After Clegg presided over the 'secret courts' fiasco he simply doesn't have any goodwill left in the bank with most lib dems on this. As you can see here.
Which is why he will be under huge pressure over the snoopers charter. He lets this hugely expensive authoritarian idiocy through and he's painting a very large and very tempting target on his back for his 'loyal' lib dem colleagues to use at a time of their choosing.
@carl: if this measure costs GBP1bn a year and saves 100 lives a year (probably an underestimate of the costs, and an overly generous assessment of the benefits), presumably you would prefer to see the government spend GBP1bn on reducing road deaths by 120?
You've conceded there that it is not a matter of deep principle, but of grubby trade-offs.
You might be right on the specific point.
Unchecked executive power may seem like a swell idea when 'your side' is the one wielding it.
It's not unchecked. We live in a democracy. No matter which 'side' is in power, it's democratic.
So, it would be OK for 51% of the population to strip 49% of their right to - say - free association?
Tyranny of the majority. Taking it to extremes. That's always been the problem with these arguments about "civil liberties"
Would you be happy with Hitler and Stalin having access to your credit card and your DNA and your children and your brain? Huh? Would you? WOULD YOU?
@carl: if this measure costs GBP1bn a year and saves 100 lives a year (probably an underestimate of the costs, and an overly generous assessment of the benefits), presumably you would prefer to see the government spend GBP1bn on reducing road deaths by 120?
You've conceded there that it is not a matter of deep principle, but of grubby trade-offs.
You might be right on the specific point.
Unchecked executive power may seem like a swell idea when 'your side' is the one wielding it.
It's not unchecked. We live in a democracy. No matter which 'side' is in power, it's democratic.
So, it would be OK for 51% of the population to strip 49% of their right to - say - free association?
Tyranny of the majority. Taking it to extremes. That's always been the problem with these arguments about "civil liberties"
Would you be happy with Hitler and Stalin and the bloke from Jim'll Fix It having access to your credit card and your DNA and your children and your brain? Huh? Would you? WOULD YOU?
Homer Simpson: Facts? You can prove anything with facts
@RichardNabavi You are missing the point. That argument could be made about powers of arrest (with or without a warrant). What governs (or should govern) powers of arrest and the power to remand in custody is the dictates of justice and the individual case. Neither should be used as a way of protecting society at large. I have no problem with the state running a well-oiled system of criminal justice, if there are the appropriate safeguards. What I dislike is the curtailment of civil liberties for the alleged protection of society as a whole. That is the route to tyranny.
Richard, I can only report what I was told. No one commented on local politics. Re gay marriage (James Clappison is in favour) I'm told that the recent AGM for Hertsmere was "vitriolic".
@carl: if this measure costs GBP1bn a year and saves 100 lives a year (probably an underestimate of the costs, and an overly generous assessment of the benefits), presumably you would prefer to see the government spend GBP1bn on reducing road deaths by 120?
You've conceded there that it is not a matter of deep principle, but of grubby trade-offs.
You might be right on the specific point.
Unchecked executive power may seem like a swell idea when 'your side' is the one wielding it.
It's not unchecked. We live in a democracy. No matter which 'side' is in power, it's democratic.
But let's pretend for a moment that civil liberties won't be infringed.
It still won't work. Al Quaeda issued a document last year to its supporters about how to use electronic media.
- use encryption - use tor - use a vpn - use throw away webmail hosted in juristictions where there law enforcement is weak - use irc - use throw away payg cellphones - use services like whatsapp where messages are not stored
In other words, they are already well ahead of the game here already. All you are doing in spending a lot of money to allow the government to examine millions of peoples' innocent email exchanges.
This is the illusion of security, for no particular benefit (other than the the IT firms who get to implement it)
What I dislike is the curtailment of civil liberties for the alleged protection of society as a whole. That is the route to tyranny.
So you're against seat belts, no-smoking laws, all consumer protection and safety laws (why shouldn't a shop sell cyanide to a consenting adult?), CCTV, bobbies on the beat who might go and take a look at some (totally innocent) youths behaving oddly, rules for safety of cars (why should I be forced to have airbags in my car when our ancestors in 1912 were free to be thrown through non-safety glass windscreens?)...
