Monitoring Terrorists v individual rights to privacy

[Fisherman Mike]

profiled you via your occasional pigeon watch rant

 

KW

Indeed that's what got me through

[Scully]

perhaps the events in Belgium that have just prevented a "grand scale atrocity" may be proof snooping works

 

 

KW

And perhaps the events in Paris would suggest otherwise? Or perhaps the events in Belgium prove that we already have all the 'snooping' legislation we need?

It isn't exactly unknown for Governments and their agencies to call for further legislation to divert attention away from their own inadequacies and failings at such times. Us shooters are only too aware of this aren't we?

[paul65]

It isn't exactly unknown for Governments and their agencies to call for further legislation to divert attention away from their own inadequacies and failings at such times.

That's right. A politician is never going to admit that they had all the information they needed to stop a terrorist atrocity. They will always say they need more powers.

 

Also, they need to be seen doing something. If no terrorist activity is ever seen by the general public, that's of no use to a politician. They can't claim to be protecting us from something that's never seen. So a little bit of terrorist success now and then is good for a government.

[overandunder2012]

Don't forget there are many thousands of people in this country who think the same of you, simply because you like, and own, guns. As far as they're concerned you're a nutter.

thats probably true but fortunately i wont be defending law and order with my 6 shooter anytime soon

[Scully]

thats probably true but fortunately i wont be defending law and order with my 6 shooter anytime soon

None of us will, that's my entire point, six shooter or otherwise . Politicians can't have civilians running around defending themselves, can they, god knows where it will end.

[Mungler]

Rather than suggesting new laws to spy on the majority (and with far reaching consequences beyond this government's spell in power) if the aim is to combat terrorism there are a whole host of direct measures, steps and laws that could be implemented.

 

We're supposed to be a multicultural society but we're not, because multicultural suggests some degree of integration and there's not - we've allowed medieval religions to grow in complete isolation in religious ghettos.

 

If they want more legislation (and ignoring the knee jerk demand for faster deportation) what about legislation (and proper enforcement) to ban the burka, hate preaching and other items and attributes of oppressive, divisive medieval religions.

[overandunder2012]

None of us will, that's my entire point, six shooter or otherwise . Politicians can't have civilians running around defending themselves, can they, god knows where it will end.

to be honest i see civilians being armed for home protection like in the states as a totally different thing to recruiting them to uphold law and order.

[Hamster]

We're supposed to be a multicultural society but we're not, because multicultural suggests some degree of integration and there's not - we've allowed medieval religions to grow in complete isolation in religious ghettos.

 

If they want more legislation (and ignoring the knee jerk demand for faster deportation) what about legislation (and proper enforcement) to ban the burka, hate preaching and other items and attributes of oppressive, divisive medieval religions.

 

You do come out with some dreary stuff , what are you on about, where ? There's ghettos everywhere, doesn't need a book. Which medieval religions are you on about ? Judaism and Christianity predate Islam quite comfortably and please don't tell me their contents aren't just as peculiar when cherry picked.

 

I thought you were in favour of freedom of expression, surely banning something just cos you don't like it isn't freedom or do you mean you like freedom that passes your approval ?

 

Quite what do people mean when they carry on about lack of integration ? Be precise, don't just use it as seasoning for one sided argument. Are you saying they don't go to discotheques or pubs or don't marry your sons and daughters or work in the same establishments or shop at the same places or live in the same houses ? Sorry but I keep looking and seeing it differently but that might be because I don't have an agenda.

[Scully]

to be honest i see civilians being armed for home protection like in the states as a totally different thing to recruiting them to uphold law and order.

So do I, but I never once mentioned anything about recruiting civilians to uphold law and order; that's what the police are employed to do.

[Kes]

 

You do come out with some dreary stuff , what are you on about, where ? There's ghettos everywhere, doesn't need a book. Which medieval religions are you on about ? Judaism and Christianity predate Islam quite comfortably and please don't tell me their contents aren't just as peculiar when cherry picked.

