It's also worth pointing out that the source for Cameron asking Putin to "intervene" in Scotland was a Kremlin-run Russian news organization, without any evidence.
The big crawler got sent packing with egg on his face. Putin just laughed at him.
Why are the SNP so relaxed about dancing to the Kremlin’s tune? one can understand RT’s enthusiasm for Scottish independence: the break-up of the United Kingdom would undeniably be in the Russian national interest. Russia fears the projection of Western power; and Britain is far greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to an international presence. Divide and conquer is not simply a worn-out cliché. What is surprising is that the Scottish Nationalists are so keen to dance to the former KGB man’s tune. Why else would senior SNP figures choose so repeatedly appear on RT?
Britain as a power, beaten at every turn by a few boys with towels on their heads. Iran took their i-pods and made their sailors cry, boo hoo we are powerful.
Your posts are getting ever more bizarre.
I have served with many many Jocks and they have been fantastic in every respect. Professionalim, sense of humour, ability and capability.
What exactly are you saying here?
I appreciate that it is very exciting being given the vote this year by ASalmond but you are insulting "your" country's armed forces and I can't for the life of me see why.
It's also worth pointing out that the source for Cameron asking Putin to "intervene" in Scotland was a Kremlin-run Russian news organization, without any evidence.
The big crawler got sent packing with egg on his face. Putin just laughed at him.
Why are the SNP so relaxed about dancing to the Kremlin’s tune? one can understand RT’s enthusiasm for Scottish independence: the break-up of the United Kingdom would undeniably be in the Russian national interest. Russia fears the projection of Western power; and Britain is far greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to an international presence. Divide and conquer is not simply a worn-out cliché. What is surprising is that the Scottish Nationalists are so keen to dance to the former KGB man’s tune. Why else would senior SNP figures choose so repeatedly appear on RT?
Britain as a power, beaten at every turn by a few boys with towels on their heads. Iran took their i-pods and made their sailors cry, boo hoo we are powerful.
"It is no secret that Tories in the south want to leave Scotland in darkness,
Whereas what struck me was a senile old codger who seemed completely unaware that this is far from a new move and was indeed proposed by a southern tory in a private members bill.
"The move is a response to the Daylight Savings Private Members' Bill put forward by Conservative MP Rebecca Harris."
It's also those campaigning on road safety for children and farmers who are at the forefront of opposing this you amusing old duffer.
Look up the facts instead of your arse next time "JackW".
Whereas what struck me was that one Conservative MP becomes "southern Tories".
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's MEP and millions of Conservative voters but I rather think it might have just been SNP MP Angus MacNeil being an arse.
For those that have said GCHQ have only been collecting metadata, here's one for you:
Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal. The material included large quantity of sexually explicit images.
How is this not a more major story? We have thousands of government employees recording and examining the most privately shared images between couples. Yet, other than the Guardian, the media barely covers it. Where are the journalists demanding that the government answer questions on this? In Germany, this would be a major scandal. What is David Cameron doing to curb GCHQ, who appear to be completely out of control. This is an awful damn government that deserves to get slammed at the polls.
It's also worth pointing out that the source for Cameron asking Putin to "intervene" in Scotland was a Kremlin-run Russian news organization, without any evidence.
The big crawler got sent packing with egg on his face. Putin just laughed at him.
Why are the SNP so relaxed about dancing to the Kremlin’s tune? one can understand RT’s enthusiasm for Scottish independence: the break-up of the United Kingdom would undeniably be in the Russian national interest. Russia fears the projection of Western power; and Britain is far greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to an international presence. Divide and conquer is not simply a worn-out cliché. What is surprising is that the Scottish Nationalists are so keen to dance to the former KGB man’s tune. Why else would senior SNP figures choose so repeatedly appear on RT?
Britain as a power, beaten at every turn by a few boys with towels on their heads. Iran took their i-pods and made their sailors cry, boo hoo we are powerful.
Itar-Tass, citing a source in the Conservative Prime Minister's office, said Britain was "extremely interested" in referendum support from Russia, which this year holds the presidency of the influential G8 group of rich industrial nations.
The state-owned agency - acknowledged as the Kremlin's official mouthpiece before and after the end of Communism
As the old saying goes, there is no Truth in Pravda nor News in Izvestia......
"It is no secret that Tories in the south want to leave Scotland in darkness,
Whereas what struck me was a senile old codger who seemed completely unaware that this is far from a new move and was indeed proposed by a southern tory in a private members bill.
"The move is a response to the Daylight Savings Private Members' Bill put forward by Conservative MP Rebecca Harris."
It's also those campaigning on road safety for children and farmers who are at the forefront of opposing this you amusing old duffer.
Look up the facts instead of your arse next time "JackW".
Whereas what struck me was that one Conservative MP becomes "southern Tories".
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's
She has the backing from a great many of her tory colleagues in the south and did way back when this was first reported ages ago. Dear oh dear "JackW". Do something about your overexcitable arse as it's uncontrolled outbursts are doing you no favours at all.
Just catching up on today's wider news - has anyone else read through the details of GCHQ trawling webcam data in "bulk" (i.e. not based on target-specific intelligence)?
I'm sure there are many strikingly concerning civil liberties issues in here, but it's worth pointing out that a) GCHQ appeared shocked how many "intimate images" were broadcast through video chat and b) they managed to reach the very precise conclusion that, at a 95% confidence level, 7.1% (+/- 3.7%) of images sent in yahoo video chat contained "undesirable nudity". Which has got to be worth knowing, although further clarification would be welcome on whether it was the subjects (rather than the mere fact) of the nudity that were undesirable.
Yet more shocking revelations about indiscriminate abolition of citizens privacy. And how are GCHQ surprised at a 7% nudity rate - as a random guess I'd have thought that was on the low side myself...
@JackW (and I'm also interested in the opinion of various Scottish contributors) - what was the McARSE projection for IndyRef turnout again?
I've partaken of the 3/1+ on betfair about 75% which seems cracking value on an existential question such as this. Perhaps even better is Hills' 4/6 over 66% [which might require a shop visit].
79% turnout was the latest projection published on PB on 18 Feb.
Nicola Sturgeon @NicolaSturgeon 37 mins Rating agency, Standard & Poor's assessment: "Even excluding North Sea output...Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment"
Peter Hain struggling mightily right now on BBC. If this gets to a political blame game then the inquiry will have to be a formidable one to please everybody.
It's also worth pointing out that the source for Cameron asking Putin to "intervene" in Scotland was a Kremlin-run Russian news organization, without any evidence.
The big crawler got sent packing with egg on his face. Putin just laughed at him.
Why are the SNP so relaxed about dancing to the Kremlin’s tune? one can understand RT’s enthusiasm for Scottish independence: the break-up of the United Kingdom would undeniably be in the Russian national interest. Russia fears the projection of Western power; and Britain is far greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to an international presence. Divide and conquer is not simply a worn-out cliché. What is surprising is that the Scottish Nationalists are so keen to dance to the former KGB man’s tune. Why else would senior SNP figures choose so repeatedly appear on RT?
Britain as a power, beaten at every turn by a few boys with towels on their heads. Iran took their i-pods and made their sailors cry, boo hoo we are powerful.
Hilarious source. Please stop posting this frankly ridiculous idea that No. 10 has enlisted Putin to stop Scotlant breaking away. The source is not credible. A former Soviet news agency citing unknown source within No. 10 is not credible. At all. So please stop. It is embarrassing.
Amazing that all this outrageous infringement of personal privacy is happening under a Prime Minister that once wanted to implement a British Bill of Rights. I guess he dumped that idea when he gave up his opposition to Big Brother government when he came to power.
Just catching up on today's wider news - has anyone else read through the details of GCHQ trawling webcam data in "bulk" (i.e. not based on target-specific intelligence)?
I'm sure there are many strikingly concerning civil liberties issues in here, but it's worth pointing out that a) GCHQ appeared shocked how many "intimate images" were broadcast through video chat and b) they managed to reach the very precise conclusion that, at a 95% confidence level, 7.1% (+/- 3.7%) of images sent in yahoo video chat contained "undesirable nudity". Which has got to be worth knowing, although further clarification would be welcome on whether it was the subjects (rather than the mere fact) of the nudity that were undesirable.
Yet more shocking revelations about indiscriminate abolition of citizens privacy. And how are GCHQ surprised at a 7% nudity rate - as a random guess I'd have thought that was on the low side myself...