It's a view.
But let's not pretend that the current 'snooper's charter' is anything particularly new. As I said, it's a trade off, and one which seems rather innocent compared with much that we take for granted.
Give up your liberties and you give them up not just to the governement asking for them but all governements of the future. You may be happy to allow labour of now or tories of now to have them but how about a party 40 years down the line of which you know nothing.
Democracy is no protection remember germany was a democracy and I am sure the jews were told there is no harm telling the census your religion and I am sure that people were making the same arguments that you are advancing now. It is a democracy what could go wrong, if you have nothing to hide why are you afraid
After Clegg presided over the 'secret courts' fiasco he simply doesn't have any goodwill left in the bank with most lib dems on this. As you can see here.
Ah yes, I had almost forgotten about the Justice and Security Bill [Lords], which is presently awaiting Royal Assent. It represents another hole below the water line in the coalition's record on civil liberties. Introducing closed material procedures into all civil claims (bar inquests) in England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is repugnant to the historic common law principles of the equality of arms and the openness of justice. Don't ask my word for it, ask the majority of the Supreme Court in Al Rawi v Security Service.
Bet Clegg never thought he'd vote for the reintroduction (technically massive extension for pedants) of the methods of the Inquisition and the Star Chamber into the United Kingdom.
Barcelona very poor tonight. The end of an era. There were a couple of seasons when they played the best football I have ever seen. And the vast majority of their players are home grown. No need for subsidies from anyone when you do that. All great things must pass, I suppose, but it's a sad old evening.
No it isn't. They are as cynical and nasty as any team I have ever seen, with a vast array of cheats among their ranks.
Sure they were the best team in Europe for a couple of years, but as I said they were nasty, cynical and the ultimate cheats.
But let's pretend for a moment that civil liberties won't be infringed.
It still won't work. Al Quaeda issued a document last year to its supporters about how to use electronic media.)
That's wrong. It's a commonly expressed view, but one based on a massive misunderstanding.
This is not about Al Quaeda's supporters. It's one or two links away from that. You're not trying to intercept terrorists' communuications; you're trying to figure out where you might usefully poke around to see if you can find someone who might lead you somewhere interesting.
Yes and not normally a law I break but it is the useful idiots like Carl who enable totalitarian governements. Likewise you will find I will rarely respond to any poster with the acronym I did. People like that need to be stamped on from a great height though
My apologies to the more sane members of the forum for any offence
Richard, I can only report what I was told. No one commented on local politics. Re gay marriage (James Clappison is in favour) I'm told that the recent AGM for Hertsmere was "vitriolic".
Sorry, Sean, I wasn't trying to get at you (and the info was very helpful, thanks).
So you're against seat belts, no-smoking laws, all consumer protection and safety laws (why shouldn't a a shop sell cyanide to a consenting adult?), CCTV, bobbies on the beat who might go and take a look at some (totally innocent) youths behaving oddly, rules for safety of cars (why should I be forced to have airbags in my car when our ancestors in 1912 were free to be thrown through non-safety glass windscreens?)...
I'm against a requirement for sane adults to wear seatbelts, believe that the owner of an establishment ought to be able decide whether to permit smoking or not within it, support the rights of individuals to buy things which may harm them (provided fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation isn't used in the process), and oppose many unnecessary laws made in the name of "consumer protection". The police on the street example is rubbish for the reasons that I gave earlier.
The police on the street example is rubbish for the reasons that I gave earlier.
Why? I don't see the difference between a policeman watching me as I innocently take something out my car, then following me to see what I innocently do with it, and the case in point. Or, at least, the only difference I can see is that the computer following links on email records is less intrusive.
This is fairly obviously a redline policy area for a great many lib dems. So how Clegg could get into such a hopeless mess over it is a bit of a mystery. That he could do it twice in a row almost defies belief, but I don't rule it out.
@RichardNabavi I have no problems with the police gathering evidence in connection with the commission of an offence, provided that if the methods used are intrusive, they obtain a warrant from at least a Justice of the Peace. The point is to prosecute the individual for an offence against the law of the land. It has nothing to do with protecting wider society.
