and I hope that Labour leave it alone. Problem is, they've actually got worse form than the Tories for passing draconian legislation.

Maybe being too liberal has not worked? Maybe law order and obedience is required? What way we get to a unified Country is beyond most liberals, lets copy Australia and America, shower the flag everywhere I say, we hate ourselves so much.

Maybe being too liberal has not worked? Maybe law order and obedience is required? What way we get to a unified Country is beyond most liberals, lets copy Australia and America, shower the flag everywhere I say, we hate ourselves so much.

Before I engage in any further discussion of this point, I'd like to know what it is you mean by "has not worked".

Before I engage in any further discussion of this point, I'd like to know what it is you mean by "has not worked".

Well has it worked? Has this great experiment of multi culturism worked? Has being liberal with bankers over a period of years worked? Has being liberal with law and order worked?

The only liberal I fail to see are the conservative clerics and their converts, ironically the ones the liberals are trying to save and the one the conservatives are trying to destroy.

Well has it worked? Has this great experiment of multi culturism worked? Has being liberal with bankers over a period of years worked? Has being liberal with law and order worked?

The only liberal I fail to see are the conservative clerics and their converts, ironically the ones the liberals are trying to save and the one the conservatives are trying to destroy.

Bill Hicks used to do a very good bit in his act contrasting the horror of the news with the day-to-day reality of life. If my assessment of the world was based entirely on news reports, then I'd consider the world to be a pretty depressing place. Fortunately, in addition to seeing what is reported out there, I also get to live my own life, which has proven to be blissfully uneventful. Even filler items on regional news shows have more going on.

You ask whether the great experiment of multiculturalism has worked. Judging by the recent racist outrage on social networks over the Woolwich, someone might agree with your position. Taking a slightly longer view, I look at a country which has accommodated waves of immigrants, adapted and changed. Woolwich excepted, we are not killing each other in the streets. This is still a civilised country and as someone who has been to other places made up of different cultures, we handle it a lot better than most.

You're looking at one or two exceptional examples to prove that multiculturalism doesn't work. The day to day reality is thankfully, a much less scarier place.

The only thing that makes me feel safe on this forum is when the mods lock unacceptable threads so that I don't get hurt by looking at them. So in light of this, it would seem that more legislation is better.

Bill Hicks used to do a very good bit in his act contrasting the horror of the news with the day-to-day reality of life. If my assessment of the world was based entirely on news reports, then I'd consider the world to be a pretty depressing place. Fortunately, in addition to seeing what is reported out there, I also get to live my own life, which has proven to be blissfully uneventful. Even filler items on regional news shows have more going on.

 

You ask whether the great experiment of multiculturalism has worked. Judging by the recent racist outrage on social networks over the Woolwich, someone might agree with your position. Taking a slightly longer view, I look at a country which has accommodated waves of immigrants, adapted and changed. Woolwich excepted, we are not killing each other in the streets. This is still a civilised country and as someone who has been to other places made up of different cultures, we handle it a lot better than most.

 

You're looking at one or two exceptional examples to prove that multiculturalism doesn't work. The day to day reality is thankfully, a much less scarier place.

I love Bill Hicks but why do people pull him out of thin air to prove a point? Is he some moral authority on liberalism on drink, drugs and life? Or religeous order perhaps?

I refer you back to Jack Straw and his Blackburn constituency and others areas like Oldham, Rochdale and Preston, yet the extreme left seem to enjoy prodding them as extremists themselves yet they are living in it, its not right nor fair to disparage others opinons.

So you sit back and dither for fear of doing the right thing whilst 1000's get ethnically cleansed? Answer the question, dont comment on something and then balk at the answer, typical far left, have all the comments yet no answers.

You asked me a question; I gave you my honest response. Is everything black-and-white, right-and-"far-left" to you? I gave you my reasoned view, but you want bluster and points scoring. Unlike you, I don't pretend to have all the answers. Sometimes it's important to frame the correct questions and not rush to an ill-considered action.

Think about the disaster unleashed by the Iraq "intervention". How do you weigh those consequences?

I love Bill Hicks but why do people pull him out of thin air to prove a point? Is he some moral authority on liberalism on drink, drugs and life? Or religeous order perhaps?

 

I refer you back to Jack Straw and his Blackburn constituency and others areas like Oldham, Rochdale and Preston, yet the extreme left seem to enjoy prodding them as extremists themselves yet they are living in it, its not right nor fair to disparage others opinons.

I'm not a huge fan of plagiarism, Bazza - so when I've been informed by another's opinion, I only feel its right to credit the source. It also so happens that his expressed experience corresponds with my own.

You seem to have a lot to say on the issue. How would you address the issues you claim are there?