The inquiry will sit in secret, will not be held under the Inquiries Act 2005, and will have no power to compel witnesses or evidence. So the format is more Huttonite, than Levesonian.
Just catching up on today's wider news - has anyone else read through the details of GCHQ trawling webcam data in "bulk" (i.e. not based on target-specific intelligence)?
I'm sure there are many strikingly concerning civil liberties issues in here, but it's worth pointing out that a) GCHQ appeared shocked how many "intimate images" were broadcast through video chat and b) they managed to reach the very precise conclusion that, at a 95% confidence level, 7.1% (+/- 3.7%) of images sent in yahoo video chat contained "undesirable nudity". Which has got to be worth knowing, although further clarification would be welcome on whether it was the subjects (rather than the mere fact) of the nudity that were undesirable.
Yet more shocking revelations about indiscriminate abolition of citizens privacy. And how are GCHQ surprised at a 7% nudity rate - as a random guess I'd have thought that was on the low side myself...
Just catching up on today's wider news - has anyone else read through the details of GCHQ trawling webcam data in "bulk" (i.e. not based on target-specific intelligence)?
I'm sure there are many strikingly concerning civil liberties issues in here, but it's worth pointing out that a) GCHQ appeared shocked how many "intimate images" were broadcast through video chat and b) they managed to reach the very precise conclusion that, at a 95% confidence level, 7.1% (+/- 3.7%) of images sent in yahoo video chat contained "undesirable nudity". Which has got to be worth knowing, although further clarification would be welcome on whether it was the subjects (rather than the mere fact) of the nudity that were undesirable.
Yet more shocking revelations about indiscriminate abolition of citizens privacy. And how are GCHQ surprised at a 7% nudity rate - as a random guess I'd have thought that was on the low side myself...
If a single image from 323 ids allows for that level of confidence, the overall population size must be small.
I sometimes wonder what goes through the heads of the spin department at Tory HQ. They have built this Merky visit as where Cameron was going to demand all kinds of things and she would just bow down to them. Are the effing stupid. It was always going to be a car crash after they hyped up the visit.""Those who expect me to promise fundamental reforms of EU architecture for UK are in for a disappointment" If anything he is in a worse position now with his Euro-sceptic MP's than he was before she came. #PRFAIL
In other news, another "Not PB's finest day of postings". It seems paedophile has been the buzzword on here for days.
@Socrates - It might be that the Guardian are (not for the first time) over-egging it. Even they admit that: "The agency did make efforts to limit analysts' ability to see webcam images, restricting bulk searches to metadata only... additional legal authorisations are required before analysts can search for the data of individuals likely to be in the British Isles at the time of the search....GCHQ insists all of its activities are necessary, proportionate, and in accordance with UK law". The quotes from the leaked documents also say that "This is allowed for research purposes but at the point where the results are shown to analysts for operational use, the proportionality and legality questions must be more carefully considered."
As you invariably do, you have immedately jumped to the conclusion that the rather garbled Guardian headline must be the unvarnished truth, that the GCHQ response is a load of lies, and that GCHQ aren't complying with the law. Maybe so, neither you nor I can really say. We have courts of law to determine that kind of question,.
Amazing that all this outrageous infringement of personal privacy is happening under a Prime Minister that once wanted to implement a British Bill of Rights. I guess he dumped that idea when he gave up his opposition to Big Brother government when he came to power.
Yes, given that we have the two parties most concerned with civil liberties in government, and a relatively libertarian Conservative party leader (compared with a few of his recent predecessors) the lack of response on this is surprising. Unfortunately it does contribute to the picture of both Cameron and Clegg as fairly weak individuals who lack clear vision and principles to enable them to stand up against the inertia of the machinery of government.
@lennon yeah I thought 7% was low as well, but I guess that videochat isn't *just* used for that after all.
Amazing that all this outrageous infringement of personal privacy is happening under a Prime Minister that once wanted to implement a British Bill of Rights. I guess he dumped that idea when he gave up his opposition to Big Brother government when he came to power.
Amazing that all this outrageous infringement of personal privacy is happening under a Prime Minister that once wanted to implement a British Bill of Rights. I guess he dumped that idea when he gave up his opposition to Big Brother government when he came to power.
I don't know why anyone is surprised that the executive uses the powers in relation to the interception of communications which have been conferred on it. Whether the conferral of those powers is a good idea or not is another matter, but if you want to change it, you face the formidable challenge of persuading a reactionary and authoritarian electorate to return less reactionary and authoritarian MPs.
Just catching up on today's wider news - has anyone else read through the details of GCHQ trawling webcam data in "bulk" (i.e. not based on target-specific intelligence)?
I'm sure there are many strikingly concerning civil liberties issues in here, but it's worth pointing out that a) GCHQ appeared shocked how many "intimate images" were broadcast through video chat and b) they managed to reach the very precise conclusion that, at a 95% confidence level, 7.1% (+/- 3.7%) of images sent in yahoo video chat contained "undesirable nudity". Which has got to be worth knowing, although further clarification would be welcome on whether it was the subjects (rather than the mere fact) of the nudity that were undesirable.
Yet more shocking revelations about indiscriminate abolition of citizens privacy. And how are GCHQ surprised at a 7% nudity rate - as a random guess I'd have thought that was on the low side myself...
I always look for the Pirates on the ballot paper ! Sadly none there normally. Will the pirates be standing in the euros ?
Guessing that was directed at me? Where are you voting - we are trying to have every area covered, but not sure if we will make it. Naturally if you want to help by donating, or campaigning all assistance is welcomed. :-)
Nicola Sturgeon @NicolaSturgeon 37 mins Rating agency, Standard & Poor's assessment: "Even excluding North Sea output...Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment"
...only if they agreed a currency union, which they haven't.
S&P said a successful agreement on Scotland’s membership of a monetary union negotiated with either the UK or the eurozone would provide considerable support for the rating on a sovereign Scotland.
S&P also warned that a decision by a sovereign Scotland to issue its own new and untested currency, or to adopt unilaterally the currency of another sovereign – without gaining access to that currency’s lender of last resort – could pose risks to external financing.
Amazing that all this outrageous infringement of personal privacy is happening under a Prime Minister that once wanted to implement a British Bill of Rights. I guess he dumped that idea when he gave up his opposition to Big Brother government when he came to power.
Yes, given that we have the two parties most concerned with civil liberties in government, and a relatively libertarian Conservative party leader (compared with a few of his recent predecessors) the lack of response on this is surprising. Unfortunately it does contribute to the picture of both Cameron and Clegg as fairly weak individuals who lack clear vision and principles to enable them to stand up against the inertia of the machinery of government.
@lennon yeah I thought 7% was low as well, but I guess that videochat isn't *just* used for that after all.
Is David Cameron really relatively libertarian? Or did he just say what he thought sounded good at the time, never believing in it?
Just catching up on today's wider news - has anyone else read through the details of GCHQ trawling webcam data in "bulk" (i.e. not based on target-specific intelligence)?
I'm sure there are many strikingly concerning civil liberties issues in here, but it's worth pointing out that a) GCHQ appeared shocked how many "intimate images" were broadcast through video chat and b) they managed to reach the very precise conclusion that, at a 95% confidence level, 7.1% (+/- 3.7%) of images sent in yahoo video chat contained "undesirable nudity". Which has got to be worth knowing, although further clarification would be welcome on whether it was the subjects (rather than the mere fact) of the nudity that were undesirable.
Yet more shocking revelations about indiscriminate abolition of citizens privacy. And how are GCHQ surprised at a 7% nudity rate - as a random guess I'd have thought that was on the low side myself...
I always look for the Pirates on the ballot paper ! Sadly none there normally. Will the pirates be standing in the euros ?
I have no information on that. But it provides a great opportunity to repeat Cornwall's joke of the day: Why are pirates pirates? Because they arrrrrrgghh.
Just catching up on today's wider news - has anyone else read through the details of GCHQ trawling webcam data in "bulk" (i.e. not based on target-specific intelligence)?
I'm sure there are many strikingly concerning civil liberties issues in here, but it's worth pointing out that a) GCHQ appeared shocked how many "intimate images" were broadcast through video chat and b) they managed to reach the very precise conclusion that, at a 95% confidence level, 7.1% (+/- 3.7%) of images sent in yahoo video chat contained "undesirable nudity". Which has got to be worth knowing, although further clarification would be welcome on whether it was the subjects (rather than the mere fact) of the nudity that were undesirable.
