Privacy and the State

[Beef Oven]

I salute your optimism! :smiley:

Ha Ha! It wasn't optimism, it was an assumption based on your credentials. I am sorry if I got it wrong :winkeye:

[scottycelt]

I'm not sure that that holds. I wouldn't want to be advised, unbeknown to me, by an inebriated or stoned doctor, nor one distracted by his murderous activities. And I don't think that 'politicians and government officials' is the exact equivalent of 'the Government and Secret Services'.

Only a tiny minority of doctors will be alcoholics, drug addicts and serial killers I suspect. My point is that if some are any of those things that doesn't stop us seeking-out doctors for medical advice. The undeniable fact that politicians might 'lie' (I much prefer the more accurate term 'economical with the truth'!) about some things doesn't mean that they must be 'economical with the truth' automatically about everything, especially on matters like national security where their own lives are also at risk? So the issue is trust, or lack of it, in the case of Richard Barrett. Of course, as we all know to our cost, politicians (and doctors) can get things wrong just like all other human beings, but judged on that basis we wouldn't listen to anybody!

The Secret Services inform the Government (its politicians and officials) about security risks so I don't quite get your last point.

[scottycelt]

I put it to you that if you had a strong suspicion that your doctor was any of those things you would probably decide to transfer to a different practice. Or am I wrong? All I'm saying is that it seems strange that some here choose to believe what they're told about the "terrorist threat" by people and organisations with a proven track record of deception. As to where I would go to "seek information regarding the likelihood of another terrorist atrocity in the UK", I think that's already answered: the likelihood of such a thing is proportional to the extent to which the UK government is complicit in state terrorism elsewhere in the world.

Of course, given that you believe the UK government (frequently changing in hue and human representation) is 'complicit in state terrorism elsewhere in the world', that is a logical deduction, which I completely understand.

Whilst I believe the UK government may well have made some very bad mistakes on our behalf I don't believe what you believe therefore I take a wholly different view. If I were generally dissatisfied with the UK government I might simply tend to vote for the other lot at the next general election? In the same way, if I knew my doctor were an alcoholic, drug-addict or serial murderer I would certainly look elsewhere for my medical advice. The point is that I wouldn't ignore all future doctors' advice because of my unfortunate experience with one?

I hope that notion's not too 'bizarre' for Cali and he's now had a very good night's sleep. :winkeye:

[MrGongGong]

Of course, given that you believe the UK government (frequently changing in hue and human representation) is 'complicit in state terrorism elsewhere in the world', that is a logical deduction, which I completely understand.

I think you make the mistake with this "frequently changing in hue and human representation"
really ?
I don't see much evidence of much change in hue, representation or core belief at all

The analogy falls over IMV as there is no "other lot" to choose from

[Beef Oven]

I think you make the mistake with this "frequently changing in hue and human representation"
really ?
I don't see much evidence of much change in hue, representation or core belief at all

The analogy falls over IMV as there is no "other lot" to choose from

That's a bit of a cop out MrGG!

Anyone who is even a tad cynical might believe that it's just an excuse to just moan, bitch and slag-off politicians and anyone/anything else that you don't like, without the need to construct anything.

A nice gig if you can get it :winkeye:

[MrGongGong]

That's a bit of a cop out MrGG!

Not really
I was simply pointing out that ALL politicians have more or less the same world view
So no matter how much I want to vote for someone who will behave ethically there's no chance at all

and

the (over used IMV) argument that somehow it's not acceptable to criticise without offering a comprehensive alternative hardly works with Scotty's medical analogy does it ? If people want to be treated like "professionals" who supposedly know what they are doing then the can't turn around and say "well if you are so clever , you run the economy, perform heart surgery, fly the plane" and so on :yikes:

[Mr Pee]

That's a bit of a cop out MrGG!

Anyone who is even a tad cynical might believe that it's just an excuse to just moan, bitch and slag-off politicians and anyone/anything else that you don't like, without the need to construct anything.

A nice gig if you can get it :winkeye:

:ok: :laugh:

Come on Richard
just look at him
he has an honest face , don't you think ? :yikes:

Interesting to note that you apparently make superficial judgments on such important matters as national security based on the fact that you don't like the look of somebody. Isn't that the very thing you so often accuse the police and security services of doing? :erm:

[Beef Oven]

Not really
I was simply pointing out that ALL politicians have more or less the same world view
So no matter how much I want to vote for someone who will behave ethically there's no chance at all

and

the (over used IMV) argument that somehow it's not acceptable to criticise without offering a comprehensive alternative hardly works with Scotty's medical analogy does it ? If people want to be treated like "professionals" who supposedly know what they are doing then the can't turn around and say "well if you are so clever , you run the economy, perform heart surgery, fly the plane" and so on :yikes:

I agree that it is perfectly acceptable to critique without offering an alternative to that which is being critiqued.