@RichardNabavi I have no problems with the police gathering evidence in connection with the commission of an offence, provided that if the methods used are intrusive, they obtain a warrant from at least a Justice of the Peace. The point is to prosecute the individual for an offence against the law of the land. It has nothing to do with protecting wider society.
My example is about a case where no offence has been or will be committed.
Are you suggesting it's a breach of civil liberties for a bobby to keep his eyes open?
Give up your liberties and you give them up not just to the governement asking for them but all governements of the future. You may be happy to allow labour of now or tories of now to have them but how about a party 40 years down the line of which you know nothing.
Democracy is no protection remember germany was a democracy and I am sure the jews were told there is no harm telling the census your religion and I am sure that people were making the same arguments that you are advancing now. It is a democracy what could go wrong, if you have nothing to hide why are you afraid
In short Carl foad
I can see good arguments on both sides here, but your swearing at another poster isn't one of them.
It's totally disproportionate to give the state full access to trawl through everyone's private business. It more or less turns the presumption of innocence on its head.
@Richard Nabavi....what you are doing in a public place is a lot different from monitoring what book you are reading in the privacy of your own home. If you were removing a book from your car and a policeman wandered over and demanded to know what it was, who you had discussed the contents with etc and while he was at it could he examine your appointments diary you would soon tell them to go away
But let's pretend for a moment that civil liberties won't be infringed.
It still won't work. Al Quaeda issued a document last year to its supporters about how to use electronic media.
- use encryption - use tor - use a vpn - use throw away webmail hosted in juristictions where there law enforcement is weak - use irc - use throw away payg cellphones - use services like whatsapp where messages are not stored
In other words, they are already well ahead of the game here already. All you are doing in spending a lot of money to allow the government to examine millions of peoples' innocent email exchanges.
This is the illusion of security, for no particular benefit (other than the the IT firms who get to implement it)
RCS, as well as the hangers-on Richard identifies, there are still a large number of domestic terrorism incidents, and other very serious offenders, who most certainly would not. Those who do implement these measures probably do for only a fraction of their most secure communications. You put them to the trouble of establishing a tor-node, etc, and they'll make a mistake.
OK, let me lighten the tone with a story Charles Hendry, my MP, told at a dinner I attended.
He'd received complaints from a couple of constituents about anti-social behaviour in Wadhurst (a large village in rural Sussex). He was a bit surprised, since Wadhurst is not exactly Moss Side, but he duly raised the concern with the police, who said that they were aware of a few very minor incidents, but didn't think there was a significant problem. But, if he wanted to see for himself, he could join them on a routine patrol.
So, late one Saturday evening, he sits in the back of a patrol car as they drive around Wadhurst and surrounding areas. The place is dead as night, not a soul stirs. Finally they come to a petrol station, where there's a clapped out car and four youths who look as they might be trouble-makers.
The police car stops, and Charles is about to get out when the more senior of the two officers says: "You'd better stay there and let us sort this out, Sir. Just in case there's any trouble"
So the two policemen get out, go up to the youths, and start asking them questions. But, frustratingly, Charles can't hear what is being said. So, very gingerly, he opens the car door a bit, and is then able to hear one of the youths saying:
"No, officer, I haven't been drinking, but, more to the point, your prisoner there is trying to escape".
Totally deluded. Speaking on the local election campaign trail, the Prime Minister said that the “clean” WiFi plans could help reinvigorate local high streets.
Yes I demeaned myself and I have apologised to everyone else on the forum who has a more rational viewpoint. I am sorry this is an issue I feel strongly about and I really am fed up to the back teeth of people who use a few deaths and let us face it, there are few deaths in this country from terrorism when compared to most causes of unnatural death, and insist therefore we all need to be constantly monitored because of it.