Yet more shocking revelations about indiscriminate abolition of citizens privacy. And how are GCHQ surprised at a 7% nudity rate - as a random guess I'd have thought that was on the low side myself...
If a single image from 323 ids allows for that level of confidence, the overall population size must be small.
"It is no secret that Tories in the south want to leave Scotland in darkness,
Whereas what struck me was a senile old codger who seemed completely unaware that this is far from a new move and was indeed proposed by a southern tory in a private members bill.
"The move is a response to the Daylight Savings Private Members' Bill put forward by Conservative MP Rebecca Harris."
It's also those campaigning on road safety for children and farmers who are at the forefront of opposing this you amusing old duffer.
Look up the facts instead of your arse next time "JackW".
Whereas what struck me was that one Conservative MP becomes "southern Tories".
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's
She has the backing from a great many of her tory colleagues in the south and did way back when this was first reported ages ago. Dear oh dear "JackW". Do something about your overexcitable arse as it's uncontrolled outbursts are doing you no favours at all.
I dare say she has. But why "southern Tories" ? why not Northern Tories, Midlands Tories, Welsh Tories or for that matter Tories at all ?
The fact is MacNeil used "southern Tories" as cheap abuse pandering to the worst aspects of chip on your shoulder SNP victimhood.
Fortunately such victimhood isn't common currency among most Scots ....
It's also worth pointing out that the source for Cameron asking Putin to "intervene" in Scotland was a Kremlin-run Russian news organization, without any evidence.
The big crawler got sent packing with egg on his face. Putin just laughed at him.
Why are the SNP so relaxed about dancing to the Kremlin’s tune? one can understand RT’s enthusiasm for Scottish independence: the break-up of the United Kingdom would undeniably be in the Russian national interest. Russia fears the projection of Western power; and Britain is far greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to an international presence. Divide and conquer is not simply a worn-out cliché. What is surprising is that the Scottish Nationalists are so keen to dance to the former KGB man’s tune. Why else would senior SNP figures choose so repeatedly appear on RT?
Britain as a power, beaten at every turn by a few boys with towels on their heads. Iran took their i-pods and made their sailors cry, boo hoo we are powerful.
Sorry, I almost forgot right wingers treat all Number 10 denials and spin as the word of god. FYI the Herald were one of those foremost in uncovering the Falkirk scandal so as a source for the scottish public it has considerably more clout behind it than hysterically shrieking PB tories.
Just catching up on today's wider news - has anyone else read through the details of GCHQ trawling webcam data in "bulk" (i.e. not based on target-specific intelligence)?
I'm sure there are many strikingly concerning civil liberties issues in here, but it's worth pointing out that a) GCHQ appeared shocked how many "intimate images" were broadcast through video chat and b) they managed to reach the very precise conclusion that, at a 95% confidence level, 7.1% (+/- 3.7%) of images sent in yahoo video chat contained "undesirable nudity". Which has got to be worth knowing, although further clarification would be welcome on whether it was the subjects (rather than the mere fact) of the nudity that were undesirable.
Yet more shocking revelations about indiscriminate abolition of citizens privacy. And how are GCHQ surprised at a 7% nudity rate - as a random guess I'd have thought that was on the low side myself...
If a single image from 323 ids allows for that level of confidence, the overall population size must be small.
Grandiose
I trust you are not suggesting that, on this issue, size matters?
For those that have said GCHQ have only been collecting metadata, here's one for you:
Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal. The material included large quantity of sexually explicit images.
How is this not a more major story? We have thousands of government employees recording and examining the most privately shared images between couples. Yet, other than the Guardian, the media barely covers it. Where are the journalists demanding that the government answer questions on this? In Germany, this would be a major scandal. What is David Cameron doing to curb GCHQ, who appear to be completely out of control. This is an awful damn government that deserves to get slammed at the polls.
If there were "millions" of Yahoo images, let alone many millions (i.e. multiple images from each user), then 323 images would not be able to produce the confidence interval suggested. In fact it is far from it.
The truth must be that the operation was far smaller. The clues are in the article.
"The agency did make efforts to limit analysts' ability to see webcam images, restricting bulk searches to metadata only. However, analysts were shown the faces of people with similar usernames to surveillance targets."
Amazing that all this outrageous infringement of personal privacy is happening under a Prime Minister that once wanted to implement a British Bill of Rights. I guess he dumped that idea when he gave up his opposition to Big Brother government when he came to power.
Yes, given that we have the two parties most concerned with civil liberties in government, and a relatively libertarian Conservative party leader (compared with a few of his recent predecessors) the lack of response on this is surprising. Unfortunately it does contribute to the picture of both Cameron and Clegg as fairly weak individuals who lack clear vision and principles to enable them to stand up against the inertia of the machinery of government.
Indeed - the lack of backbone and consistency from Clegg and the Lib Dems in particular is why I joined the Pirates.
You're doing the old thing of equating immoral with illegal. The fact is that this stuff is all legal, because the "liberal Conservative" in No. 10 has signed off on it all. Your faith in the powers that be to act reasonably and proportionally at all times is frankly amazing. You're trying to claim that we shouldn't believe major newspapers despite having no evidence that's their findings are untrue. It's funny how this the only issue you apply this to. The reality is that the government's recent actions are horrendously authoritarian and it's indefensible.
"It is no secret that Tories in the south want to leave Scotland in darkness,
Whereas what struck me was a senile old codger who seemed completely unaware that this is far from a new move and was indeed proposed by a southern tory in a private members bill.
"The move is a response to the Daylight Savings Private Members' Bill put forward by Conservative MP Rebecca Harris."
It's also those campaigning on road safety for children and farmers who are at the forefront of opposing this you amusing old duffer.
Look up the facts instead of your arse next time "JackW".
Whereas what struck me was that one Conservative MP becomes "southern Tories".
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's
She has the backing from a great many of her tory colleagues in the south and did way back when this was first reported ages ago. Dear oh dear "JackW". Do something about your overexcitable arse as it's uncontrolled outbursts are doing you no favours at all.
I dare say she has. But why "southern Tories" ? why not Northern Tories, Midlands Tories, Welsh Tories or for that matter Tories at all ?
Because that's who was pushing for it the hardest obviously. The clue is in the story old boy.
Question: do the Nats on here actively want to be disliked? Is that an actual, deliberate policy, to be consistently and remorselessly abusive, unpleasant and humourless, and therefore deeply unsympathetic?
I speak as someone prone to dishing out nasty abuse, so I have some expertise; I also know that I have to leaven my drunken insults with the odd bit of humour, if I can, and also friendliness - otherwise no one will talk to me, for the good reason that I am acting like a [moderated] and therefore my insights will be disregarded.
Yet this doesn't seem to occur to Nats. They are just relentlessly aggressive and repetitively witless. How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause? What purpose does it serve?
Can a CyberNat who isn't psychotic - there must be some, or one - possibly explain?
Is it possible the Cyber"Nats" are actually Unionist plants? Probably a rubbish theory, but just sayin'...
Amazing that all this outrageous infringement of personal privacy is happening under a Prime Minister that once wanted to implement a British Bill of Rights. I guess he dumped that idea when he gave up his opposition to Big Brother government when he came to power.
Yes, given that we have the two parties most concerned with civil liberties in government, and a relatively libertarian Conservative party leader (compared with a few of his recent predecessors) the lack of response on this is surprising. Unfortunately it does contribute to the picture of both Cameron and Clegg as fairly weak individuals who lack clear vision and principles to enable them to stand up against the inertia of the machinery of government.
@lennon yeah I thought 7% was low as well, but I guess that videochat isn't *just* used for that after all.
Is David Cameron really relatively libertarian? Or did he just say what he thought sounded good at the time, never believing in it?
There is no evidence that Cameron has any libertarian instincts. In fact all of the evidence points the other way. A mass internet filter, the snoopers charter, condoning mass spying on the British population by the spooks. Cameron is as authoritarian as the previous Labour PMs. A complete and utter disappointment. Personally I blame David Davis for standing down and having an inconsequential by-election losing his place in the Shadow Cabinet at the same time.
I sometimes wonder what goes through the heads of the spin department at Tory HQ. They have built this Merky visit as where Cameron was going to demand all kinds of things and she would just bow down to them. Are the effing stupid. It was always going to be a car crash after they hyped up the visit.""Those who expect me to promise fundamental reforms of EU architecture for UK are in for a disappointment" If anything he is in a worse position now with his Euro-sceptic MP's than he was before she came. #PRFAIL
In other news, another "Not PB's finest day of postings". It seems paedophile has been the buzzword on here for days.