Well I would start by asking the residents of affected areas why they feel like this and would completely ignore the ignorant South's view for a start.

So your solution to solving the problems of racial harmony is to ignore half a country?

When speaking to these disenfranchised people, how quickly do you think you'll travel off the subject of how Islamic extremism is affecting the UK and onto general gripes about immigration? I'll give you ten minutes, if that. I'm sure that the leaders of the EDL would disagree, but their organisation is a trojan horse, dressed in concern about Islamic extremism, but actually just against immigration in general.

I've said before; if they were serious and specific about ending Islamic extremism in the UK, they'd be petitioning the Government to get out of the Middle East.

Happy to have my ignorant southern views proved wrong, but I doubt you'd discover much on Islamic extremism from an EDL supporter in Oldham.

So your solution to solving the problems of racial harmony is to ignore half a country?

 

When speaking to these disenfranchised people, how quickly do you think you'll travel off the subject of how Islamic extremism is affecting the UK and onto general gripes about immigration? I'll give you ten minutes, if that. I'm sure that the leaders of the EDL would disagree, but their organisation is a trojan horse, dressed in concern about Islamic extremism, but actually just against immigration in general.

 

I've said before; if they were serious and specific about ending Islamic extremism in the UK, they'd be petitioning the Government to get out of the Middle East.

 

Happy to have my ignorant southern views proved wrong, but I doubt you'd discover much on Islamic extremism from an EDL supporter in Oldham.

Why do you presume I would solely speak to a person in the EDL in Oldham? You presume too much with no substance pap, absolutely no substance at all, the far right have been accused of that as well you know?

You can link the two together between supposed "Islamification" and intergration/immigration, you presume a withdrawl from the middle East and Afghanistan (Allied Nations are making withdrawls I shall add) would suddenly stop attacks in the said Countries and overseas, what about the citizens of that Nation who have the right to their freedoms no gained in many areas?

Drop them?

You would do that for this Nations peoples? You are very conscientious pap............

Why do you presume I would solely speak to a person in the EDL in Oldham? You presume too much with no substance pap, absolutely no substance at all, the far right have been accused of that as well you know?

Not suggesting you talk exclusively to a person in Oldham, but it seems to be what you want....

Well I would start by asking the residents of affected areas why they feel like this and would completely ignore the ignorant South's view for a start.

I refer you back to Jack Straw and his Blackburn constituency and others areas like Oldham, Rochdale and Preston, yet the extreme left seem to enjoy prodding them as extremists themselves yet they are living in it, its not right nor fair to disparage others opinons.

You can link the two together between supposed "Islamification" and intergration/immigration, you presume a withdrawl from the middle East and Afghanistan (Allied Nations are making withdrawls I shall add) would suddenly stop attacks in the said Countries and overseas, what about the citizens of that Nation who have the right to their freedoms no gained in many areas?

Drop them?

You would do that for this Nations peoples? You are very conscientious pap............

Not on its own, no. I think the UK needs an independent foreign policy and should be a strong, critical voice in world affairs. If we still keep backing Israel no matter what, that has consequences, as do our "adventures" with our American friends.

Still, keep supporting the EDL, mate. It's what Labour party members do, after all...

Two major course corrections for Parliament are on the cards. Both are a direct result of the Woolwich attacks last week.

 

1) Revival of the Internet snoopers bill

 

http://rt.com/news/woolwich-snoopers-charter-murder-811/

 

2) £3Bn diverted from Welfare Bill to bolster security services

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10083049/Iain-Duncan-Smith-cut-welfare-to-fund-police-and-Forces.html

 

This one is particularly cynical; cost-savings measures like no housing benefits for under 25s and limitation of state payments to families with more than two children. These plans were shelved previously, but are now back on the agenda.

 

Does one exceptional event justify this sort of legislation?

I readily admit I haven't been reading any of the detail of the Woolwich murder, but what has that got to do with internet access and housing benefit ?

Usually this kind of thing is a Trojan for invasive and restrictive anti-civil rights legislation (possible for the internet regulations), but these seem to be more welfare restrictions ?

Not suggesting you talk exclusively to a person in Oldham, but it seems to be what you want....

 

 

Not on its own, no. I think the UK needs an independent foreign policy and should be a strong, critical voice in world affairs. If we still keep backing Israel no matter what, that has consequences, as do our "adventures" with our American friends.

 

Still, keep supporting the EDL, mate. It's what Labour party members do, after all...

I thought you were Liverpool's Edge Hill Wolfie Smith? Again you presume, why would I support the EDL? Its a defence/attack mechanism of the extreme left to label something they simply dont like nor have the patience to understand, again quite similar to the ones who veer to the extreme right, politics is a large circle so maybe you can see them from where you sit?

