Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
" I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting."
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.
Tory lead please so Reckless becomes halfway attractive to pile into on Betfair.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions.
Citation needed. Specific proposals haven't been laid out, have they?
We're working on what Theresa May said in her conference speech. She may have sketched it out on the back of the proverbial fag packet of course - to look tough and get applause. But even the previous government tried to limit speech through its ludicrous religious hatred proposals and was only defeated by an alliance of comedians and the Lords.
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.
There have been three Rochester polls already.
The Conservative's predicted vote share has been flat: 31%, 30%, 33%
but there has been a larger range with UKIP's vote share: 40%, 43%, 48%
The irony is that, given what is said in the Koran about Jews, for instance, an Extreme Disruption Order would probably have to be given to every imam in the country.
That's the beauty of it. More Sullivan:
You can see the multiple, proliferating lines for government interference. If a gay man attacks Islam for being homophobic, he could be prosecuted. But ditto if a Muslim cleric denounces homosexuality. It’s win-win for government power to monitor and control public speech in all directions!
Quite. This proposal and Leveson would be the end of any free - let alone - robust speech or debate in this country.
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.
Tory lead please so Reckless becomes halfway attractive to pile into on Betfair.
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
What I find quite amusing is the fact that the Kippers have suddenly discovered that they prefer the experienced Establishment politician (Marlborough + Christ Church, Oxford, PPE..), not the local woman who's had a real job and doesn't speak so smoothly.
The problem is what she says, not the smoothness with which she says it, and I imagine what predisposes the kippers in favour of their candidate is the fact that he is their candidate.
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.
There have been three Rochester polls already.
The Conservative's predicted vote share has been flat: 31%, 30%, 33%
but there has been a larger range with UKIP's vote share: 40%, 43%, 48%
"George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”.
He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.
He also disclosed that anyone seeking to challenge such an order would have to go the High Court, appealing on a point of law rather than fact."
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
Hmm..... what sort of countries does this remind me of?
The irony is that, given what is said in the Koran about Jews, for instance, an Extreme Disruption Order would probably have to be given to every imam in the country.
That's the beauty of it. More Sullivan:
You can see the multiple, proliferating lines for government interference. If a gay man attacks Islam for being homophobic, he could be prosecuted. But ditto if a Muslim cleric denounces homosexuality. It’s win-win for government power to monitor and control public speech in all directions!
Quite. This proposal and Leveson would be the end of any free - let alone - robust speech or debate in this country.
I simply don't see how it can pass the ECHR test.
Article 10 has more holes than a Swiss cheese.
What we need is a strong and robust British Bill of Rights, enforced by British judges in an independent judiciary.
They can start with:
Parliament shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.
There have been three Rochester polls already.
The Conservative's predicted vote share has been flat: 31%, 30%, 33%
but there has been a larger range with UKIP's vote share: 40%, 43%, 48%
Kippers to break through the 50% as Labour tend to zero ?
No. I think 15 odd % is the floor of Labour voters that wouldn't ever vote UKIP. If anything the Conservatives might expect to get one or two if Labour polling drops further...
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
" I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting."
Oh, if only - more power to your elbow Theresa!
ELBOW is mine! twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/531584914605764609
The irony is that, given what is said in the Koran about Jews, for instance, an Extreme Disruption Order would probably have to be given to every imam in the country.
That's the beauty of it. More Sullivan:
You can see the multiple, proliferating lines for government interference. If a gay man attacks Islam for being homophobic, he could be prosecuted. But ditto if a Muslim cleric denounces homosexuality. It’s win-win for government power to monitor and control public speech in all directions!
Quite. This proposal and Leveson would be the end of any free - let alone - robust speech or debate in this country.
I simply don't see how it can pass the ECHR test.
Article 10 has more holes than a Swiss cheese.
What we need is a strong and robust British Bill of Rights, enforced by British judges in an independent judiciary.
They can start with:
Parliament shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
I'm a disestablishmentarian, but even I think that Britain has more pressing matters ahead of it right now than disentangling the Church of England and the state.
Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.
Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.
You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.
So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?
Mike Smithson@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.
Tory lead please so Reckless becomes halfway attractive to pile into on Betfair.
I've cut my loses on this one.
I've quintupled up against the pigdog.... mainly as a result of misery after spurs defeats.... it numbs the pain betting against a candidate who dislikes lib dems more than a racist party (acceptable wording this time???)