Well, sadly paedophile stories have been in the news a lot recently. And you know what? I'd rather the stories be out there and being discussed (within the limits of the law and common sense) than covered up.
Levels of immigration from the EU countries are at the highest level since 1964.
No government can do anything about immigration from EU countries. Especially when our economy is outperforming theirs.
Personally I would far rather immigration from EU countries than from the third world, and in terms of the latter, the government is doing much better.
Would you like to elaborate to the gathered throng as to why that is? Personally I would much prefer there to be no discrimination by race or nationality. What we need is a controlled immigration policy that treats all nations and races equally.
Question: do the Nats on here actively want to be disliked? Is that an actual, deliberate policy, to be consistently and remorselessly abusive, unpleasant and humourless, and therefore deeply unsympathetic?
Completely typical religious behaviour.
Convert to the cause, and you will be welcomed with open arms.
All other heretics and unbelievers must be shunned
I sometimes wonder what goes through the heads of the spin department at Tory HQ. They have built this Merky visit as where Cameron was going to demand all kinds of things and she would just bow down to them. Are the effing stupid. It was always going to be a car crash after they hyped up the visit.""Those who expect me to promise fundamental reforms of EU architecture for UK are in for a disappointment" If anything he is in a worse position now with his Euro-sceptic MP's than he was before she came. #PRFAIL
In other news, another "Not PB's finest day of postings". It seems paedophile has been the buzzword on here for days.
It has been strangely portrayed by both sides. Cameron was never going to "extract" anything from Merkel: the pressure for her to agree was going to be based on popular German (and shared) problems. The solution, accordingly, was never going to be British exceptionalism, but pan-European reform (such as an alteration of Directive 2004/38/EC).
Amazing that all this outrageous infringement of personal privacy is happening under a Prime Minister that once wanted to implement a British Bill of Rights. I guess he dumped that idea when he gave up his opposition to Big Brother government when he came to power.
Yes, given that we have the two parties most concerned with civil liberties in government, and a relatively libertarian Conservative party leader (compared with a few of his recent predecessors) the lack of response on this is surprising. Unfortunately it does contribute to the picture of both Cameron and Clegg as fairly weak individuals who lack clear vision and principles to enable them to stand up against the inertia of the machinery of government.
@lennon yeah I thought 7% was low as well, but I guess that videochat isn't *just* used for that after all.
Is David Cameron really relatively libertarian? Or did he just say what he thought sounded good at the time, never believing in it?
There is no evidence that Cameron has any libertarian instincts. In fact all of the evidence points the other way. A mass internet filter, the snoopers charter, condoning mass spying on the British population by the spooks. Cameron is as authoritarian as the previous Labour PMs. A complete and utter disappointment. Personally I blame David Davis for standing down and having an inconsequential by-election losing his place in the Shadow Cabinet at the same time.
Yes, it was sadly a huge strategic mistake for David Davis to stand down. But he still seems like the only one in the party standing against this stuff.
@SeanT It is very wearing, and I speak as someone well enough disposed to Scottish independence.
I think it's a consequence of the strategy they've been forced to employ - the vote will (at best) be on a knife-edge for them, so they can't truly follow through on the implications of independence (their own currency being the most obvious example), since that will frighten the horses.
Therefore a continual stream of bluster allied to the abuse of their opponents (chiefly the classic bogeymen of English Tories, but the Scottish Labour party are a very satisfying side dish, and Danny Alexander et al a moist dessert) may actually be a fairly sensible strategy.
The country is also not helped by the fact the BBC puts this horrendous abuse of state power as a minor news story on its website, below Tom Finney's funeral.
It's also worth pointing out that the source for Cameron asking Putin to "intervene" in Scotland was a Kremlin-run Russian news organization, without any evidence.
The big crawler got sent packing with egg on his face. Putin just laughed at him.
Why are the SNP so relaxed about dancing to the Kremlin’s tune? one can understand RT’s enthusiasm for Scottish independence: the break-up of the United Kingdom would undeniably be in the Russian national interest. Russia fears the projection of Western power; and Britain is far greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to an international presence. Divide and conquer is not simply a worn-out cliché. What is surprising is that the Scottish Nationalists are so keen to dance to the former KGB man’s tune. Why else would senior SNP figures choose so repeatedly appear on RT?
Britain as a power, beaten at every turn by a few boys with towels on their heads. Iran took their i-pods and made their sailors cry, boo hoo we are powerful.
Sorry, I almost forgot right wingers treat all Number 10 denials and spin as the word of god. FYI the Herald were one of those foremost in uncovering the Falkirk scandal
Oh dear....someone can't tell the difference between primary and secondary sources?
Perhaps that why Nats treat Salmond's pronouncements as the 'word of god'?
323 images were taken in the survey to make a judgment on nudity. It is not the total number of images stored.
That's not what I meant to suggest. Rather 323 was enough to produce a confidence interval of 7.1 +/- 3.7% with 95% confidence, from which it should be possible to calculate the population size. I don't know how to do that that, but a rough calculation suggests it cannot be millions.
I sometimes wonder what goes through the heads of the spin department at Tory HQ. They have built this Merky visit as where Cameron was going to demand all kinds of things and she would just bow down to them. Are the effing stupid. It was always going to be a car crash after they hyped up the visit.""Those who expect me to promise fundamental reforms of EU architecture for UK are in for a disappointment" If anything he is in a worse position now with his Euro-sceptic MP's than he was before she came. #PRFAIL
In other news, another "Not PB's finest day of postings". It seems paedophile has been the buzzword on here for days.
It has been strangely portrayed by both sides. Cameron was never going to "extract" anything from Merkel: the pressure for her to agree was going to be based on popular German (and shared) problems. The solution, accordingly, was never going to be British exceptionalism, but pan-European reform (such as an alteration of Directive 2004/38/EC).
Totally agree, so why build it up as though Cameron was going to satisfy his Euro-Sceptics. It was only going to end one way. All it has done is make him look weaker or as a Daily Mail reporter has just asked a number 10 spokesman "whether the PM sees himself as Merkel's naughty nephew". For someone who is supposed to be from PR, he falls short on it so often.
How tiresome it must be for you to watch right-wingers on here obsess about scotland day after day after day. It's gone on for weeks now after all. Then the absolute cheek of the few Yes Supporters on this right-wing dominated site not doffing their caps and meekly saying 'oh you must be right after all, please do go on' to all the bilious outpourings from the PB tories and their hangers on.
By God that would be a pain in the backside, wouldn't it? Why don't they just shut up and let the right-wingers say whatever they want? It's just not cricket.
There was a 63.8% turnout at the last General Election in Scotland. (And a 50% turnout for Holyrood in 2011). I'd price Hills' 4/6 at 1/6.
£15 invested on the market it is.
Just be aware that the franchise for the referendum is extended to 16 - so includes a traditionally lower turnout demographic. (Not saying it's a bad bet, just not sure it's quite as good as it looks initially)
Would you like to elaborate to the gathered throng as to why that is?
Its a generalisation of course but EU migrants seem to be much better equipped to integrate than people from, say, Pakistan or Somalia. The rates of employment are much higher too.
Sorry, I almost forgot right wingers treat all Number 10 denials and spin as the word of god. FYI the Herald were one of those foremost in uncovering the Falkirk scandal so as a source for the scottish public it has considerably more clout behind it than hysterically shrieking PB tories.
Can you please find any denial official or otherwise from No. 10 on this subject. I very much doubt one exists since the idea is just ridiculous. The Herald are not the source by the way, they are reprinting and citing an article from a Russian paper with links to the Kremlin. Please don't try and lend this idea any credibility earned by the Herald since they are not the source and have not indicated anywhere in the article that they back these claims with their own sources. Keep saying it though, it just makes you and your argument look stupid. Not a single sane person believes that No. 10 approached Putin to intervene in the independence debate. He may have done so, but it is so incredibly unlikely that anyone from the current government asked for it as it would be counter productive to their goal of keeping Scotland in the union.
What happened is that Putin said something stupid which he shouldn't have since foreign heads of state aren't supposed to intervene in domestic issues from other major countries, and rather than break the convention the Kremlin concocted this story that he was asked to do so and went to their best mates in the press and leaked said story. That you even give the idea the time of day is very telling.