I suggest you take your Israesli up with your local mp, she is a friend of Israel after all, possibly a protest group?

You believe I am now in Labour Party and I live in Liverpool, thats two in two days now pap, not because you believe me but because its suits your argument when you need it, there is a pattern here.

What do you mean back Israel as well? Your flippant remark concerning adventures questions your belief in a democratic system and implies your leader is Stalin.

I readily admit I haven't been reading any of the detail of the Woolwich murder, but what has that got to do with internet access and housing benefit ?

 

Usually this kind of thing is a Trojan for invasive and restrictive anti-civil rights legislation (possible for the internet regulations), but these seem to be more welfare restrictions ?

The welfare restrictions are being resurrected on the basis that the security and police services don't have enough money, so the government will find £3Bn from the welfare bill to give it to them. Woolwich is being used as the justification.

I thought you were Liverpool's Edge Hill Wolfie Smith? Again you presume, why would I support the EDL? Its a defence/attack mechanism of the extreme left to label something they simply dont like nor have the patience to understand, again quite similar to the ones who veer to the extreme right, politics is a large circle so maybe you can see them from where you sit?

I suggest you take your Israesli up with your local mp, she is a friend of Israel after all, possibly a protest group?

You believe I am now in Labour Party and I live in Liverpool, thats two in two days now pap, not because you believe me but because its suits your argument when you need it, there is a pattern here.

What do you mean back Israel as well? Your flippant remark concerning adventures questions your belief in a democratic system and implies your leader is Stalin.

Nah, I just can't be arsed arguing with you about it anymore.

Surprised you still are, actually.

Because someone who is right should always argue their case if they are incorrectly labelled, first dune and then I dont live in Liverpool, yet in your hypocritical nature you twist them into your argument to suit you, simply appears your debating skills are weak and your arguments are pick and mix, you had no proof in the first place, again akin to the far right or extreme left, probably Stasi.

Because someone who is right should always argue their case if they are incorrectly labelled, first dune and then I dont live in Liverpool, yet in your hypocritical nature you twist them into your argument to suit you, simply appears your debating skills are weak and your arguments are pick and mix, you had no proof in the first place, again akin to the far right or extreme left, probably Stasi.

Your consistency skills are weak, old man.

No no my consistency is fine, your banter and sluth like skills are gash thats all young man.

No no my consistency is fine, your banter and sluth like skills are gash thats all young man.

I think you missed the reference.

No no my consistency is fine, your banter and sluth like skills are gash thats all young man.

Mate, don't feel bad. There was a time when you had a great deal of my attention. Now you have little. Strong men adapt, Bazza. Strong men adapt.

Mate, don't feel bad. There was a time when you had a great deal of my attention. Now you have little. Strong men adapt, Bazza. Strong men adapt.

I take that as a weak apology, the young uns have no class, politically they are naive and classless in manners, a half right by Blair I suppose for his society.....................

I think you missed the reference.

Too many old bean too many.

How much is an innocent life worth?

Dunno. Probably not £3bn though given that patients are routinely dying for the want of drugs or procedures costing a few £000s. Maybe they could save £3bn or so and a lot more lives by not getting involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria, and spend the money on public services or deficit reduction instead. Just a thought .

Dunno. Probably not £3bn though given that patients are routinely dying for the want of drugs or procedures costing a few £000s. Maybe they could save £3bn or so and a lot more lives by not getting involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria, and spend the money on public services or deficit reduction instead. Just a thought .

No profits for the arms companies if they did that.

Where would retiring ministers go for their cushy directorships?

As for the snooper's charter, it's a load of crap, and I hope that Labour leave it alone. Problem is, they've actually got worse form than the Tories for passing draconian legislation.

Alan Johnson, Lord Blair, Lord Carlisle all back it and they're hardly swivel eyed right wing loons. In fact Carlisle (a Lib/dem) said that it is being blocked by Clegg for "purely political reasons" because of demands from his grass roots.

Lord Blair was saying it's an important tool to keep up with new technology, he was once the top policeman in the land not a poster on a football forum.

Alan Johnson, Lord Blair, Lord Carlisle all back it and they're hardly swivel eyed right wing loons. In fact Carlisle (a Lib/dem) said that it is being blocked by Clegg for "purely political reasons" because of demands from his grass roots.

Lord Blair was saying it's an important tool to keep up with new technology, he was once the top policeman in the land not a poster on a football forum.

My problem with it is that the legislation will manage to combine being unecessarily intrusive whilst being ineffective. We will give up privacy for no benefit.

Even I know that any half clued up terrorists buys untraceable used phones and uses regularly changes SIM cards brought for a couple of pounds from vending machines at airports so the security services never know what phone they are supposed to be tracking. They also don't actually send traceable emails which can be intercepted, they just save them in 'drafts' in hotmail / gmail accounts shared with fellow conspirators who then log in to read.