 

I thought you were in favour of freedom of expression, surely banning something just cos you don't like it isn't freedom or do you mean you like freedom that passes your approval ?

 

Quite what do people mean when they carry on about lack of integration ? Be precise, don't just use it as seasoning for one sided argument. Are you saying they don't go to discotheques or pubs or don't marry your sons and daughters or work in the same establishments or shop at the same places or live in the same houses ? Sorry but I keep looking and seeing it differently but that might be because I don't have an agenda.

I thought it quite pertinent. By medieval, he perhaps means in its methods at today's date - I don't notice Christians or Jews killing people as part of their religeon, stoning women or chopping off offending bits of anatomy - that is truly medieval, because thats when everyone else stopped doing it.

Cultures must integrate to understand one another. Banning exclusively religeous clothing, burka etc is as the French have done, to enforce integration and reassure their populations. One terrorist ( male ) has already escaped justice by wearing the burka and pretending to be a woman.

The last sentence is stupid by comparison (sorry) and suggests you regard the statements as prejudice. I would regard it as sensible - you are however entitled to your opinion (freedom of speech). FoS controlled by some religeons, like justice and favours. I suggest the muslim approach to the control of women is also a little medieval - cant worship with men and so on.............

[kdubya]

Rather than suggesting new laws to spy on the majority (and with far reaching consequences beyond this government's spell in power) if the aim is to combat terrorism there are a whole host of direct measures, steps and laws that could be implemented.

 

We're supposed to be a multicultural society but we're not, because multicultural suggests some degree of integration and there's not - we've allowed medieval religions to grow in complete isolation in religious ghettos.

 

If they want more legislation (and ignoring the knee jerk demand for faster deportation) what about legislation (and proper enforcement) to ban the burka, hate preaching and other items and attributes of oppressive, divisive medieval religions.

That's my stance, multiracial yes, multicultural no, it should be a one size fits all and if that's considered a secular society then so be it.

 

KW

Edited January 16, 2015 by kdubya

[Hamster]

I thought it quite pertinent. By medieval, he perhaps means in its methods at today's date - I don't notice Christians or Jews killing people as part of their religeon, stoning women or chopping off offending bits of anatomy - that is truly medieval, because thats when everyone else stopped doing it.

Cultures must integrate to understand one another. Banning exclusively religeous clothing, burka etc is as the French have done, to enforce integration and reassure their populations. One terrorist ( male ) has already escaped justice by wearing the burka and pretending to be a woman.

The last sentence is stupid by comparison (sorry) and suggests you regard the statements as prejudice. I would regard it as sensible - you are however entitled to your opinion (freedom of speech). FoS controlled by some religeons, like justice and favours. I suggest the muslim approach to the control of women is also a little medieval - cant worship with men and so on.............

 

There is no denying that atrocities are being carried out under the guise of Islam but the point is it it isn't supported by all Muslims, don't forget the vast majority of the victims are themselves Muslim. I accept there are aspects of Islam that are at odds with modernity, the same applies to Christianity and Judaism but the former at least seems able to improvise and re-write the chapters much as they were hand written by man centuries ago. Muslim countries are today engaged in fighting forces such as the Taleban, Al Qaeda and Isis. Pakistan suffered 168 innocent deaths last month in retaliation of their army bombing our combined enemy.

 

Banning religious clothing is just as restrictive as banning religious respect and sensibilities, if you can't see that it doesn't make it any less true.

 

Whether Christians are responsible for innocent deaths of others is highly debatable, even ignoring the Crusades, the past religiously led wars and general habit of the West to start catastrophic wars ( by far the most wars caused in the past 1000 years have been European), you only have to look at the hundreds of thousands if not well over a million deaths caused by recent wars started under false pretenses. They didn't shout slogans from the bible upon charge but if you ask the other side I think you'll find they'll swap places in a heart beat, meaning they'll take the number of European deaths caused by bad Islamic guys V Muslim deaths caused by politicians and their unjust wars.