By God that would be a pain in the backside, wouldn't it? Why don't they just shut up and let the right-wingers say whatever they want? It's just not cricket.
Do you think I have a point, though? The SNP have had to water down the implications of independence to try to win the vote, which has led to the faintly ludicrous situation of demanding that independence be followed by financial oversight from London.
Like I say, I don't blame you, winning the vote is everything and the details can be dealt with later.
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape. A steady whine of hypocritical outrage from those whose 'standards' stop at their own output is just a bonus.
It's also worth pointing out that the source for Cameron asking Putin to "intervene" in Scotland was a Kremlin-run Russian news organization, without any evidence.
The big crawler got sent packing with egg on his face. Putin just laughed at him.
Why are the SNP so relaxed about dancing to the Kremlin’s tune? one can understand RT’s enthusiasm for Scottish independence: the break-up of the United Kingdom would undeniably be in the Russian national interest. Russia fears the projection of Western power; and Britain is far greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to an international presence. Divide and conquer is not simply a worn-out cliché. What is surprising is that the Scottish Nationalists are so keen to dance to the former KGB man’s tune. Why else would senior SNP figures choose so repeatedly appear on RT?
Britain as a power, beaten at every turn by a few boys with towels on their heads. Iran took their i-pods and made their sailors cry, boo hoo we are powerful.
Sorry, I almost forgot right wingers treat all Number 10 denials and spin as the word of god. FYI the Herald were one of those foremost in uncovering the Falkirk scandal
Oh dear....someone can't tell the difference between primary and secondary sources?
Oh dear, a Falkirk shrieker is reminded that you were very late in the day when the story broke. Nor does your acumen when it comes to knowing which of the press is more trustworthy inspire much confidence for obvious reasons. The Herald went front page on that just as they did with Falkirk on several occassions. That means they were sure of their sources whereas all you have is number 10 spin from an incompetent CCHQ. As usual.
@Socrates - You are extremely confused. Every sane person (apart from a couple who post on here!) agrees that we need some powers of surveillance to protect innocent citizens from terrorist attacks BEFORE they happen (ie. with no crime having been committed, except perhaps planning or conspiracy, which without such surveillance would not be known at all). Every sane person also agrees that there need to be legal safeguards to ensure that such powers are not abused, excessive, or used for purposes other than those intended by parliament. For exactly the same reason, every sane person accepts the violation of privacy and inconvenience of, for example, airport searches for weapons or bombs.
With me so far?
Now, there are areas of possible concern. One is legality: it is alleged by the Guardian that GCHQ are not abiding by the legal safeguards. (At least I think it is, their journalism is so incoherent at times that I'm not sure; certainly the headlines often don't match the articles). If so, then everyone agrees that that is not acceptable. That includes me, but more to the point David Cameron, William Hague, and every other MP as far as I know.
The second area of possible concern is whether the safeguards are correctly drawn. You immediately and invariably, on the basis of zero evidence as far as I can tell, jump to the conclusion that they are not correctly drawn. Quite how you can form an opinion on this without access to very heavily classified information, I have no idea. To form an informed opinion, you need to be able to assess both how great the dangers are (we can I think, after 9/11, assume that they are considerable), and how effective the surveillance powers available are at mitigating the danger.
You are right in one thing: when in power, all politicians tend to come to agree that the activities of GCHQ and similar organisations are proportionate and necessary. This is true both in the UK and other Western democracies. You invariably jump to the conclusion that this shows bad faith or a disregard for civil liberties. I'd suggest a more likely explanation is that it shows that, when they are briefed as to the real dangers and to what the intelligence services are able to do to protect citizens, they are persuaded of the necessity for them.
323 images were taken in the survey to make a judgment on nudity. It is not the total number of images stored.
That's not what I meant to suggest. Rather 323 was enough to produce a confidence interval of 7.1 +/- 3.7% with 95% confidence, from which it should be possible to calculate the population size. I don't know how to do that that, but a rough calculation suggests it cannot be millions.
They were obviously referring to some subset of the images, probably a particularly collection period. The article says outright that images from 1.8 million accounts were taken in a six month period.
It's also worth pointing out that the source for Cameron asking Putin to "intervene" in Scotland was a Kremlin-run Russian news organization, without any evidence.
The big crawler got sent packing with egg on his face. Putin just laughed at him.
Why are the SNP so relaxed about dancing to the Kremlin’s tune? one can understand RT’s enthusiasm for Scottish independence: the break-up of the United Kingdom would undeniably be in the Russian national interest. Russia fears the projection of Western power; and Britain is far greater than the sum of its parts when it comes to an international presence. Divide and conquer is not simply a worn-out cliché. What is surprising is that the Scottish Nationalists are so keen to dance to the former KGB man’s tune. Why else would senior SNP figures choose so repeatedly appear on RT?
Britain as a power, beaten at every turn by a few boys with towels on their heads. Iran took their i-pods and made their sailors cry, boo hoo we are powerful.
Sorry, I almost forgot right wingers treat all Number 10 denials and spin as the word of god. FYI the Herald were one of those foremost in uncovering the Falkirk scandal
Oh dear....someone can't tell the difference between primary and secondary sources?
Oh dear, a Falkirk shrieker is reminded that you were very late in the day when the story broke. Nor does your acumen when it comes to knowing which of the press is more trustworthy inspire much confidence for obvious reasons. The Herald went front page on that just as they did with Falkirk on several occassions. That means they were sure of their sources whereas all you have is number 10 spin from an incompetent CCHQ. As usual.
The Herald are not the primary source. Do you even know what that means?
Would you like to elaborate to the gathered throng as to why that is?
Its a generalisation of course but EU migrants seem to be much better equipped to integrate than people from, say, Pakistan or Somalia. The rates of employment are much higher too.
And you know what such profiling (generalisation) is called don't you?
Now, there are areas of possible concern. One is legality: it is alleged by the Guardian that GCHQ are not abiding by the legal safeguards. (At least I think it is, their journalism is so incoherent at times that I'm not sure; certainly the headlines often don't match the articles).
Maybe they were so feeble minded they tried to justify it from something they saw on TV?
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape..
And yet you're here every day. Why bother if it's so awful?
Just like Mick Pork with the endless whining about his perceived 'Right Wing dominance' of the site. and what little influence it has. Yet he's unable to drag himself away.
The most laughable thing about the whole spying on innocent people's most private conversations is that Cameron reckons this sort of stuff is all necessary because he watched Homeland.
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape. A steady whine of hypocritical outrage from those whose 'standards' stop at their own output is just a bonus.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape
1594 posts sort of suggest you don't. We're all volunteers there's no conscription on PB.
Not a single sane person believes that No. 10 approached Putin to intervene in the independence debate. He may have done so, but it is so incredibly unlikely that anyone from the current government asked for it as it would be counter productive to their goal of keeping Scotland in the union.
323 images were taken in the survey to make a judgment on nudity. It is not the total number of images stored.
That's not what I meant to suggest. Rather 323 was enough to produce a confidence interval of 7.1 +/- 3.7% with 95% confidence, from which it should be possible to calculate the population size. I don't know how to do that that, but a rough calculation suggests it cannot be millions.
They were obviously referring to some subset of the images, probably a particularly collection period. The article says outright that images from 1.8 million accounts were taken in a six month period.
True. But access to the 1.8m (or whatever figure over a longer period) was restricted. You would probably say those restrictions were either too late, in principle, or ineffective, in practice. The latter is difficult indeed to judge. "Additional legal authorisations are required before analysts can search for the data of individuals likely to be in the British Isles at the time of the search." - but these are unspecified; and the number of GCHQ "targets" - and the number of times information was requested on them are also unknown.
The Herald are not the primary source. Do you even know what that means?
I clearly know by now you can't read or understand "sure of their sources". Your polyanna approach to how Cammie would behave is sweet but ultimately worthless. British embassies lobbying their host countries on various matters is standard procedure nor is it any secret Cammie want's as much backup for this as possible. He is a very weak PM after all.
What an amazing rebuttal. Run out of rope I see. You've tied yourself up over and over again trying to defend this stupid idea and now you're reduced to playing the man rather than the ball. How very transparent.
You've got nothing to say and yet you have over 5,000 posts all talking rubbish. Its just sad. At least Tim was witty and gave out decent betting tips...
The most laughable thing about the whole spying on innocent people's most private conversations is that Cameron reckons this sort of stuff is all necessary because he watched Homeland.