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statute books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
The answer to radical speech is more free speech, not less. Rather than try to ban opinions being publicly aired, what we need to do is provide a strong and compelling alternative narrative: that the democracy, institutions and liberal rights that have developed from this country's history over the centuries are fantastic things, that we should all be patriotic and proud to be part of such a country, and that the society created here as a result is superior to those in much of the world. The reason sick ideologies like conservative political Islam take hold is because we do not provide an alternative and do not call it out enough. That needs to end.
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statute books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
The answer to radical speech is more free speech, not less. Rather than try to ban opinions being publicly aired, what we need to do is provide a strong and compelling alternative narrative: that the democracy, institutions and liberal rights that have developed from this country's history over the centuries are fantastic things, that we should all be patriotic and proud to be part of such a country, and that the society created here as a result is superior to those in much of the world. The reason sick ideologies like conservative political Islam take hold is because we do not provide an alternative and do not call it out enough. That needs to end.
I agree that it needs to end but it won't while liberals are too feeble or cowardly or ignorant of what liberalism really means to take their own side in an argument. We should certainly challenge Islamism more - and there is plenty of material to challenge it with - and plenty of people, many of them Muslim or ex-Muslims, willing and able to do so. But with few exceptions we have not stood by such people.
Look at, for instance, the Lib Dems feeble responses to the attacks which the Lib Dem candidate for the constituency I live, Maajid Nawaz, faced. He has been robust in attacking the offensive aspects of Islamic thought and behaviour. Look at how Ayaan Hirsi Ali was attacked and condescended to by people who should have known better such as Garton Ash and Buruma.
"George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”.
...
He also disclosed that anyone seeking to challenge such an order would have to go the High Court, appealing on a point of law rather than fact."
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
Hmm..... what sort of countries does this remind me of?
Especially disturbing that appeals would only be allowed on points of law rather than fact. So, even if you speak the truth and can indeed prove you speak the truth, the government may seek to "control your activities". Thoughtcrime, I believe Orwell called it.
Someone has apparently forgotten to tell Labour councillors how "radical" and "loony leftwing" the party's current platform is:
However, the criticism reserved for him is also worth noting. 36% of those asked thought Miliband’s main problem was that his policy offer has been too timid. While 28% thought there was no problem with Miliband at all, and 19% said the biggest issue was the perception that he’s ‘weird’.
The views on how to remedy negative news stories about Miliband are split. 49% think he should allow the Shadow Cabinet to take on more campaigning responsibilities, while 37% seem to think the opposite – that the public should see more of Miliband. Interestingly, a significant number 46% think Miliband should offer a more left wing platform, potentially chiming with those who think his policy offer is too timid.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
Mr. Nabavi, I'd like to agree with you, but RIPA's been rampantly overused, Leveson's deranged recommendations seek to neuter the press and we already have a de facto blasphemy law against depicting some chap called Mohammed (cf the coverage of Jesus and Mo).
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
"Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views"
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.
The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.
It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.
The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.
It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.
Much better not to ban anything.
If we can survive the Provos and UVF why can't we survive Islamic extremists ? There is no need for these laws, just better application of the ones we already have. And better police officers.
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.
The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.
It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.
Much better not to ban anything.
If we can survive the Provos and UVF why can't we survive Islamic extremists ? There is no need for these laws, just better application of the ones we already have. And better police officers.
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.
The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.
It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.
Much better not to ban anything.
If we can survive the Provos and UVF why can't we survive Islamic extremists ? There is no need for these laws, just better application of the ones we already have. And better police officers.
I'm sure we have our informers inside the Mullahs - just like Stakeknife and McGuinness etc..
Mr. Brooke, the ultimate destruction of liberty can't be achieved by terrorists without the (admittedly unwitting) co-operation of politicians and power-hungry police. The police do a great job fighting terrorism, but a country where the police has all the power it wants is a police state.
This is an interesting issue. There seems to be broad consensus here, across the political spectrum, yet there is the contrary consensus in Westminster. Reminds me of the aid budget, but worse.
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.
The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.
It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.
Much better not to ban anything.
If we can survive the Provos and UVF why can't we survive Islamic extremists ? There is no need for these laws, just better application of the ones we already have. And better police officers.
I'm sure we have our informers inside the Mullahs - just like Stakeknife and McGuinness etc..
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.