However, that is not the same as a continuing, inexorable damning of the political status quo. there comes a point when, without the offering of alternatives, is purely gratuitous rock-throwing.

[Thropplenoggin]

:ok: :laugh:

Is this a series of back-slapping emoticons I see before me? :whistle:

[MrGongGong]

Interesting to note that you apparently make superficial judgments on such important matters as national security based on the fact that you don't like the look of somebody. Isn't that the very thing you so often accuse the police and security services of doing? :erm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

[Mr Pee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

ANOTHER Cop- out!!

0/10. Must try harder. :sadface:

[MrGongGong]

ANOTHER Cop- out!!

0/10. Must try harder. :sadface:

:laugh:

Unlike those of us who have had their brains messed with by the army (or is it so many years under the bridge ? )
not everyone is entirely trusting of those who wear fancy clothes, have the title "Sir" or "MP"
as experience and history shows that they are often at the heart of some very bad things indeed

which IS NOT the same as suggesting that EVERYONE with the jazzy threads and titles is an evil monster intent on taking over the world :yikes:
Sir Tony Pappano is a wonderful and inspiring man (for example) and so on ............

[Richard Barrett]

I don't believe what you believe

Actually I'm not talking in terms of belief at all. For example: in an international survey ("Transatlanic Trends") carried out last September 52% of British respondents favoured immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Yet such a policy isn't on offer from any party that stands a chance of gaining power in the UK. These are not beliefs but facts.

So, as MrGongGong says, there is when it comes to large areas of policy no possibility of voting out the incumbents in favour of someone who will make substantive changes. This is the kind of reason why, in many countries, so many people have lost faith in what's presented as democracy but is in truth nothing of the kind. Which in turn is the reason why (returning to the thread topic) there's so much emphasis on social media both as an instrument of real democracy and (therefore) as a theatre of action that state governments are attempting to control.

[ahinton]

Actually I'm not talking in terms of belief at all. For example: in an international survey ("Transatlanic Trends") carried out last September 52% of British respondents favoured immediate withdrawal of troops. Yet such a policy isn't on offer from any party that stands a chance of gaining power in the UK. These are not beliefs but facts.

So, as MrGongGong says, there is when it comes to large areas of policy no possibility of voting out the incumbents in favour of someone who will make substantive changes. This is the kind of reason why, in many countries, so many people have lost faith in what's presented as democracy but is in truth nothing of the kind. Which in turn is the reason why (returning to the thread topic) there's so much emphasis on social media both as an instrument of real democracy and (therefore) as a theatre of action that state governments are attempting to control.

Once again, that's absolutely correct. The jury may be out on whether or to what extent this blurring of the edges of division between political parties that has occurred during and since the Thatcher régime is down to Thatcher's own avowed determination to pull not only her own party but all parties to the right, but there can indeed be no doubt that differences between parties and their apparent policies are today far smaller than they were before Thatcher's prime ministership and that, whatever the cause, this can only be a bad thing at best and a dangerous one at worst in that in inevitably compromises the possibility of functioning democracy.

As to that 52% - a large proportion that might be large still if abstentions were to be included - the damage done by the very fact that, as you say, no alternative policy is on offer from any other political party that might win a General Election extends not merely to the outcome of the increased violence arising from the presence of British armed forces in countries that have never invaded Britain but also to the reputation of Britain as a peace-seeking democracy.

Thanks again for the link; most interesting.

[scottycelt]

Once again, that's absolutely correct. The jury may be out on whether or to what extent this blurring of the edges of division between political parties that has occurred during and since the Thatcher régime is down to Thatcher's own avowed determination to pull not only her own party but all parties to the right, but there can indeed be no doubt that differences between parties and their apparent policies are today far smaller than they were before Thatcher's prime ministership and that, whatever the cause, this can only be a bad thing at best and a dangerous one at worst in that in inevitably compromises the possibility of functioning democracy.

As to that 52% - a large proportion that might be large still if abstentions were to be included - the damage done by the very fact that, as you say, no alternative policy is on offer from any other political party that might win a General Election extends not merely to the outcome of the increased violence arising from the presence of British armed forces in countries that have never invaded Britain but also to the reputation of Britain as a peace-seeking democracy.

Thanks again for the link; most interesting.

That's all very well but we are supposed to be talking about Privacy & The State and the fact remains there has to be a high level of secrecy in the security services and a certain amount of trust in government for both to operate effectively on our behalf.

Does anyone seriously believe that the members of the security services have so much time on their hands that they are currently snooping on everybody's texts and e-mails? I don't. If they are they must be all in very grave danger of dying prematurely of excruciating boredom.

However, I am perfectly prepared to believe that they may monitoring some people who are already under suspicion of being involved in or encouraging terrorism. Like Mr Pee, I am rather keen that they do!

So it is indeed true to state that anybody going about their normal, lawful business, and not getting involved in or promoting such activities, has very little to fear.

A free society does not mean a complete license to do exactly as we please including violent, murderous attempts to destroy it!