 

You will never understand what the other side is going through unless you are prepared to pause, empty your head of propaganda and think fairly.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Hamster

[Kes]

 

There is no denying that atrocities are being carried out under the guise of Islam but the point is it it isn't supported by all Muslims, don't forget the vast majority of the victims are themselves Muslim. I accept there are aspects of Islam that are at odds with modernity, the same applies to Christianity and Judaism but the former at least seems able to improvise and re-write the chapters much as they were hand written by man centuries ago. Muslim countries are today engaged in fighting forces such as the Taleban, Al Qaeda and Isis. Pakistan suffered 168 innocent deaths last month in retaliation of their army bombing our combined enemy.

 

Banning religious clothing is just as restrictive as banning religious respect and sensibilities, if you can't see that it doesn't make it any less true.

 

Whether Christians are responsible for innocent deaths of others is highly debatable, even ignoring the Crusades, the past religiously led wars and general habit of the West to start catastrophic wars ( by far the most wars caused in the past 1000 years have been European), you only have to look at the hundreds of thousands if not well over a million deaths caused by recent wars started under false pretenses. They didn't shout slogans from the bible upon charge but if you ask the other side I think you'll find they'll swap places in a heart beat, meaning they'll take the number of European deaths caused by bad Islamic guys V Muslim deaths caused by politicians and their unjust wars.

 

You will never understand what the other side is going through unless you are prepared to pause, empty your head of propaganda and think fairly.

I understand what you are saying and would defend your right to say it - I wouldn't even think of denying you the right to ridicule me or my thoughts or my religeon. I am sure you would not deny me the right to try and protect, in the simplest of ways, the society in which I live ?

The British may have committed any number of atrocities in the past but no longer. Was Sadam better because he was more ruthless? Creating a caliphate by killing thousands, is that better? Is killing 12 for a cartoon, acceptable ? I think not.

Bringing Islamic violence to Britain, may not be the wish of the majority of Muslims but if they do not respond as British first and Muslim second, what do you suggest we do to stop it, without labeling all as terrorists?

[Hamster]

 

Bringing Islamic violence to Britain, may not be the wish of the majority of Muslims but if they do not respond as British first and Muslim second, what do you suggest we do to stop it, without labeling all as terrorists?

 

Good question, firstly I can assure you most Muslims including the practicing and couldn't care less type would have zero hesitation in reporting or stopping any acts of terrorism so their Britishness shouldn't be questioned, if you do you will cause even more rift if not downright offence.

 

Secondly I think as with any problem we need to affect immediate and practical fixes (such as eliminating morons with guns as in Belgium) but also seeking the causes of the problem. If you had a persistent leak would you not, after fixing it for the third time try and find out the cause ?

 

It is this looking for the cause bit that is at the heart of the problem, the current agenda demands instability. The easy way out is to believe everything the media says is true and that Islam and ME in general is the reason or think outside the box a bit.

 

I have said this here before but it's worth repeating, why do you suppose there are no ME academics with a weekly column and a free pen of critique, there are plenty of Jewish and Christian ones after all. Also why no Question Time format TV slots with both sides present and given equal platforms ? The answer is that quite simply the truth will out and maul the Western propaganda and that just can't happen.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Hamster

[paul65]

As a side issue, when someone claims that they don't have an agenda, they are mistaken. We all have an agenda but we generally don't see our own as one.

[islandgun]

That's my stance, multiracial yes, multicultural no, it should be a one size fits all and if that's considered a secular society then so be it.

 

KW

isnt a secular society "freedom of belief" surely desirable for all people, apart from a narrow few. Living in a multi cultural society we are all able to do as we wish within the law, which isnt always an option in other countries, its a shame that people dont have the same respect for this secular society as we have for their insular country,

[Fisherman Mike]

Fundamentally, as along as they ( Muslims) continue to believe that a place in Paradise awaits them, these atrocities will continue. If not in the West then among their own races in their homeland... in short they are not afraid to die, have no fear of being martyred and see it as the ultimate accolade.