It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.
It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.
The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.
It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.
Much better not to ban anything.
Wholeheartedly agree (though currently we do face a serious risk from lunatic Islamists) and the course proposed in (b) above should be used for people such as Breivik and others of his ilk.
You defeat bad arguments by having and promulgating better ones.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.
It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?
And no email, twitter, mobile phones and snap chat ?
Yeah i also remember my dad was a target, looking for bombs underneath the car every time we went out and not being able to visit relatives in border counties. But I don't remember requiring fuckwit legislation.
There was a time when Conservatives used to tell us that when we curtail the freedoms the security bods are meant to protect then the terrorists have won. Cameron's just about to run up the white flag.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.
It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?
Islamic nut job terrorist attacks have had a very low success rate in the Uk- no thanks from you for that though.
It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.
The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.
It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.
Much better not to ban anything.
If we can survive the Provos and UVF why can't we survive Islamic extremists ? There is no need for these laws, just better application of the ones we already have. And better police officers.
During the IRA terror campaign we had temporary anti-terrorism powers that were debated and voted on annually by Parliament. Then, in 2000, in the interregnum between the Irish terror threat and the Islamist terror threat, New Labour bizarrely chose to make those powers permanent with the Terrorism Act (2000).
One of the great wtf moments of British political history.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.
It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
The political thought of Edmund Burke should be required reading for anyone entering parliament. I suspect Theresa May knows next to nothing about him.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.
It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?
Islamic nut job terrorist attacks have had a very low success rate in the Uk- no thanks from you for that though.
Oh so easy for the armchair James Bonds...
They haven't needed the proposed Extremist Orders, though, have they?
You need patient, tenacious, properly resourced police and intelligence work to defeat terrorism.
Instead of which we learn from the same G Osborne, who wants the police to vet people's witterings on Facebook, that there will need to be significant cuts to the defence and police services in order to bring the deficit down.
This has been on the cards for a long time. The main problem with mass immigration from Eastern Europe is from the influx of low wage labour, not people coming here and remaining unemployed. This won't make a blind bit of difference to the numbers coming here.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?
Islamic nut job terrorist attacks have had a very low success rate in the Uk- no thanks from you for that though.
Oh so easy for the armchair James Bonds...
Maybe they have a low success rate because there aren't so many of them and they're a bit crap.
And no email, twitter, mobile phones and snap chat ?
Yeah i also remember my dad was a target, looking for bombs underneath the car every time we went out and not being able to visit relatives in border counties. But I don't remember requiring fuckwit legislation.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?
Islamic nut job terrorist attacks have had a very low success rate in the Uk- no thanks from you for that though.
Oh so easy for the armchair James Bonds...
They haven't needed the proposed Extremist Orders, though, have they?
You need patient, tenacious, properly resourced police and intelligence work to defeat terrorism.
Instead of which we learn from the same G Osborne, who wants the police to vet people's witterings on Facebook, that there will need to be significant cuts to the defence and police services in order to bring the deficit down.
And no email, twitter, mobile phones and snap chat ?
Yeah i also remember my dad was a target, looking for bombs underneath the car every time we went out and not being able to visit relatives in border counties. But I don't remember requiring fuckwit legislation.
.
How do you know his mail wasn't read ?
Because Readers Digest is in the public domain and that was mostly what his post consisted of. Unless of course your telling me he really did win £250,000 and MI5 stole the winning numbers.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.
It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
The political thought of Edmund Burke should be required reading for anyone entering parliament. I suspect Theresa May knows next to nothing about him.
Why would she? He's only the father of Conservatism. Since Cameron apparently studied PPE at Oxford, he could lend her one of his books on the topic. She could learn about John Locke and Thomas Paine and JS Mill while she's about it. And a dose of George Orwell wouldn't go amiss either.
Cameron could do a refresher course as well. For a man who studied the subjects he gives a very good impression of someone who has not a clue about any of them.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.
It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
The political thought of Edmund Burke should be required reading for anyone entering parliament. I suspect Theresa May knows next to nothing about him.</blockquote
OGH lost a ton of money: Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 8s 9 seconds ago My Rochester & Strood by-election poll, 7-10 Nov: UKIP 44%, CON 32%, LAB 17%, LDEM 2%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm
There was a time when Conservatives used to tell us that when we curtail the freedoms the security bods are meant to protect then the terrorists have won. Cameron's just about to run up the white flag.