To give some perspective from the guardian this image
Now consider mainland uk terrorism (ie excluding northern ireland) has averaged less than 10 deaths a year over the last 30 years.Exclude lockerbie which killed 270 and we are down to single figures. Terrorism as a major cause of death is a non issue. Most of those years we haven't felt we needed the interception of everyones contacts etc
Not often I agree with mr Pork but the conservative party as defined by Cameron and his bunch of social democrats are indeed as nanny state as new labour at its worst. One of the many reasons people who reluctantly voted conservative in 2010 such as myself with be refuseniks at the next election
What puzzles me is that this is already causing predictably huge upset in the lib dems yet they were hardly the only ones who opposed Blair's most repugnant excesses. Where is the David Davis section of the tory party? I can't believe they are fine with all this authoritarian nonsense. I suspect there will be a more organised and vocal response from that area soon. This is not just a problem for Clegg.
If you think the SNP are about to copy Cammie's Daily Mail inspired NannyCam stupidity then you are even more deluded than "near perfect" made you sound.
It's vapid posturing idiocy. It will not work. Your leader is a pathetic joke.
"Is it SNP policy that pornography will be freely accessible in public WiFi areas in an independent Scotland?"
I freely confess that I have absolutely no idea what the SNP policy on this is. I imagine that it's at least marginally less authoritarian than Cammo's (that wouldn't be difficult), but I'm giving you my own view. I'm on the libertarian left and I'm very fortunate to live in one of the few parts of the UK that gives me a reasonable fit of a party to vote for, even if I don't regard it as perfect in every respect.
Certainly not as perfect as you regard the Cameron regime, which is indeed perfection beyond a state of Godliness.
No idea Mick....the fact that they were saying they would be standing up for civil liberties was one of the reasons I decided to gift them a vote this time....then may comes back with the reincarnation of the interception program that had been pushed under new labour. We had claire perry's opt in scheme for adult sites etc.
Civil liberties wasn't the only reason I gave them a vote this time but was one of the big ones. None of the three lib,lab or con seems any longer to represent anything I can vote for so I will either join the 40% who dont vote or hold my nose and vote for a party like ukip which I have at least a few policies in common with such as withdrawal from the eu (not due to immigration so much as because I believe in decentralisation and decisions should be made as locally as possible which is why I support scots independence)
For the record because I know I am perceived as right wing which has become so over the last decade of the 7 elections I have been able to vote in my record is labour 3 tory 3 lib dem 1 so I claim to be a real floating voter
That is the most ridiculous statement ever. Clearly the choice is a heavily filtered internet in public places or an unfiltered connection, you then have all the trouble of deciding what is a public internet place, for instance if I don't put strong enough encryption on my bt homehub am I making a public space.
My view is simple as a parent. It is MY responsibility to ensure that the devices my child has access to are used responsibly and my child educated about the dangers of the internet. I did not ask everyone else to make sacrifices. MY CHOICE TO HAVE A CHILD MY RESPONSIBILITY TO RAISE THE CHILD.
Stop asking me to take responsibility for all the parents that cannot be bothered.
@JamesKelly - So you support freely-accessible porn via the internet in public places, even if children are present. Fair enough.
Presumably, since you are a consistent sort of chap, you'd also support the unrestricted sale of pornographic DVDs and mags in newsagents, station kiosks, and other places where children might be present.
It's certainly a defensible if somewhat eccentric view, but I'd be gobsmacked if it's SNP policy.
"It's certainly a defensible if somewhat eccentric view, but I'd be gobsmacked if it's SNP policy."
Do you know, I sometimes get the feeling that you don't actually listen to a word I say. Funny that, can't imagine why.
With a very few obvious exceptions, I support an unrestricted internet. In a liberal society, it's the responsibility of individuals not to do something as stupid as to allow children to see them viewing pornography in a public place, just as it's the responsibility of individuals not to expose themselves in public places. I would suggest that neither responsibility is particularly onerous, and neither requires government 'assistance'.
I do so love discussing children with you, though, Richard, given your modestly-expressed confidence that "children" would not be getting the right to vote in the independence referendum.
Stop asking me to take responsibility for all the parents that cannot be bothered.
Don't bother. You're self-evidentlly dealing with the straw man cretinism of a very simple minded soul. It really is embarrassing watching an incompetent Cameroonian spinner make such an unhinged fool of himself.
