UK Freedom's being erroded further.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**MeanGreenStompa**

mattyrm wrote:
Joey wrote:
mwnciboo wrote:You are asking me to trust the Government.

No I'm not. The government are bastards but they are not tyrants. They want to see what you do on your computer about as much as I do (i.e. not at all).

Yeah that's my point, I can see both sides of the argument, but at the end of the day.. I don't give much of a feth if some tit is reading my boring as feth emails. If it helps stop a British born Muslim emailing a AQ operative in Helmand province, then they can read my boring ass emails as much as they want.

Same with CCTV. It doesn't bother me because I don't give a feth if someone is watching me, but how many times does it help catch criminals? If some bloke is sneakily using a CCTV camera to watch grainy footage of me plugging my missus on the couch and chuckling to himself while I remain utterly ignorant of said fact I don't much care.

I think the hippies that rant endlessly about civil liberties delude themselves frankly.. I heard Clegg talking about it and he said the legislation was nothing like how the press was writing it up. Ultimately I will reserve judgement until I know more about it, but realistically, how will this negatively affect law abiding citizens like me?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mwnciboo wrote: Having worked on Government Secure IT systems, they are held together by incompetents and jobsworths so it's only a matter of time.

This is true of course.

I wish you'd decide on a course and stick to it instead of bending in the wind due to partisan alignment.

One minute (under new labour) it's 'nanny state' and 'less government'.

Now (under the tory/lib lovechild) it's 'keeping us safe' and 'won't affect me guv'.

I would respect your view and stance more if it didn't shift with who's in government... If the previous government had done this, you'd be screaming down the houses.

**SilverMK2**

No... just no.

The elimination of freedoms is just showing that "terrorism" and the threat there of works. Although I'm sure that the extra powers and information it will give certain people within government has nothing to do with the proposed new laws...

**mwnciboo**

SilverMK2 wrote:No... just no.

The elimination of freedoms is just showing that "terrorism" and the threat there of works. Although I'm sure that the extra powers and information it will give certain people within government has nothing to do with the proposed new laws...

Not sure what you are precisely saying no to. I follow the statement below it, just not sure what precisely you are rebuffing. Could you clarify SilverMK2, if you don't mind?

**SilverMK2**

mwnciboo wrote:Not sure what you are precisely saying no to. I follow the statement below it, just not sure what precisely you are rebuffing. Could you clarify SilverMK2, if you don't mind?

I originally had a longer post, but chopped it down

Basically I do not agree that any further invasion into the goings on of the general public is warrented, required or desireable. Nor do I feel that any more people than currently have it require the authority to request such invasions.

**Juvieus Kaine**

Well you might be glad to known mwnciboo that there's some severe backlash from this planned legislation and even Butler said it's not a great idea.

As for freedom; well, its more to do with rights. Rights to talk, eat, sleep, drive somewhere, whatever. And so far there is a severe hampering of rights for the white christian male. Eventually there will be no reason to be a white christian male because anything we did will be against our rights, because some stupid asshat thought it was a great idea to let everybody else get the upper platforms and abuse the crap out of it.

**Seaward**

Wow, Brit, the bit about increased monitoring is really unnecessary.

We've been reading your e-mail for years, and we kind of like you. If something's up, we'll let you know. Now, granted, we don't keep track of racists who say racist things, so that may be what you guys need to expand the monitoring for. If so, God speed, and may your jails overflow with people who offended other people.

Other than that, though, I've always been a big proponent of secret, unaccountable tribunals. They always work out.

**mattyrm**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I wish you'd decide on a course and stick to it instead of bending in the wind due to partisan alignment.

One minute (under new labour) it's 'nanny state' and 'less government'.

Now (under the tory/lib lovechild) it's 'keeping us safe' and 'won't affect me guv'.

I would respect your view and stance more if it didn't shift with who's in government... If the previous government had done this, you'd be screaming down the houses.

I'm not switching around. It was yesterday when I said "Ok i changed my mind" after a post from.. I dunno.. KK or MW someone. I'm just feeling slightly more militant today!