Its far more effective to target the preachers, organisers and followers imo. Do what the security services did to the IRA - so thoroughly infiltrate them with agents nobody could fart or swear without the security services knowing about it.

But weren't the security services already aware of the two Michaels? In fact they were so aware of them that they tried to recruit one of them. What would further technological surveillance achieve that hadn't already been achieved?

The welfare restrictions are being resurrected on the basis that the security and police services don't have enough money, so the government will find £3Bn from the welfare bill to give it to them. Woolwich is being used as the justification.

Well that's fcking preposterous, what about kicking the massive tax-dodging corporations a bit ?

I've said before; if they were serious and specific about ending Islamic extremism in the UK, they'd be petitioning the Government to get out of the Middle East.

As you say, you do keep saying it. But what do you mean? Which bit of the Middle East is the British government presently ‘in’? I'm aware of no formal British military presence anywhere in the Middle East. (You presumably know that Afghanistan, from which the UK military presence is currently being withdrawn, is in South Asia.) British foreign policy on Syria is roughly in step with the EU, as it is with Israel, in the sense that the UK government supports a two-state solution. Got any better ideas?

I do like your idea that we should tailor the UK's foreign policy to suit the Woolwich murderers (at least insofar as it would somehow prevent another Woolwich). Perhaps we should also ask the Soham murderer Ian Huntley how Home Office policies on child protection might be improved to suit him?

You're linking two unconnected ideas. There are plenty of people in the UK - Muslim and non-Muslim - who have had serious and well-argued complaints about specific British foreign policies, notably regarding Blair's adventure in Iraq. This does NOT explain the kind of death-cult violence you saw in Luxor (1997), which targeted mostly Swiss and Japanese tourists - ie people from two countries with a definable ABSENCE of foreign policy. Yet Luxor was the prototype for what happened in Woolwich - it was an operation devised by Zawahiri, and became the defining ‘spectacular’ that led to the creation of Al Qeada just a year later, with Zawahiri's alliance with bin Laden.

The extremists' objections to the West are based on an amorphous hatred of all things Western including its ‘values’; they are not what you might call ‘strong’ on which specific Western policies they supposedly object to. Read Sayyid Qutb, the founding philosopher of Al Qeada’s particular brand of extremism, if you doubt this. After his (sponsored) trip to the US in 1948-50, he wrote an article called ‘The America That I Have Seen’, in which he lambasts individual freedoms, democracy, boxing, bad haircuts and an ‘animal-like mixing of the sexes’. This piece is an article of faith among succeeding extremists, especially his compatriot Zawahiri and bin Laden – and probably Choudary too, since he can be found saying much the same things about the UK in his rants about imposing Shariah laws on every UK citizen.

More rational Muslims (and others) make their feelings known about particular aspects of foreign policy that trouble them.

With their declaration of hostility to all things Western, you could never satisfy Salafists with specific policy changes. And why the hell would any government or people want to?

My problem with it is that the legislation will manage to combine being unecessarily intrusive whilst being ineffective. We will give up privacy for no benefit.

 

Even I know that any half clued up terrorists buys untraceable used phones and uses regularly changes SIM cards brought for a couple of pounds from vending machines at airports so the security services never know what phone they are supposed to be tracking. They also don't actually send traceable emails which can be intercepted, they just save them in 'drafts' in hotmail / gmail accounts shared with fellow conspirators who then log in to read.

 

Its far more effective to target the preachers, organisers and followers imo. Do what the security services did to the IRA - so thoroughly infiltrate them with agents nobody could fart or swear without the security services knowing about it.

agree any government who wants all the citizens information is fast heading for a 1984 society,there are enough laws already on the statute book and i can not see any reason why they cannot approach a high court judge to monitor individuals who they suspect of fowl play or deeds and actions.we give up our freedoms at are peril has history has shown.

would you like any person down your road reading your emails and listening in to your phone calls, without the protection of law when you have done nothing wrong,so why allow governments to do it with out no good reason.

Ah yes, South Asia. Silly me.

You may be able to help me with a further issue. I take it by Zawahiri, you mean bin Laden's former right hand man, one time leader of the Islamic Group of Egypt. You're right. Dangerous bunch. Why do you think they were allowed to operate out of London?

Personally I dont think that there should be any more benefits to families over 2 children, we are a country with free contraception, advice andeducation, should you want more than 2 it should be a personal choice made with financial reasoning.

As for the snoopers charter, what really is the issue with this unless you have something to worry about ? Or unless you are a conspiracist nutjob who sits on the internet all day ?

Those willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.