@JamesKelly - You didn't answer my point, but, from what you say, you'd be happy for pornographic DVDs and mags (and presumably sex toys) to be sold in shops which children go into to; as you say, it's the responsibility of the parents to make sure the kids don't see the porn.
Fair enough.
But I doubt if that's SNP policy.
I may be wrong, of course. You pointed out my error yesterday, when I was being naive in thinking Danny Alexander was elected by Scots, so what do I know?
Hmmm. Now I'm thinking you didn't even listen to the bit where I said "I don't think you actually listen to what I say".
Mainstream shops are absolutely full of soft porn, in case you haven't noticed. But I'm glad you've finally accepted that Danny Alexander was elected (in an unsatisfactory non-majority sense) by the people of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to represent them as their MP, and was not elected by the people of Scotland as our national representative in government. If he had stood as a candidate for such a position, I fear the result would have been rather embarrassing - even in the more Lib Dem-friendly days of May 2010.
Whilst I disagree with James on many things I will take his side here. There is an obvious difference between have pornographic dvd's,mags and toys on open display and having an open internet. Since it seems you cannot work out the difference you will only find porn on the internet if you are either looking for it or have so badly protected your device that you get all sorts of wierd popups. To spell it out in words of few syllables
one I walk into a shop and it is in front of me the other I need to look around a bit or have a careless parent who gives me an infected device
To compare it to alcohol
one is having free samples given out of vodka in your local supermarket to all comers the other is requiring some form of id to purchase the alcohol if you look underage
Your argument runs along the lines of no one should sell alcohol in a public place in case a child buys it
I like farage and ukip,but I think farage is making a political mistake of banging on that ukip are the party of thatcher especially when we have a by election in the north east,praising thatcher up north will not help win seats in the northern cities.
Thatcher would join UKIP, Farage claims as he insists he was dragged to a Strasbourg strip club by a French presidential candidate
Mrs Thatcher has repeatedly polled as the most respected PM since WW2. Even if the voters of South Shields wouldn't have voted for her in the 1980s, they can see she was good for the country. More importantly, they know that Mr Farage believes that. Lying to the voters is not going to do UKIP any good.
probably the best call on balance
If UKIP can get a reputation for honesty and therefore TRUST, it will hurt the main parties. The same issue in my view was crucial in 2011 when the SNP won in Scotland.
Comments
After Clegg presided over the 'secret courts' fiasco he simply doesn't have any goodwill left in the bank with most lib dems on this. As you can see here.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-snoopers-charter-about-to-resurface-34226.html
Which is why he will be under huge pressure over the snoopers charter. He lets this hugely expensive authoritarian idiocy through and he's painting a very large and very tempting target on his back for his 'loyal' lib dem colleagues to use at a time of their choosing.
Would you be happy with Hitler and Stalin having access to your credit card and your DNA and your children and your brain? Huh? Would you? WOULD YOU?
You are missing the point. That argument could be made about powers of arrest (with or without a warrant). What governs (or should govern) powers of arrest and the power to remand in custody is the dictates of justice and the individual case. Neither should be used as a way of protecting society at large. I have no problem with the state running a well-oiled system of criminal justice, if there are the appropriate safeguards. What I dislike is the curtailment of civil liberties for the alleged protection of society as a whole. That is the route to tyranny.
It still won't work. Al Quaeda issued a document last year to its supporters about how to use electronic media.
- use encryption
- use tor
- use a vpn
- use throw away webmail hosted in juristictions where there law enforcement is weak
- use irc
- use throw away payg cellphones
- use services like whatsapp where messages are not stored
In other words, they are already well ahead of the game here already. All you are doing in spending a lot of money to allow the government to examine millions of peoples' innocent email exchanges.
This is the illusion of security, for no particular benefit (other than the the IT firms who get to implement it)
It's a view.
But let's not pretend that the current 'snooper's charter' is anything particularly new. As I said, it's a trade off, and one which seems rather innocent compared with much that we take for granted.
Give up your liberties and you give them up not just to the governement asking for them but all governements of the future. You may be happy to allow labour of now or tories of now to have them but how about a party 40 years down the line of which you know nothing.