[kdubya]

 

 

 

.

 

wars ( by far the most wars caused in the past 1000 years have been European),

 

I dont give a flying fig about what has happened in the last 1000 years, I care about what is happening NOW and what will happen in the future,and to pretend that the Islamist's that are radical are a few and that they are not following the agenda of the kuran is frankly laughable.

 

[overandunder2012]

So do I, but I never once mentioned anything about recruiting civilians to uphold law and order; that's what the police are employed to do.

no but i original statement you quoted was a reply about someone suggesting such a thing , post 77 may put it a better context

Edited January 16, 2015 by overandunder2012

[overandunder2012]

perhaps the events in Belgium that have just prevented a "grand scale atrocity" may be proof snooping works

 

 

KW

sadly i would have to agree, kw is right intelligence is the only way to prevent such things. hopefully there would be a balance, but there is plenty of room for abuse of powers

Edited January 16, 2015 by overandunder2012

[islandgun]

I wonder if those that disagree with monitoring also disagreed with the CCTV when it was introduced in this country, I can think of several instances that have resulted in arrests thanks to the cameras and dont have a problem with them

[Scully]

no but i original statement you quoted was a reply about someone suggesting such a thing , post 77 may put it a better context

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in referring to that post to be honest, but never mind.

[Scully]

I wonder if those that disagree with monitoring also disagreed with the CCTV when it was introduced in this country, I can think of several instances that have resulted in arrests thanks to the cameras and dont have a problem with them

Has CCTV resulted in a reduction in crime or simply a higher number of arrests and convictions, or even a boon to sales of hoodies and snoods?

I'm assuming the 'instances' you refer to which 'resulted in arrests thanks to the cameras' took place after the crime, which from a victims point of view is perhaps a little too late?

[CaptainBeaky]

I wonder if those that disagree with monitoring also disagreed with the CCTV when it was introduced in this country, I can think of several instances that have resulted in arrests thanks to the cameras and dont have a problem with them

Yes, and the cameras are now coming out again, because they have been found not to be cost effective - they don't reduce crime, or provide evidence which stands up in court.

See BBC news website today for the article.

[Mungler]

I thought you were in favour of freedom of expression, surely banning something just cos you don't like it isn't freedom or do you mean you like freedom that passes your approval ?

 

Quite what do people mean when they carry on about lack of integration ? Be precise, don't just use it as seasoning for one sided argument. Are you saying they don't go to discotheques or pubs or don't marry your sons and daughters or work in the same establishments or shop at the same places or live in the same houses ? Sorry but I keep looking and seeing it differently but that might be because I don't have an agenda.

 

Is wearing the burkha an act that is in pursuit of freedom of expression? It may well be if the wearer truly has the mental and physical independence to make that choice. Is preaching death to all non believers an act of freedom of expression? Not really when that freedom does tend to impinge on the freedom of those who would wish to both live and not believe.

 

I don't think everyone should dress and think like me, but the freedoms are there for all. You can't have on the one hand the freedom from prosecution to preach hate and intolerance from a medieval book and yet on the other hand refuse the freedom of cartoonists to express themselves.

 

As for integration, well yes, take your pick - not speaking English, insisting that Western customs and practices must be subservient to a particular religious text that has the last word on everything, wanting to stone a woman for wearing a short skirt or roll your daughter up in a carpet and set fire to her for bringing shame on the family etc.

 

Obviously there's a sliding scale from radical to moderate but we are told the radicals are in the minority and yet all the anti terror legislation is aimed at affecting the majority. As I said, I think we're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope and there's easier and more direct way at getting at those who should be targeted.

 

I think the real test for whether a person, culture or religion is integrated and at one with this Country is whether it is not just tolerant but peaceful; you may not like or wish to tolerate certain people, cultures or religions but you don't have to physically harm them.