As I said, I can see both sides of the issue, I don't know exactly how Ill feel about it until I read the actual legislation in full, as NC was on the radio today saying it had been blown out of all proportion.

I wasn't joking about not giving a feth if someone watches me with a CCTV camera though, I genuinely don't, and I wouldn't care if someone was checking my email either.. what the feth do I care about either of those things? I can see that corruption would be an issue because I don't trust the bobbies as it is, and Ive clearly conceded that the government is fething useless at this kinda thing. Im just throwing ideas out there because I don't know how I feel one way or the other at the moment.

Much of what I said is tongue in cheek, and I don't think we should have our way of life changed either.. the point was simply, will it? Or is it more the media blowing it up?

Regards nanny state gak, as I've said many times before.. if the government interrupts gak that I like doing, such as playing video games, getting leathered and painting minis, then clearly Ill give more of a feth. But reading emails and watching me on cameras really doesn't bother me to much, why would it affect me?

**Da Boss**

It is important to care about principles though Matty - most of the decent stuff that has happened in history is due to people giving a feth about boring stuff like this.

**mwnciboo**

Seaward wrote:Wow, Brit, the bit about increased monitoring is really unnecessary.

We've been reading your e-mail for years, and we kind of like you. If something's up, we'll let you know. Now, granted, we don't keep track of racists who say racist things, so that may be what you guys need to expand the monitoring for. If so, God speed, and may your jails overflow with people who offended other people.

Other than that, though, I've always been a big proponent of secret, unaccountable tribunals. They always work out.

LOL

Cool you've got it covered.

Well you might be glad to known mwnciboo that there's some severe backlash from this planned legislation and even Butler said it's not a great idea.

@Juvieus Kaine just googled that based on your info some interesting things in there, especially from the TELEGRAPH (of all Newspapers). Interesting indeed.

**Seaward**

mattyrm wrote:
Regards nanny state gak, as I've said many times before.. if the government interrupts gak that I like doing, such as playing video games, getting leathered and painting minis, then clearly Ill give more of a feth. But reading emails and watching me on cameras really doesn't bother me to much, why would it affect me?

I agree. They could probably catch a lot more terrorists if every computer sold came with a little unobtrusive app that provided real-time monitoring of what was done on the computer to the government. It wouldn't interrupt games, it wouldn't interrupt painting minis, and hey, the government's incompetent anyway.

**mwnciboo**

Yeah they would accidentally arrest you and send you to Gitmo....

Ever seen "Brazil"...

lol

*waiting for GITMO's in Cuba comment*

**Albatross**

Can we presume that mwncgerygy-whatever has read the contents of this bill?

**SilverMK2**

Albatross wrote:Can we presume that mwncgerygy-whatever has read the contents of this bill?

I don't think he has access to spy on those email accounts yet...

**FabricatorGeneralMike**

mwnciboo wrote:Yeah they would accidentally arrest you and send you to Gitmo....

Ever seen "Brazil"...

lol

*waiting for GITMO's in Cuba comment*

Well you do know Alberta's kinda like GITMO, you are penned up in a camp with a bunch of other guys doing crappy work while the whole time praying for death.

Hurry up and move to BC, buy the time you get here we should have the current set of crooks voted out ( of course after they sell out the province from underneath us) and be ready for the next set of crooks to screw us over. Just like anywhere else.

But honestly you will love BC it rains 9 months out of the year here, just like home for you. =o]

**mwnciboo**

Yes I have and here it is...

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm81/8194/8194.pdf
(remember all Green papers are public documents)

It's interesting that essentially they want evidence from MI-5 and MI-6 to be used in Court to bring about prosecutions. This seems logical except that, in the case of MI-6 in particular much of what they obtain and how they obtain it is not legal in the UK or Wider world (espionage, sabotage, spying and stealing information from foreign governments, companies being illegal). So in order to minimise implication and public compromise, they wish to present such evidence to the Court in Private.