If Cameron actually thought that, it would be worrying. But it seems far more likely Cameron was choosing a metaphor he thought would resonate best with his audience. i.e. we need it for the same reasons the fictional detectives do, not because the fictional detectives do.
No. It is you that are confused. The reality is that your view that we should just trust governments to make the correct decisions because they have the classified information just doesn't hold water any more. Such an idea was comprehensively trashed by the Iraq war, and the embarassment of right and left siding together to rush us into a hugely destructive conflict over "just trust us" evidence which turned out to be nothing of the sort. It certainly does not make sense for people to have their most personal images to be snooped on by government workers considering the rather small number of people that die from terrorism each year. We have had a terrorist threat in this country for decades and never needed to do this before. And as for evidence, we now have plenty of it in terms of the intrusion of GCHQ programs, thanks to Edward Snowden and other leakers, despite the best efforts of governments to do these things without any democratic debate over it.
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape..
And yet you're here every day. Why bother if it's so awful?
Just like Mick Pork with the endless whining about his perceived 'Right Wing dominance' of the site. and what little influence it has. Yet he's unable to drag himself away.
You see that is where I differ. I agree it has a distinct right wing dominance but enjoy reading all your posts knowing the vast majority in my opinion are wrong. Oh, and I cannot wait to see the mass outpouring from the PB Hodges as Ed appears during the night to celebrate his win in May 2015.
It's a bloody messageboard, for feck sake, why anyone takes it so serious is beyond me. Some people need to get out more.
There's also a very big difference between surveillance based on "probable cause" or even "reasonable cause", versus wholesale collection of millions of records of innocent people that have nothing to do with terrorism.
You've got nothing to say and yet you have over 5,000 posts all talking rubbish. Its just sad.
Your utility as a post counter is however superb. You've clearly found your calling Max old bean. So there's nothing pathetic or hypocritical about your post, have no fear about that.
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape. A steady whine of hypocritical outrage from those whose 'standards' stop at their own output is just a bonus.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape
1594 posts sort of suggest you don't. We're all volunteers there's no conscription on PB.
Get back to me on 19/09/14. Meanwhile 4,212 posts suggest that you love the the addictive tyranny of tiny, right wing differences. You're certainly not interested in the betting side.
I hope the Ukip odds for the European Elections drift further - their voters are much more likely to vote than Labourites, particularly in these elections
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape. A steady whine of hypocritical outrage from those whose 'standards' stop at their own output is just a bonus.
That's not really an answer to my question: why you guys come here to rant and swear. I do not believe this ridiculous piffle about your needing a "daily reminder of what you are trying to escape".
Coming on here must serve you, and your ludicrous Natty friends, some psychic purpose. My guess is that it allows you to vent your hatred of others, a hatred which becomes evermore obvious by the day.
You are a good example. You used to be quite civilised, and even witty. Now it is just dismal exhalations of sourness and resentment.
Intriguing.
SeanT, may I suggest PMQ's as a comparison for PB conversation?
And you know what such profiling (generalisation) is called don't you?
NO and I'm not going to get involved in the kind of racism witch hunt you are conducting.
Plenty of people of all races come here from Europe, and because they have lived in Europe they are much better at settling in here than some people from Islamic countries.
Plus, as most of Europe is far more prosperous than Pakistan or Somalia, there's far more chance of the whole thing being a two way street at some time in the future.
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape. A steady whine of hypocritical outrage from those whose 'standards' stop at their own output is just a bonus.
That's not really an answer to my question: why you guys come here to rant and swear. I do not believe this ridiculous piffle about your needing a "daily reminder of what you are trying to escape".
Coming on here must serve you, and your ludicrous Natty friends, some psychic purpose. My guess is that it allows you to vent your hatred of others, a hatred which becomes evermore obvious by the day.
You are a good example. You used to be quite civilised, and even witty. Now it is just dismal exhalations of sourness and resentment.
Intriguing.
I return what I'm served, sometimes with interest; sensible questions/points tend to get sensible responses. Perhaps you might consider the general degradation of discussion on here as the Indy debate has progressed. That eejit Gildas for example... Back to my point. Why do you think you or any other of the Unionist inclined posters need to be persuaded?
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape. A steady whine of hypocritical outrage from those whose 'standards' stop at their own output is just a bonus.
To be fair you can't put a price on PB's Alan Partridge obsessing endlessly over scotland ever since he was let back. Then witlessly 'asking' why nobody teats him with the respect the posh lad seems amusingly sure that he deserves? Wonderful.
We know precisely why he's obsessing over scotland which just makes it all the more hilarious. By god it was funny enough with Gildas but this is even better.
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape. A steady whine of hypocritical outrage from those whose 'standards' stop at their own output is just a bonus.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape
1594 posts sort of suggest you don't. We're all volunteers there's no conscription on PB.
Get back to me on 19/09/14. Meanwhile 4,212 posts suggest that you love the the addictive tyranny of tiny, right wing differences. You're certainly not interested in the betting side.
I'm quite open the betting side doesn't interest me and as for the post volume I'd guess a third to half of those were with Nats past and present rather than righties. Probably about 25% of posters on here are serious betters. However I don't actually place you among them, your posts are mostly about disagreeing with Britnats and Toories rather than betting insights. So political and in the mould you say you dislike.
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape..
And yet you're here every day. Why bother if it's so awful?
Just like Mick Pork with the endless whining about his perceived 'Right Wing dominance' of the site. and what little influence it has. Yet he's unable to drag himself away.
You see that is where I differ. I agree it has a distinct right wing dominance but enjoy reading all your posts knowing the vast majority in my opinion are wrong. Oh, and I cannot wait to see the mass outpouring from the PB Hodges as Ed appears during the night to celebrate his win in May 2015.
It's a bloody messageboard, for feck sake, why anyone takes it so serious is beyond me. Some people need to get out more.
Compy, me old lad, I couldn't agree with you more on that last paragraph. Its the fecking internet, a largely anonymous message board, why the heck people have to get the arse and flounce off, or get so upset is beyond me. Mind you, I bet GCHQ know who we all are. Luckily, I only go on webcam in my gimp mask, so they don't know what I look like.
@Socrates - I agree that the shock of the cynical behaviour of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell over Iraq has shaken trust in government. It was certainly a huge shock to me to discover that a British Prime Minister was misleading MPs and the country quite so blatantly over such a serious matter in a formal statement to parliament.
However, it doesn't follow that, because New Labour were disingenuous over Iraq, that therefore every other politician is lying. Even less does it follow that there is zero danger or that the intelligence services don't need some surveillance powers to protect us.
As for the 'small number of people who die from terrorism each year', how many would persuade you? And, in any case, how many more would it be without intelligence services doing what they do? You have no idea at all. Nor do I: in this matter, we have little choice but to trust politicians. I'm inclined to do so partly because I don't think for a moment that David Cameron, William Hague, Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, and so on are careless about civil liberties. To believe that they all are, you have to make an awfully big conspiracy theory. Furthermore we also have oversight by the Select Committee and an independent commissioner, as well as (when relevant) judges.
You are also completely wrong about not having needed communications surveillance powers in the past. What on earth do you think GCHQ was doing for the second half of the twentieth ccentury? Of course communications have changed, and the amount of traffic is much increased.
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape..
And yet you're here every day. Why bother if it's so awful?
Just like Mick Pork with the endless whining about his perceived 'Right Wing dominance' of the site. and what little influence it has. Yet he's unable to drag himself away.
You see that is where I differ. I agree it has a distinct right wing dominance but enjoy reading all your posts knowing the vast majority in my opinion are wrong. Oh, and I cannot wait to see the mass outpouring from the PB Hodges as Ed appears during the night to celebrate his win in May 2015.
It's a bloody messageboard, for feck sake, why anyone takes it so serious is beyond me. Some people need to get out more.
Compy, me old lad, I couldn't agree with you more on that last paragraph. Its the fecking internet, a largely anonymous message board, why the heck people have to get the arse and flounce off, or get so upset is beyond me. Mind you, I bet GCHQ know who we all are. Luckily, I only go on webcam in my gimp mask, so they don't know what I look like.
I am sat hear in a mask of David Cameron just to confuse the hell out of them. In reality, as far as I know I have only met one person, OGH, and unless I go to a PB get together that will remain. Though I doubt I will be able to go to one now with you all knowing that the person sat in the background listening into conversations wearing a Cameron mask, is in fact me. Bugger.....cover blown.