Democracy is no protection remember germany was a democracy and I am sure the jews were told there is no harm telling the census your religion and I am sure that people were making the same arguments that you are advancing now. It is a democracy what could go wrong, if you have nothing to hide why are you afraid
In short Carl foad
Bet Clegg never thought he'd vote for the reintroduction (technically massive extension for pedants) of the methods of the Inquisition and the Star Chamber into the United Kingdom.
Sure they were the best team in Europe for a couple of years, but as I said they were nasty, cynical and the ultimate cheats.
Godwin's Law
This is not about Al Quaeda's supporters. It's one or two links away from that. You're not trying to intercept terrorists' communuications; you're trying to figure out where you might usefully poke around to see if you can find someone who might lead you somewhere interesting.
Yes and not normally a law I break but it is the useful idiots like Carl who enable totalitarian governements. Likewise you will find I will rarely respond to any poster with the acronym I did. People like that need to be stamped on from a great height though
My apologies to the more sane members of the forum for any offence
True, though Clegg will not soon forget the reaction his inept handling of it provoked. This is fairly obviously a redline policy area for a great many lib dems. So how Clegg could get into such a hopeless mess over it is a bit of a mystery. That he could do it twice in a row almost defies belief, but I don't rule it out.
I have no problems with the police gathering evidence in connection with the commission of an offence, provided that if the methods used are intrusive, they obtain a warrant from at least a Justice of the Peace. The point is to prosecute the individual for an offence against the law of the land. It has nothing to do with protecting wider society.
Are you suggesting it's a breach of civil liberties for a bobby to keep his eyes open?
The Prime Minister is to announce a Government-backed code of conduct which will mean that pornography is blocked in public spaces such as cafes and railway stations where children are likely to be present.
Mr Cameron said that he wanted “good, clean WiFi” in public spaces which would give parents confidence that their children cannot access illicit websites on smart phones or mobile computers.
He'd received complaints from a couple of constituents about anti-social behaviour in Wadhurst (a large village in rural Sussex). He was a bit surprised, since Wadhurst is not exactly Moss Side, but he duly raised the concern with the police, who said that they were aware of a few very minor incidents, but didn't think there was a significant problem. But, if he wanted to see for himself, he could join them on a routine patrol.
So, late one Saturday evening, he sits in the back of a patrol car as they drive around Wadhurst and surrounding areas. The place is dead as night, not a soul stirs. Finally they come to a petrol station, where there's a clapped out car and four youths who look as they might be trouble-makers.
The police car stops, and Charles is about to get out when the more senior of the two officers says: "You'd better stay there and let us sort this out, Sir. Just in case there's any trouble"
So the two policemen get out, go up to the youths, and start asking them questions. But, frustratingly, Charles can't hear what is being said. So, very gingerly, he opens the car door a bit, and is then able to hear one of the youths saying:
"No, officer, I haven't been drinking, but, more to the point, your prisoner there is trying to escape".
Speaking on the local election campaign trail, the Prime Minister said that the “clean” WiFi plans could help reinvigorate local high streets.
Yes I demeaned myself and I have apologised to everyone else on the forum who has a more rational viewpoint. I am sorry this is an issue I feel strongly about and I really am fed up to the back teeth of people who use a few deaths and let us face it, there are few deaths in this country from terrorism when compared to most causes of unnatural death, and insist therefore we all need to be constantly monitored because of it.
To give some perspective from the guardian this image
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/14/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2009#zoomed-picture
Now consider mainland uk terrorism (ie excluding northern ireland) has averaged less than 10 deaths a year over the last 30 years.Exclude lockerbie which killed 270 and we are down to single figures. Terrorism as a major cause of death is a non issue. Most of those years we haven't felt we needed the interception of everyones contacts etc
The return of NannyCam.
He really is nothing more than a second rate Blair impersonator.
What a pathetic weak lightweight Cammie is.
URGH.
What puzzles me is that this is already causing predictably huge upset in the lib dems yet they were hardly the only ones who opposed Blair's most repugnant excesses. Where is the David Davis section of the tory party? I can't believe they are fine with all this authoritarian nonsense. I suspect there will be a more organised and vocal response from that area soon. This is not just a problem for Clegg.