The issue that this supposedly combats is that in open Court an individual on trial might be found not guilty, yet the SIS have given their Modus Operandi and details of evidence in Open Court, for the media and public gallery as well as the individual on trial. This could (probably will) get back to the intelligence assets and compromise them and also change Terrorist and other organisations operating to change tactics and "terminate" any security loopholes.

So the Government is proposing (only in Civil Trials), is introducing a Special Advocate. Some one who will not meet you or know you, he/she will represent you in a closed Civil Trial, your Legal adivisor/ Lawyer/ Solicitor/barrister will not be allowed to be present. So now you are tried on the basis of intelligence evidence in private.

So now why just Civil Trials and not Criminal Trials? The main assertion from other groups is that this is designed to prevent the British Government being liable to British Citizens held by foreign governments (read Guantanamo) after 3 British Citizens returned and sued the British Government for ignoring them as "Non-Combatants" and allowing "Extraordinary Rendition". This was probably going to be successful for the plaintiff, and the Government decided to settle out of court for an undisclosed sum. This was repeated in the Binyam Mohamed case.

BRITISH GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mohamed went on to join other former detainees in a civil claim for damages against the UK
Government, alleging, among other things, complicity in his rendition, detention and torture.
In November 2010, the parties agreed a mediated settlement, the terms of which remain
confidential. The Government made no admission as to liability.

What Actually Happened

UK government loses confidentiality appeal, MI5 implicated in collusion with torture
The case of determining British involvement (mainly MI5 and MI6) in the unlawful treatment of a UK resident Mohamed by the CIA, was eventually tried at court in 2009 and appealed in 2010. Despite attempts by the foreign secretary, David Miliband to suppress evidence citing such disclosure would harm national security because it was given in confidence by the US authorities, the government lost the case at the high court. On 14 December 2009, Miliband appealed against the six high court judgements ruling, that CIA information on Mohamed's treatment, and what MI5 and MI6 knew about it, must be disclosed. In a case unprecedented, counsel for the Guardian and other media organisations, Mohamed and two civil rights groups, Liberty and Justice, argued that the public interest in disclosing the role played by British and US agencies in unlawful activities far outweighs any claim about potential threats to national security.[48][49]
On December 20, 2009, a U.S. judge, Gladys Kessler, found that there was "credible" evidence that a British resident was tortured while being detained on behalf of Washington. A formerly classified legal opinion, handed down by a judge in the US district court and obtained by the Observer, acknowledges that the US government does not dispute "credible" evidence that Binyam Mohamed had been tortured while being held at "its behest".[50][51]
On January 27, 2010, it was reported that the "United Nations human rights investigators have concluded that the British government has been complicit in the mistreatment and possible torture of several of its own citizens during the "war on terror". Among the cases listed, in which they conclude that a state has been complicit in a secret detention, the authors highlight "the United Kingdom in the cases of several individuals, including Binyam Mohamed.[52]
Wikinews has related news: UK loses appeal to conceal Binyam Mohamed torture
On February 10, 2010 three senior judges, sitting in the Court of Appeal, ordered the British government to reveal evidence of MI5 and MI6 complicity in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, overruling the foreign secretary, David Miliband.[53]
In response to highly critical media coverage, Mr Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, insisted that the coverage of the torture had been “baseless, groundless accusations”.[54] He also said that government lawyers had not forced the judiciary to water down criticism of MI5, despite an earlier, draft ruling by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls that the Security Service had failed to respect human rights, deliberately misled parliament, and had a "culture of suppression" that undermined government assurances about its conduct.[55]
According to the Washington Post the court order forcing the British Government to publish secret memos it received from US intelligence officials will jeopardize future US-UK intelligence sharing.[56] The Washington Post quoted "White House officials" on February 10, 2010, who said the publication: "will complicate the confidentiality of our intelligence-sharing relationship.". According to The Guardian an anonymous White House officials had told them: "the court decision would not provoke a broad review of intelligence liaison between Britain and the US because the need for close co-operation was greater now than ever."[57]
At the end Mohamed received 1 million UK pound compensation from the British government.[58]

So the UK has no Liability but still paid out, to draw a line under the issue (common practice). The deceit by the Security Apparatus of Government, and the deliberate falsifications and misleading of parliament is the result of the "The Ends Justify's the Means" in terms of Intelligence and I personally find this unacceptable.