I hope the Ukip odds for the European Elections drift further - their voters are much more likely to vote than Labourites, particularly in these elections
Do you think>? I have a feeling that many people that cant have the EU on their mind wouldn't be motivated to vote in EU elections
Do Scot Nats feel more compelled to vote in Holyrood Elections than Westminster ones? I would think yes but just guessing
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape..
And yet you're here every day. Why bother if it's so awful?
Just like Mick Pork with the endless whining about his perceived 'Right Wing dominance' of the site. and what little influence it has. Yet he's unable to drag himself away.
You see that is where I differ. I agree it has a distinct right wing dominance but enjoy reading all your posts knowing the vast majority in my opinion are wrong. Oh, and I cannot wait to see the mass outpouring from the PB Hodges as Ed appears during the night to celebrate his win in May 2015.
It's a bloody messageboard, for feck sake, why anyone takes it so serious is beyond me. Some people need to get out more.
Compy, me old lad, I couldn't agree with you more on that last paragraph. Its the fecking internet, a largely anonymous message board, why the heck people have to get the arse and flounce off, or get so upset is beyond me. Mind you, I bet GCHQ know who we all are. Luckily, I only go on webcam in my gimp mask, so they don't know what I look like.
I am sat hear in a mask of David Cameron just to confuse the hell out of them. In reality, as far as I know I have only met one person, OGH, and unless I go to a PB get together that will remain. Though I doubt I will be able to go to one now with you all knowing that the person sat in the background listening into conversations wearing a Cameron mask, is in fact me. Bugger.....cover blown.
That's a coincidence. Mick Pork and I are both sitting in Conservative Central Office wearing Ed Miliband masks.
How is this meant to persuade anyone of their cause?
See, there's your basic miscomprehension in a nutshell. No one on here, least of all you, needs to be persuaded of anything.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape..
And yet you're here every day. Why bother if it's so awful?
Just like Mick Pork with the endless whining about his perceived 'Right Wing dominance' of the site. and what little influence it has. Yet he's unable to drag himself away.
You see that is where I differ. I agree it has a distinct right wing dominance but enjoy reading all your posts knowing the vast majority in my opinion are wrong. Oh, and I cannot wait to see the mass outpouring from the PB Hodges as Ed appears during the night to celebrate his win in May 2015.
It's a bloody messageboard, for feck sake, why anyone takes it so serious is beyond me. Some people need to get out more.
Compy, me old lad, I couldn't agree with you more on that last paragraph. Its the fecking internet, a largely anonymous message board, why the heck people have to get the arse and flounce off, or get so upset is beyond me. Mind you, I bet GCHQ know who we all are. Luckily, I only go on webcam in my gimp mask, so they don't know what I look like.
I am sat hear in a mask of David Cameron just to confuse the hell out of them. In reality, as far as I know I have only met one person, OGH, and unless I go to a PB get together that will remain. Though I doubt I will be able to go to one now with you all knowing that the person sat in the background listening into conversations wearing a Cameron mask, is in fact me. Bugger.....cover blown.
That's a coincidence. Mick Pork and I are both sitting in Conservative Central Office wearing Ed Miliband masks.
@Socrates - I agree that the shock of the cynical behaviour of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell over Iraq has shaken trust in government. It was certainly a huge shock to me to discover that a British Prime Minister was misleading MPs and the country quite so blatantly over such a serious matter in a formal statement to parliament.
However, it doesn't follow that, because New Labour were disingenuous over Iraq, that therefore every other politician is lying. Even less does it follow that there is zero danger or that the intelligence services don't need some surveillance powers to protect us.
As for the 'small number of people who die from terrorism each year', how many would persuade you? And, in any case, how many more would it be without intelligence services doing what they do? You have no idea at all. Nor do I: in this matter, we have little choice but to trust politicians. I'm inclined to do so partly because I don't think for a moment that David Cameron, William Hague, Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, and so on are careless about civil liberties. To believe that they all are, you have to make an awfully big conspiracy theory. Furthermore we also have oversight by the Select Committee and an independent commissioner, as well as (when relevant) judges.
You are also completely wrong about not having needed communications surveillance powers in the past. What on earth do you think GCHQ was doing for the second half of the twentieth ccentury? Of course communications have changed, and the amount of traffic is much increased.
The thing is Richard, when will it be enough? How much further do you want to let them go? Indeed, just how far have they gone, that we don't yet know about? When will it be enough for you? Everything you say about national security makes sense, but when will it end? We're only really at the start of the digital age, how many years will it be before Tapestry isn't ridiculed, but hailed as a seer?
Ok, that last bit was a joke, but the point stands. How far should we let the state watch us?
The thing is Richard, when will it be enough? How much further do you want to let them go? Indeed, just how far have they gone, that we don't yet know about? When will it be enough for you? Everything you say about national security makes sense, but when will it end? We're only really at the start of the digital age, how many years will it be before Tapestry isn't ridiculed, but hailed as a seer?
Ok, that last bit was a joke, but the point stands. How far should we let the state watch us?
Yes, that is a very good question. I don't pretend to have an easy answer, and it is hard to have a democratic debate about it because so much of the key information is by necessity highly secret.
I do think it is quite funny that a certain poster on here resorts to calling me a left wing idiot, fool, thickie etc and the fact I won't rise to and laugh it off, seems to get it more upset, so much so it has ended up to be sent to the naughty corner twice. I do wonder if it shakes it's fist at the screen when posting.
Just to keep the PB Hodges happy, I will be allocating you all a marginal seat each for the election (allocation to be made near the time) so when it comes to election night when the seat turns from blue or orange to red we can all celebrate together. Links to each Labour candidate will be posted for each PB Hodge allocated to read up so they can feel even closer to the winning candidate when their seat appears on the ticker at the bottom of their TV screens. I know you all cannot wait.
Comments
I have served with many many Jocks and they have been fantastic in every respect. Professionalim, sense of humour, ability and capability.
What exactly are you saying here?
I appreciate that it is very exciting being given the vote this year by ASalmond but you are insulting "your" country's armed forces and I can't for the life of me see why.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/10663445/Chaos-as-company-accidentally-invites-61000-people-to-job-interview.html
Cameron's plea to Putin: help me stop Salmond | Herald Scotland http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/camerons-plea-to-putin-help-me-stop-salmond.23138182 … via @hsnewsbreak
I'm sure she's delighted that the SNP consider here the flag carrier for many dozens of MP's MEP and millions of Conservative voters but I rather think it might have just been SNP MP Angus MacNeil being an arse.
In order to attain this goal, we need a strong United Kingdom with a strong voice inside the European Union.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/germanys-angela-merkel-offers-eu-reform-to-david-cameron-but-doesnt-go-far-enough-to-please-tories-9156442.html
Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal. The material included large quantity of sexually explicit images.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo
How is this not a more major story? We have thousands of government employees recording and examining the most privately shared images between couples. Yet, other than the Guardian, the media barely covers it. Where are the journalists demanding that the government answer questions on this? In Germany, this would be a major scandal. What is David Cameron doing to curb GCHQ, who appear to be completely out of control. This is an awful damn government that deserves to get slammed at the polls.
The state-owned agency - acknowledged as the Kremlin's official mouthpiece before and after the end of Communism
As the old saying goes, there is no Truth in Pravda nor News in Izvestia......
Nicola Sturgeon @NicolaSturgeon 37 mins
Rating agency, Standard & Poor's assessment: "Even excluding North Sea output...Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment"
Hilarious source. Please stop posting this frankly ridiculous idea that No. 10 has enlisted Putin to stop Scotlant breaking away. The source is not credible. A former Soviet news agency citing unknown source within No. 10 is not credible. At all. So please stop. It is embarrassing.
Amazing that all this outrageous infringement of personal privacy is happening under a Prime Minister that once wanted to implement a British Bill of Rights. I guess he dumped that idea when he gave up his opposition to Big Brother government when he came to power.
I always look for the Pirates on the ballot paper ! Sadly none there normally. Will the pirates be standing in the euros ?
In other news, another "Not PB's finest day of postings". It seems paedophile has been the buzzword on here for days.
As you invariably do, you have immedately jumped to the conclusion that the rather garbled Guardian headline must be the unvarnished truth, that the GCHQ response is a load of lies, and that GCHQ aren't complying with the law. Maybe so, neither you nor I can really say. We have courts of law to determine that kind of question,.