That seems a bit surprising. Do you have a link, or should I wait until tomorrow for the SNP U-turn?
It's vapid posturing idiocy. It will not work. Your leader is a pathetic joke.
I freely confess that I have absolutely no idea what the SNP policy on this is. I imagine that it's at least marginally less authoritarian than Cammo's (that wouldn't be difficult), but I'm giving you my own view. I'm on the libertarian left and I'm very fortunate to live in one of the few parts of the UK that gives me a reasonable fit of a party to vote for, even if I don't regard it as perfect in every respect.
Certainly not as perfect as you regard the Cameron regime, which is indeed perfection beyond a state of Godliness.
Civil liberties wasn't the only reason I gave them a vote this time but was one of the big ones. None of the three lib,lab or con seems any longer to represent anything I can vote for so I will either join the 40% who dont vote or hold my nose and vote for a party like ukip which I have at least a few policies in common with such as withdrawal from the eu (not due to immigration so much as because I believe in decentralisation and decisions should be made as locally as possible which is why I support scots independence)
For the record because I know I am perceived as right wing which has become so over the last decade of the 7 elections I have been able to vote in my record is labour 3 tory 3 lib dem 1 so I claim to be a real floating voter
That is the most ridiculous statement ever. Clearly the choice is a heavily filtered internet in public places or an unfiltered connection, you then have all the trouble of deciding what is a public internet place, for instance if I don't put strong enough encryption on my bt homehub am I making a public space.
My view is simple as a parent. It is MY responsibility to ensure that the devices my child has access to are used responsibly and my child educated about the dangers of the internet. I did not ask everyone else to make sacrifices. MY CHOICE TO HAVE A CHILD MY RESPONSIBILITY TO RAISE THE CHILD.
Stop asking me to take responsibility for all the parents that cannot be bothered.
Presumably, since you are a consistent sort of chap, you'd also support the unrestricted sale of pornographic DVDs and mags in newsagents, station kiosks, and other places where children might be present.
It's certainly a defensible if somewhat eccentric view, but I'd be gobsmacked if it's SNP policy.
Do you know, I sometimes get the feeling that you don't actually listen to a word I say. Funny that, can't imagine why.
With a very few obvious exceptions, I support an unrestricted internet. In a liberal society, it's the responsibility of individuals not to do something as stupid as to allow children to see them viewing pornography in a public place, just as it's the responsibility of individuals not to expose themselves in public places. I would suggest that neither responsibility is particularly onerous, and neither requires government 'assistance'.
I do so love discussing children with you, though, Richard, given your modestly-expressed confidence that "children" would not be getting the right to vote in the independence referendum.
Fair enough.
But I doubt if that's SNP policy.
I may be wrong, of course. You pointed out my error yesterday, when I was being naive in thinking Danny Alexander was elected by Scots, so what do I know?
Hmmm. Now I'm thinking you didn't even listen to the bit where I said "I don't think you actually listen to what I say".
Mainstream shops are absolutely full of soft porn, in case you haven't noticed. But I'm glad you've finally accepted that Danny Alexander was elected (in an unsatisfactory non-majority sense) by the people of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to represent them as their MP, and was not elected by the people of Scotland as our national representative in government. If he had stood as a candidate for such a position, I fear the result would have been rather embarrassing - even in the more Lib Dem-friendly days of May 2010.
Whilst I disagree with James on many things I will take his side here. There is an obvious difference between have pornographic dvd's,mags and toys on open display and having an open internet. Since it seems you cannot work out the difference you will only find porn on the internet if you are either looking for it or have so badly protected your device that you get all sorts of wierd popups.
To spell it out in words of few syllables
one I walk into a shop and it is in front of me
the other I need to look around a bit or have a careless parent who gives me an infected device
To compare it to alcohol
one is having free samples given out of vodka in your local supermarket to all comers
the other is requiring some form of id to purchase the alcohol if you look underage
Your argument runs along the lines of no one should sell alcohol in a public place in case a child buys it