If the British Government had been able to present their evidence (which they cannot at the moment) they believe they wouldn't have had to pay out. So this is one of the supposed Loop Hole they are seeking to close. The issue here, is that Intelligence is not Fact. It is often fact fragments or partial facts with best guesses or probable/ likely courses of action or to use a better term "Intelligent Conjecture". This is why intelligence is sometimes misleading or plain wrong. So to allow this as a form of evidence to convict or not convict in court is dangerous because it undermines the basis of the entire legal system.

@Fabricator General Mike - Good times, it rains in Wales alot (nice to know I won't miss it in Canada!).

**Sonophos**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Let's be honest here. Any real terrorist worth their salt would not go within a million miles of any social network site, email or telephone service, if they are planning anything. It is too widely known that the security services can listen in.

Similary, how do you guard against lone wolf attacks? You cant. This is fear mongering at its worst.

It's no surprise really, freedoms have been eroded for years in Britain. The rot started with John Major, then new labour, and now these half-witted PR men pretending to be tories.

No what you do is you go on esoteric forum sites via a proxy and leave stego messages in your signature.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@mwnciboo Oddly I have hearsay evidence that the evidence supplied in closed court is damning and not just "Intelligent Conjecture": My mother worked as a Verbatim Reporter in the High Courts and other government facilities; She told me that the evidence given in closed court is generally video, audio and gathered data that places the defendant in a location and gives recorded evidence. She also reported to me that future investigations would be jeapordised if the evidnce was seen by the wrong people (like the defendant).
She was not the kind of person that wouldn't tell me if it was a scam.

**Ratius**

I really should stop hitting 'show this post'.

Words to die by my friend down here.

Anyways.

**Albatross**

To be honest, I don't really see much wrong with hearing sensitive evidence in a closed material proceeding. At least the evidence gets to be heard, which at the moment isn't possible without endangering our national security or the national security of our allies. The USA has secret courts relating to intelligence that aren't open to public scrutiny. It's not ideal, but how else can such evidence be heard? I wouldn't be prepared to air sensitive intelligence information in front of terror suspects, their legal counsel, the media and members of the public. That's just a massive breach of security, and that to me is more important than the opinions of Shami Chakrabati and the rest of her student union chums.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and by the by, I wouldn't have had a problem with the Labour party doing this - it's the suggestions of collusion in kidnapping and torture, and the suspension of habeas corpus that really got my goat. A lot of the people who presided over these (actually very serious) breaches of human rights are still on the Labour Party front-bench. Just FYI.

**George Spiggott**

Judging by today's headlines (on a right wing newspaper IIRC) then this is getting U-turned on just like the internet snooping shenanigans earlier in the week.

**mwnciboo**

Albatross wrote:To be honest, I don't really see much wrong with hearing sensitive evidence in a closed material proceeding. At least the evidence gets to be heard, which at the moment isn't possible without endangering our national security or the national security of our allies. The USA has secret courts relating to intelligence that aren't open to public scrutiny. It's not ideal, but how else can such evidence be heard? I wouldn't be prepared to air sensitive intelligence information in front of terror suspects, their legal counsel, the media and members of the public. That's just a massive breach of security, and that to me is more important than the opinions of Shami Chakrabati and the rest of her student union chums.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and by the by, I wouldn't have had a problem with the Labour party doing this - it's the suggestions of collusion in kidnapping and torture, and the suspension of habeas corpus that really got my goat. A lot of the people who presided over these (actually very serious) breaches of human rights are still on the Labour Party front-bench. Just FYI.