For heaven's sake!
We haven't actually seen the proposals, but you of all people here should know that Conservative (and indeed Labour) governments of the past, faced with a terrorist threat, did far more in terms of intrusive surveillance, interception of communications, restraints on free speech, curtailment of rights in court, and above all interning suspected terrorists and their sympathisers than anything even remotely suggested by Osborne and Cameron.
The re-invention of history never ceases to amaze me. There was certainly no golden age of civil liberties that was ever any more golden than 2014.
I think a bigger criticism of the Extremist Disruption Orders is that, like previous such measures, they are unlikely to be effective, and might indeed be counter-productive. But I'll wait to see what is actually proposed before forming a view on that.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.
It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
The political thought of Edmund Burke should be required reading for anyone entering parliament. I suspect Theresa May knows next to nothing about him.
We desperately need a Russian Air Force incursion in the North Sea to divert Socrates.
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
...
With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
...
I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".
...
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?
Overspend? They inherited a deficit of 160 billion. They have cut 500,000 public sector jobs. Everytime they cut welfare labour and the media howl. farage promises to restore one particularly misrepesented cut. They have cut NI and corporation tax and cut the top rate of tax and have raised tax thresholds. As they continue to cut spending they promise to continue to cut taxes.
Meantime we have islamic extremists threatening us and using so called social media to recruit and propagandise and the tory party proposes to put measures in its manifesto to curtail that. ''gagging orders''. I seem to recall the 'right' complaining when the lefty BBC went out of its way to break Thatcher's gagging orders on the IRA.
I suppose we should just allow extremists to recruit and propagandise at will. But it strikes me as idiotic to quote Edmund Burke in the context of the brainwashing of young muslims that we see. Sometimes in difficult times difficult decisions have to be made rather than populist ones. ''Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.''
I think a bigger criticism of the Extremist Disruption Orders is that, like previous such measures, they are unlikely to be effective, and might indeed be counter-productive. But I'll wait to see what is actually proposed before forming a view on that.
Presumably if the government formally backs them they'll be a necessary deterrent to extremism and maintain our civil liberties, but if the government waters the proposals down they'll have been a step too far.
''With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.''
As Burke said ''The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''
Also, how many individuals personal communications in private would have photographs of them sent to the security services without a warrant? Because it's currently several million...
There was a time when Conservatives used to tell us that when we curtail the freedoms the security bods are meant to protect then the terrorists have won. Cameron's just about to run up the white flag.
For heaven's sake!
We haven't actually seen the proposals, but you of all people here should know that Conservative (and indeed Labour) governments of the past, faced with a terrorist threat, did far more in terms of intrusive surveillance, interception of communications, restraints on free speech, curtailment of rights in court, and above all interning suspected terrorists and their sympathisers than anything even remotely suggested by Osborne and Cameron.
The re-invention of history never ceases to amaze me. There was certainly no golden age of civil liberties that was ever any more golden than 2014.
I think a bigger criticism of the Extremist Disruption Orders is that, like previous such measures, they are unlikely to be effective, and might indeed be counter-productive. But I'll wait to see what is proposed before forming a view on that.
They did, with court sanction behind them for specific suspects, not blanket poke your nose in to anything you fancy. Internment was widely seen as a huge failure, a step too far and a recruiting sergeant for extremists. It's why it was stopped. So maybe yes those of us who saw that the rule of law ultimately defeated terrorism rather than draconian legislation can appreciate the value of the individual's rights against the state.
The Blues screaming how necessary this is, would be the same ones yelling outrage if Yvette Cooper was proposing it.
Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.
An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.
We all know the problem here.
The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).
However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.
It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.
Much better not to ban anything.
If we can survive the Provos and UVF why can't we survive Islamic extremists ? There is no need for these laws, just better application of the ones we already have. And better police officers.
I'm sure we have our informers inside the Mullahs - just like Stakeknife and McGuinness etc..
so use them and stop passing asshole legislation.
Alan, they have to justify themselves somehow, easier than fixing things
Comments
Oh, if only - more power to your elbow Theresa!
The Conservative's predicted vote share has been flat: 31%, 30%, 33%
but there has been a larger range with UKIP's vote share: 40%, 43%, 48%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_and_Strood_by-election,_2014#Polling
"George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break laws”.
He explained that that the new orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability.