@lennon yeah I thought 7% was low as well, but I guess that videochat isn't *just* used for that after all.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3866b10a-9fa8-11e3-94f3-00144feab7de.html
*honk*
The fact is MacNeil used "southern Tories" as cheap abuse pandering to the worst aspects of chip on your shoulder SNP victimhood.
Fortunately such victimhood isn't common currency among most Scots ....
Oopps .... mentioned common currency again ....
FYI the Herald were one of those foremost in uncovering the Falkirk scandal so as a source for the scottish public it has considerably more clout behind it than hysterically shrieking PB tories.
I trust you are not suggesting that, on this issue, size matters?
The truth must be that the operation was far smaller. The clues are in the article.
"The agency did make efforts to limit analysts' ability to see webcam images, restricting bulk searches to metadata only. However, analysts were shown the faces of people with similar usernames to surveillance targets."
You're doing the old thing of equating immoral with illegal. The fact is that this stuff is all legal, because the "liberal Conservative" in No. 10 has signed off on it all. Your faith in the powers that be to act reasonably and proportionally at all times is frankly amazing. You're trying to claim that we shouldn't believe major newspapers despite having no evidence that's their findings are untrue. It's funny how this the only issue you apply this to. The reality is that the government's recent actions are horrendously authoritarian and it's indefensible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2014
LOL
sean thomas knox @thomasknox 3h
@Sheumais63 I rather fancy a stramash with them. *waves at cybernats* coo-ee. here I am: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100263548/scotland-will-bot-be-bullied-by-reality-says-alex-salmond/ … etc etc
323 images were taken in the survey to make a judgment on nudity. It is not the total number of images stored.
Convert to the cause, and you will be welcomed with open arms.
All other heretics and unbelievers must be shunned
I think it's a consequence of the strategy they've been forced to employ - the vote will (at best) be on a knife-edge for them, so they can't truly follow through on the implications of independence (their own currency being the most obvious example), since that will frighten the horses.
Therefore a continual stream of bluster allied to the abuse of their opponents (chiefly the classic bogeymen of English Tories, but the Scottish Labour party are a very satisfying side dish, and Danny Alexander et al a moist dessert) may actually be a fairly sensible strategy.
But by God it's a pain in the backside.
"Peter Hain struggling mightily right now on BBC"
It couldn't happen to a nicer person. He should have married Harriet.
Perhaps that why Nats treat Salmond's pronouncements as the 'word of god'?
By God that would be a pain in the backside, wouldn't it? Why don't they just shut up and let the right-wingers say whatever they want? It's just not cricket.
http://ow.ly/i/4Jzqc
Its a generalisation of course but EU migrants seem to be much better equipped to integrate than people from, say, Pakistan or Somalia. The rates of employment are much higher too.
What happened is that Putin said something stupid which he shouldn't have since foreign heads of state aren't supposed to intervene in domestic issues from other major countries, and rather than break the convention the Kremlin concocted this story that he was asked to do so and went to their best mates in the press and leaked said story. That you even give the idea the time of day is very telling.
Like I say, I don't blame you, winning the vote is everything and the details can be dealt with later.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape. A steady whine of hypocritical outrage from those whose 'standards' stop at their own output is just a bonus.
With me so far?
Now, there are areas of possible concern. One is legality: it is alleged by the Guardian that GCHQ are not abiding by the legal safeguards. (At least I think it is, their journalism is so incoherent at times that I'm not sure; certainly the headlines often don't match the articles). If so, then everyone agrees that that is not acceptable. That includes me, but more to the point David Cameron, William Hague, and every other MP as far as I know.
The second area of possible concern is whether the safeguards are correctly drawn. You immediately and invariably, on the basis of zero evidence as far as I can tell, jump to the conclusion that they are not correctly drawn. Quite how you can form an opinion on this without access to very heavily classified information, I have no idea. To form an informed opinion, you need to be able to assess both how great the dangers are (we can I think, after 9/11, assume that they are considerable), and how effective the surveillance powers available are at mitigating the danger.
You are right in one thing: when in power, all politicians tend to come to agree that the activities of GCHQ and similar organisations are proportionate and necessary. This is true both in the UK and other Western democracies. You invariably jump to the conclusion that this shows bad faith or a disregard for civil liberties. I'd suggest a more likely explanation is that it shows that, when they are briefed as to the real dangers and to what the intelligence services are able to do to protect citizens, they are persuaded of the necessity for them.
Like the inept Cameroon spinners did.
With me so far?
Just like Mick Pork with the endless whining about his perceived 'Right Wing dominance' of the site. and what little influence it has. Yet he's unable to drag himself away.
Personally PB is a vivid and motivating reminder of precisely the sort of politics I want to escape
1594 posts sort of suggest you don't. We're all volunteers there's no conscription on PB.
Your polyanna approach to how Cammie would behave is sweet but ultimately worthless. British embassies lobbying their host countries on various matters is standard procedure nor is it any secret Cammie want's as much backup for this as possible. He is a very weak PM after all.
You've got nothing to say and yet you have over 5,000 posts all talking rubbish. Its just sad. At least Tim was witty and gave out decent betting tips...
No. It is you that are confused. The reality is that your view that we should just trust governments to make the correct decisions because they have the classified information just doesn't hold water any more. Such an idea was comprehensively trashed by the Iraq war, and the embarassment of right and left siding together to rush us into a hugely destructive conflict over "just trust us" evidence which turned out to be nothing of the sort. It certainly does not make sense for people to have their most personal images to be snooped on by government workers considering the rather small number of people that die from terrorism each year. We have had a terrorist threat in this country for decades and never needed to do this before. And as for evidence, we now have plenty of it in terms of the intrusion of GCHQ programs, thanks to Edward Snowden and other leakers, despite the best efforts of governments to do these things without any democratic debate over it.
It's a bloody messageboard, for feck sake, why anyone takes it so serious is beyond me. Some people need to get out more.
Meanwhile 4,212 posts suggest that you love the the addictive tyranny of tiny, right wing differences. You're certainly not interested in the betting side.
It's about the battle rather than recruiting.
NO and I'm not going to get involved in the kind of racism witch hunt you are conducting.
Plenty of people of all races come here from Europe, and because they have lived in Europe they are much better at settling in here than some people from Islamic countries.
Plus, as most of Europe is far more prosperous than Pakistan or Somalia, there's far more chance of the whole thing being a two way street at some time in the future.
Back to my point. Why do you think you or any other of the Unionist inclined posters need to be persuaded?
We know precisely why he's obsessing over scotland which just makes it all the more hilarious. By god it was funny enough with Gildas but this is even better.
Mind you, I bet GCHQ know who we all are. Luckily, I only go on webcam in my gimp mask, so they don't know what I look like.
However, it doesn't follow that, because New Labour were disingenuous over Iraq, that therefore every other politician is lying. Even less does it follow that there is zero danger or that the intelligence services don't need some surveillance powers to protect us.
As for the 'small number of people who die from terrorism each year', how many would persuade you? And, in any case, how many more would it be without intelligence services doing what they do? You have no idea at all. Nor do I: in this matter, we have little choice but to trust politicians. I'm inclined to do so partly because I don't think for a moment that David Cameron, William Hague, Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, and so on are careless about civil liberties. To believe that they all are, you have to make an awfully big conspiracy theory. Furthermore we also have oversight by the Select Committee and an independent commissioner, as well as (when relevant) judges.
You are also completely wrong about not having needed communications surveillance powers in the past. What on earth do you think GCHQ was doing for the second half of the twentieth ccentury? Of course communications have changed, and the amount of traffic is much increased.
Do Scot Nats feel more compelled to vote in Holyrood Elections than Westminster ones? I would think yes but just guessing
I'd be significantly surprised if the blues came top of the poll.
When will it be enough for you?
Everything you say about national security makes sense, but when will it end? We're only really at the start of the digital age, how many years will it be before Tapestry isn't ridiculed, but hailed as a seer?
Ok, that last bit was a joke, but the point stands. How far should we let the state watch us?
Just to keep the PB Hodges happy, I will be allocating you all a marginal seat each for the election (allocation to be made near the time) so when it comes to election night when the seat turns from blue or orange to red we can all celebrate together. Links to each Labour candidate will be posted for each PB Hodge allocated to read up so they can feel even closer to the winning candidate when their seat appears on the ticker at the bottom of their TV screens. I know you all cannot wait.
Both Labour and UKIP look like decent bets at present. I'd make Labour marginally odds on.