<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: REINING IN THE SURVEILLANCE CULTURE</title>
	<link>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916</link>
	<description>Debate and discussion between socialists</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 08:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Louise</title>
		<link>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124794</link>
		<author>Louise</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:07:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124794</guid>
		<description>"“The Government has absolutely no interest in spying on law-abiding people going about their everyday lives. I don’t want to see these powers being used to target people for putting their bins out on the wrong day or for dog fouling offences.”"

But what is meant by 'law abiding'? Is this NL's own interpretation 
 of law abiding. Their definition of 'terrorist' and 'extremist' is becoming ever wider. And it is also meaningless when she says it is not about 'putting bins out' etc, sounds glib as well.

Erm, more seriously, what about MPs and their assistants who include watching different kinds of genre films twice and slapping it on their  expenses...? But hey, I am being unfair cos it was one big mistake, wasn't it...along with a 88pence bath plug....

can anyone take Jacqui Smith seriously now...? And she certainly doesn't deserve appaulse...she's a social authoritarian NL apparatchik.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;“The Government has absolutely no interest in spying on law-abiding people going about their everyday lives. I don’t want to see these powers being used to target people for putting their bins out on the wrong day or for dog fouling offences.”&#8221;</p>
<p>But what is meant by &#8216;law abiding&#8217;? Is this NL&#8217;s own interpretation<br />
 of law abiding. Their definition of &#8216;terrorist&#8217; and &#8216;extremist&#8217; is becoming ever wider. And it is also meaningless when she says it is not about &#8216;putting bins out&#8217; etc, sounds glib as well.</p>
<p>Erm, more seriously, what about MPs and their assistants who include watching different kinds of genre films twice and slapping it on their  expenses&#8230;? But hey, I am being unfair cos it was one big mistake, wasn&#8217;t it&#8230;along with a 88pence bath plug&#8230;.</p>
<p>can anyone take Jacqui Smith seriously now&#8230;? And she certainly doesn&#8217;t deserve appaulse&#8230;she&#8217;s a social authoritarian NL apparatchik.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Newman</title>
		<link>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124772</link>
		<author>Andy Newman</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124772</guid>
		<description>#5 thx</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#5 thx</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Strategist</title>
		<link>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124767</link>
		<author>Strategist</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:22:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124767</guid>
		<description>Oh yeah, and it's "rein in"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh yeah, and it&#8217;s &#8220;rein in&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Strategist</title>
		<link>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124766</link>
		<author>Strategist</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:20:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124766</guid>
		<description>Craig Murray has posted this on Jacqui Smith today: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/04/jacqui_plays_th.html#comments

"So Jacqui Smith has played the terror card in a wild bid to save her job. It is extraordinary she can warn us of grave danger and at the same time look so smug about it. She spoke in the House of Commons of a "Suspected bomb plot" despite the absence of certain key elements normally associated with the phrase "bomb plot".

Like a bomb.

Or a plot.

This was not pointed out to her, because she was faced by a Tory idiot, Chris Grayling, who believes that the Tories can win votes by being even more resolute looking in the face of danger than Jacqui Smith. And watching less porn.  You might expect a real opposition to ask questions like: "You told us that a serious bomb attack was planned for Easter, ten days ago. Where then is the bomb? Where are the explosives, the detonators? Are they in the same metaphysical space as the Iraqi WMD?"

"...Meantime we have this from the police:

'Manchester's counter-terrorism unit said most of the searches relating to the terror arrests had been completed and material collected was now being assessed.  "As this complex and detailed investigation continues, officers are sifting through the extensive amount of information so far received to assess its relevance to the investigation," a spokesman said. 

That is police speak for "We've found bugger all, but under New Labour legislation we can still hold them another fortnight to pressurise confessions or turn one against the others to make stuff up in terurn for getting out, or we can always bring in a paid supergrass from Pakistan again."

So I think of this guys arrested &#38; hauled in from their university library who've got another twelve days of custody with police trying to grind or scare (or torture, I don't know) and confession out of them to make up for the complete lack of evidence, and I don't applaud Jacqui Smith, myself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Craig Murray has posted this on Jacqui Smith today: <a href="http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/04/jacqui_plays_th.html#comments" rel="nofollow">http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/04/jacqui_plays_th.html#comments</a></p>
<p>&#8220;So Jacqui Smith has played the terror card in a wild bid to save her job. It is extraordinary she can warn us of grave danger and at the same time look so smug about it. She spoke in the House of Commons of a &#8220;Suspected bomb plot&#8221; despite the absence of certain key elements normally associated with the phrase &#8220;bomb plot&#8221;.</p>
<p>Like a bomb.</p>
<p>Or a plot.</p>
<p>This was not pointed out to her, because she was faced by a Tory idiot, Chris Grayling, who believes that the Tories can win votes by being even more resolute looking in the face of danger than Jacqui Smith. And watching less porn.  You might expect a real opposition to ask questions like: &#8220;You told us that a serious bomb attack was planned for Easter, ten days ago. Where then is the bomb? Where are the explosives, the detonators? Are they in the same metaphysical space as the Iraqi WMD?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;Meantime we have this from the police:</p>
<p>&#8216;Manchester&#8217;s counter-terrorism unit said most of the searches relating to the terror arrests had been completed and material collected was now being assessed.  &#8220;As this complex and detailed investigation continues, officers are sifting through the extensive amount of information so far received to assess its relevance to the investigation,&#8221; a spokesman said. </p>
<p>That is police speak for &#8220;We&#8217;ve found bugger all, but under New Labour legislation we can still hold them another fortnight to pressurise confessions or turn one against the others to make stuff up in terurn for getting out, or we can always bring in a paid supergrass from Pakistan again.&#8221;</p>
<p>So I think of this guys arrested &amp; hauled in from their university library who&#8217;ve got another twelve days of custody with police trying to grind or scare (or torture, I don&#8217;t know) and confession out of them to make up for the complete lack of evidence, and I don&#8217;t applaud Jacqui Smith, myself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Newman</title>
		<link>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124765</link>
		<author>Andy Newman</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:12:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124765</guid>
		<description>Christian

Because she is telling local authorities to stop using theie RIPA powers inappropriately.

i don't really have a prpblem with the police investigating serious crime or possiblee terrorism - that is their job. 

I do have a problem with my local council undertaking covert surveillance on the whole town's population just in case someone does some grafitti,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Christian</p>
<p>Because she is telling local authorities to stop using theie RIPA powers inappropriately.</p>
<p>i don&#8217;t really have a prpblem with the police investigating serious crime or possiblee terrorism - that is their job. </p>
<p>I do have a problem with my local council undertaking covert surveillance on the whole town&#8217;s population just in case someone does some grafitti,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: christian h.</title>
		<link>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124761</link>
		<author>christian h.</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124761</guid>
		<description>Uh, Andy, to me Smith's statement sounds like "you have nothing to fear if you got nothing to hide". How is that worthy of applause?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Uh, Andy, to me Smith&#8217;s statement sounds like &#8220;you have nothing to fear if you got nothing to hide&#8221;. How is that worthy of applause?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: milgram</title>
		<link>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124756</link>
		<author>milgram</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3916#comment-124756</guid>
		<description>Churchillian maybe, Orwellian certainly. Especially when you consider how narrow the government's definition of "law-abiding" is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Churchillian maybe, Orwellian certainly. Especially when you consider how narrow the government&#8217;s definition of &#8220;law-abiding&#8221; is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