I actually agree with you on the Shami Chakrabati issue (someone who approves the LSE to get £10million Funding from the Gaddafi regime when she was on their board, and Saif gaddafi got some nice LSE Qualifications) and also the Labour government bit; this transcends Politics as it a Legal issue.The issue I have is that you are putting a considerable amount of trust in authorities outside of the Legal System.

MI-6 are certainly not above lying, deceiving, manipulating or exploiting anything to maintain the state, and provide a degree of protection from Outside Political Interference, radicals, terrorism or foreign governments. Is it really that hard to see the temptation when Governments or the Establishment are on the ropes or a highly indefensible position to create "Intelligence Evidence" in order to belay fears or aswage potential damaging legal action no matter how valid?

Examples in the last 10 years where the UK Government has been under extra-ordinary legal pressure from decisions, or evidence of decisions ;-

1. Extra-ordinary Rendition of UK Citizens (illegal)
2. Complicity in Torture of UK Citizens (illegal)
3. The Iraq Dossier and the 40 minute WMD claim ( bad intelligence supporting a pre-emptive strike against a nation and regime, later proved to be completely wrong)

This is about Vote winning, and feeding off fear, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" or " Fear is the mind killer, that brings slow death" take your pick, but Britian showed that you weather terrorism with stoic resolve, and not budging a inch, nor changing your social fabric during Northern Ireland in the last 40 years. You do take sensible precautions and you do use your intelligence services effectively, you do not bug the entire nation nor compromise your legal system. Everytime the IRA struck or other Nationalist group hit us, we didn't send the RAF to bomb Dublin or Bug every home in Northern Ireland.

I really think the Government will U-turn on this because the whole thing feeds off fear. The truth of the matter really is, are we mature enough as a Nation to accept that some degree of Terrorism will be always be there and it is the unfortunate truth that some innocent citizens will perish. To compromise our entire civilization in an attempt to stave off this truth, is irrational, ill-conceived and could fatally weaken the very strongest foundation of our Country, freedom?

**Albatross**

I would take issue with the Northern Ireland thing - the British government was implicated in some pretty dodgy stuff, as well as OPENLY doing some dodgy stuff. 'Extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary measures' and all that. I don't necessarily agree with everything the government did there, don't get me wrong, but the important thing is the outcome, and yes, I am almost psychotically pragmatic when it comes to things like that. The end can justify the means, even if we have to hold our noses whilst applying them.

The problem with terrorism is that it's not quite war and it's not quite crime - it's a grey area somewhere between both. That means the country has to be on a state of alert, as if we were at war, but it also means that we can't just subject terrorists to summary justice (like on the battlefield, for instance) when we catch them here at home. They have to face the full force of our laws. The problem arises because the way we track and apprehend terrorists is usually based within an secret intelligence-based framework, which means that most if not all the evidence is sensitive, which leads to situations like this:

'The defendant was witnessed meeting persons X and Y...'

Witnessed by who? 'That's classified information.' Did they have the subject under surveillance? 'Classified information, sorry.' Why were they there? 'Classified'. Who are they employed by? 'Classified information.' Why can't they testify in open court, in person? 'Classified information.'

Question after question can't be answered because the answers are a national secret, to us or to our allies. Once again, I don't love it, but we just have to hold our noses and get on with it. That evidence must be able to be used, and terrorists brought to justice. By the same token, if a suggestion is made that our intelligence services colluded in torture or kidnapping, the evidence must be used to uncover the truth, without compromising the secrecy that is vital to MI5, GCHQ and SIS. It's a dirty business, though, no question.

**mwnciboo**

I agree on the dirty business, looks like Jack Straw and Tony Blair maybe facing some difficult questions as this thing seems to be gaining momentum with the Abu Hamza case and others coming on top of the original piece I started this topic on came to light.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17682879

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17651802

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16533867

I heard on R4, that Jack Straw has nothing to say, whilst William Hague has been effectively gagged as the Police Investigation began in January into complicity and/or lying to parliament. (Is lying to Parliament Contempt? I know that lying at a Commons Select Committee is chargable as contempt, because James Murdoch might have fallen foul of it in the past 12 months)