He also disclosed that anyone seeking to challenge such an order would have to go the High Court, appealing on a point of law rather than fact."
Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".
We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.
Hmm..... what sort of countries does this remind me of?
They can start with:
Parliament shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
"Cameron's posturing putting the UK economy at risk"
http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/financial-director/opinion/2380339/camerons-posturing-putting-the-uk-economy-at-risk?utm_term=&utm_content=Cameron's posturing putting the UK economy at risk&utm_campaign=FD.Weekly_RL.EU.A.U&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=FD.DCM.Editors_Updates
twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/531584914605764609
(GE 2010 : 28%)
4th Oct : 25%
21st Oct : 21%
28th Oct : 16%
Labour in single figures ?
Look at, for instance, the Lib Dems feeble responses to the attacks which the Lib Dem candidate for the constituency I live, Maajid Nawaz, faced. He has been robust in attacking the offensive aspects of Islamic thought and behaviour. Look at how Ayaan Hirsi Ali was attacked and condescended to by people who should have known better such as Garton Ash and Buruma.
So, even if you speak the truth and can indeed prove you speak the truth, the government may seek to "control your activities". Thoughtcrime, I believe Orwell called it.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.
David Cameron by the looks of it.
Much better not to ban anything.
This is an interesting issue. There seems to be broad consensus here, across the political spectrum, yet there is the contrary consensus in Westminster. Reminds me of the aid budget, but worse.
If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.
It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.
We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.
Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
"I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws"."
That's what was so unacceptable about ASBOs. It's not on to prevent people from acting within the bounds of the law.
Pitt the Younger was right:
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
And no email, twitter, mobile phones and snap chat ?
You defeat bad arguments by having and promulgating better ones.
There was a time when Conservatives used to tell us that when we curtail the freedoms the security bods are meant to protect then the terrorists have won. Cameron's just about to run up the white flag.
Oh so easy for the armchair James Bonds...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11222702/EU-court-rules-benefit-tourists-can-be-excluded-from-welfare-schemes.html
Awful news for UKIP.
One of the great wtf moments of British political history.
You need patient, tenacious, properly resourced police and intelligence work to defeat terrorism.
Instead of which we learn from the same G Osborne, who wants the police to vet people's witterings on Facebook, that there will need to be significant cuts to the defence and police services in order to bring the deficit down.
FFS!
Osborne has ascended to new levels of twattery.
Cameron could do a refresher course as well. For a man who studied the subjects he gives a very good impression of someone who has not a clue about any of them.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 8s 9 seconds ago
My Rochester & Strood by-election poll, 7-10 Nov: UKIP 44%, CON 32%, LAB 17%, LDEM 2%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm
We haven't actually seen the proposals, but you of all people here should know that Conservative (and indeed Labour) governments of the past, faced with a terrorist threat, did far more in terms of intrusive surveillance, interception of communications, restraints on free speech, curtailment of rights in court, and above all interning suspected terrorists and their sympathisers than anything even remotely suggested by Osborne and Cameron.
The re-invention of history never ceases to amaze me. There was certainly no golden age of civil liberties that was ever any more golden than 2014.
I think a bigger criticism of the Extremist Disruption Orders is that, like previous such measures, they are unlikely to be effective, and might indeed be counter-productive. But I'll wait to see what is actually proposed before forming a view on that.
My Rochester & Strood by-election poll, 7-10 Nov: UKIP 44%, CON 32%, LAB 17%, LDEM 2%. Full details on @ConHome, 4pm.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/11/ukip-lead-12-points-rochester-strood/
They'll win it back in May 2015 and show the pig dog traitor what a loser he is.
We're playing the long game.
Better to lose a battle than the war.
Take note Hannibal fans.
Meantime we have islamic extremists threatening us and using so called social media to recruit and propagandise and the tory party proposes to put measures in its manifesto to curtail that. ''gagging orders''. I seem to recall the 'right' complaining when the lefty BBC went out of its way to break Thatcher's gagging orders on the IRA.
I suppose we should just allow extremists to recruit and propagandise at will. But it strikes me as idiotic to quote Edmund Burke in the context of the brainwashing of young muslims that we see.
Sometimes in difficult times difficult decisions have to be made rather than populist ones.
''Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.''
''With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.
Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.
We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.''
As Burke said ''The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.''
The Blues screaming how necessary this is, would be the same ones yelling outrage if Yvette Cooper was proposing it.